The growing role of state actors in influencing, artificially creating and facilitating irregular immigration in order to achieve political objectives, such as destabilising the European Union (EU), is an urgent issue on the European legislative agenda. A watershed event that drew particular attention to the matter was actions taken by the Belorussian government with regard to migration: in May 2021 President Lukashenko stated that he would allow migrants to enter Western Europe unhindered. According to reports by the EU, these migrants were being sourced by the regime and flown to Belarus from the Middle East, since Belarus is not a country under migratory pressure and is also not on any known migration route. The growing migratory pressure on European borders has caused growing tensions with Belarus’s neighbouring states, including Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. This has resulted in not only the deployment of troops to the border, but also Poland constructing fortified barriers along large sections of land. A third victim of the crisis is the migrants themselves: they are being pushed into European territory by the Belarusian government and consequently expelled by European authorities, resulting in them spending prolonged periods of time without shelter or access to basic humanitarian services.

The instrumentalization of migrants has been generically referred to by the EU as a political power game, and further sources suggest that the scope of the allegedly orchestrated migratory crisis is to destabilise the union, and in general the target state. The precise motivations of governments such as Belarus are unclear, but it is apparent that the instrumentalization of migrants is a strategy that is gaining in popularity and deserves to be examined. 

What is migrant instrumentalization?

The instrumentalization of migrants specifically refers to activities in which a perpetrator will exploit and strategically influence migration flows in order to achieve a specific goal, or even to destabilise another state.  This practice generally involves the manipulation and exploitation of vulnerable migrants and refugees without regard for their well-being or human rights and is often carried out for the benefit of specific individuals, institutions or groups. Migrants often lack formal rights while they are in transit, and therefore are forced to remain and work in both transitory and destination countries, facing “institutional exclusions that violate human dignity.” There are a variety of ways that migrants can be exploited and used for specific gains but two predominant distinctions can be made between migration manipulation with a “coercive intention”, where migrants are used as a foreign policy tool to apply pressure to other states, or economic motivations with financial gain as the final goal. 

The instrumentalization of migrants is not a new practice and, over the last decade, it has been the subject of a growing number of reports, particularly in the European context. Episodes such as the Turkish government sending over 13,000 people over the border to Greece in 2020, or in May 2021 when Morocco permitted the entry of 10,000 irregular migrants into Ceuta, a Spanish territory bordering Morocco, are prime examples of how migration can be politically weaponized. In these specific examples, the ultimate goal was to achieve concessions from the EU, which can be considered a form of political blackmail. This strategy is particularly attractive to perpetrators due to its low-cost nature: migrants are easily exploitable due to their vulnerable nature and hence they can be redirected or exploited in order to “destabilise or coerce a target state.”

Paradoxically, the migrants can be instrumentalized also by the receiving country: radical parties within Europe have been quick to harness the migration crisis to perpetuate pre-existing stigmas, inequalities, xenophobia and racism towards certain migrant groups. In this case, migrants can be used to advance specific national agendas, and by presenting them as a threat to national identity and stability, support can be raised for certain parties or ideologies. The 2016 migration crisis that occurred in Italy, which saw a distinct rise in populism correlated with an increased influx of migration, indicates that migrants can be instrumentalized both by external states to push their policy agendas, but also by domestic groups. 

Another aspect to consider is the instrumentalization of migrants for economic gain. Migrants often do not have the right of free choice when it comes to employment, making them dependent on their employers and thus vulnerable to abuse. Human trafficking can be a by-product of migrant instrumentalization, and it is an incredibly lucrative business, generating more than $150 billion in profits across the globe yearly. Hence, it is convenient to exploit crises globally in order to gain access to the cheap, flexible workforce that migrants represent. The imbalance in relations gives employers the power to exploit migrants and therefore use them as economic tools. 

Migrant instrumentalization for both political and economic gain results in increased marginalisation and poor treatment of migrant workers. Migrants and refugees begin being viewed as commodities and a means to an end, which is a problem in the grand scheme of the often severe humanitarian crises that produce large quantities of migrants. The handling of the instrumentalization of migrants in the previously mentioned case of Belarus is a prime example of this, as the EU and NATO only collectively acted once the crisis was out of hand and thousands of migrants were already freezing to death. The EU failed to act due to a lack of agreement on a common migration policy, and although the EU imposed sanctions on the individuals responsible for the crisis, Polish border guards continued using tear gas and water cannons to deter people from entering. Effectively, the instrumentalization of migrants, in this case, created a scenario where, as noted by members of Human Rights Watch, the EU acted in solidarity with its Member States, but also allowed a humanitarian crisis to unfold. The provision of humanitarian aid and respect for human rights can be hampered by uncertainty about the nature of migration or even the motive of foreign actors. This means that the instrumentalization of migrants can ultimately result in the exacerbation of humanitarian crises. Therefore, the cycle becomes perpetuating, in that there are more migrants available to exploit. 

Migrant instrumentalization: the case of the Middle East

The phenomenon of migrant instrumentalization is not a singularly European one, but most discourse at the academic, social and political levels occurs in the European sphere. Nevertheless, another region of interest is the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), as increased evidence is arising regarding the phenomenon of migrant instrumentalization there. For instance, Turkey has been recorded as a provocateur, manipulating the Syrian refugee crisis to obtain leverage in bargaining with the EU. More specifically, in February 2020 President Erdogan unilaterally suspended the EU-Turkey statement, sending approximately 20,000 migrants to the border with Greece, along with demands for additional EU funding. In fact, the weaponization of refugees has been reported as a “fundamental feature in the definition of the interactions between Turkey and Europe.” The weaponisation of refugees by Ankara has enabled Turkey to occupy an important place on the European political agenda. The use of migrants as a geopolitical tool puts the receiving countries in a position where they either respond with force or play into the hands of the countries responsible for instrumentalising migrants. In both cases, insufficient safeguards to uphold the fundamental rights of the migrants are being established.

These examples still assess the instrumentalization of migrants in a political sense, but migrants can be instrumentalized in ways beyond the political and economic. There has been a studied pattern of the militarization of migrants within the Middle East. The vulnerable nature of migrants means there are increased chances of refugee radicalization. Factors such as overcrowding, poverty, local crime, and hunger increase the risk of refugee alienation as well as radicalization. Studies have proven that refugees displaying more extremist beliefs are less willing to emigrate to the West. For instance, in the case of Lebanon, the more extremist Syrian migrants studied in a report by the US Department of Homeland Security are approximately 50% less likely to want to move to the West compared to wanting to move back to Syria, due to negative perceptions of the West. This indicates that the dangers of migrant radicalization and instrumentalization for extremist purposes are more likely to be felt within the MENA region itself, posing a substantial security risk to nations within the region. 

The success of radicalization attempts does depend on the receiving nation’s capacity and willingness to combat the influence of external actors. In the context of the MENA region, the receiving nations often do not have the resources to properly deal with this issue, allowing for the increased spread and danger of radical ideologies. Even when international organisations and foreign entities do become involved with deradicalization and disengagement efforts, it is difficult to determine the appropriate measures necessary to not only protect refugees, but also build community resilience to migrant instrumentalization as well as targeting the root source of refugee vulnerabilities. The main approach of many states is to control borders in order to deter irregular migration, but it is acknowledged that the focus should instead be on building resilience, stability and development in nations that produce large numbers of refugees, in order to reduce mass migration altogether. Providing aid specifically in the MENA region can be challenging, as the security climate is constantly changing and it can be difficult for policymakers to determine where and how to provide aid for long-term development purposes. This matter is complex and would require policymakers to re-evaluate how they assess systemic issues and, consequently, how they respond to them. 

Migrants within the MENA region are also facing the risk of militarization. The most common perpetrator is Iran, and the example of the Liwa Fatemiyoun proxy group is indicative of the scale of the problem. This specific group is formed primarily of migrants of the Shiite ethnic group from Afghanistan, and these migrants were recruited by the Iranian army during their transit away from the civil wars in Afghanistan. This recruitment was not always voluntary, although in some cases they were offered money. The Iranian regime’s guards were able to exploit the migrants’ vulnerability to militarise them and include them in Tehran’s military conflicts. Cases like these demonstrate that the instrumentalization of migrants can constitute not only a threat in terms of political bargaining, but also a more traditional form of threat to physical security. 

Additionally, there is the phenomenon of host community fatigue, which further destabilises host countries. In Jordan, for instance, this means that not only is the quality of life of migrants and refugees diminishing, but opportunities for the national community are also being compromised. Jordan is one of the countries that hosts the most refugees per capita in the world. In 2020, Jordan was hosting about 760,000 refugees, accounting for about 7% of its population. Since the outbreak of the conflict in Syria, Jordan’s economic situation has gradually deteriorated, and according to the IMF, it has lost 1% of its GDP each year of the crisis. This data indicates how heavy the refugee burden can be on the Jordanian economy and society. An example of the strain can be felt in the health sector, where the increased population places a strain on the quality and availability of care. At the same time, receiving countries can instrumentalize migrants by exaggerating the quantity of refugees they receive, in order to receive increased quantities of foreign aid. Examples from countries in the MENA region, but also from the rest of Africa, indicate that officials inflate the number of refugees under their protection, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars in aid. Furthermore, the aid provided does not always translate into improved conditions for migrants; in fact, aid providers tend to exploit migrants more in these cases. This refers back to an earlier point about the exploitation of migrants being a self-perpetuating cycle, where those who take advantage of migrants create the most opportunities for exploitation through their predatory behaviour. Since 2005 the Middle East’s migrant population has more than doubled, creating spaces for increased migrant exploitation as well as exploitation of the humanitarian crisis and both these situations fundamentally harm the vulnerable migrants. 

Conclusion

In essence, the phenomenon of migrant instrumentalization is not new, but rather appears to be developing as a foreign policy tool. The MENA region in particular continues to face unprecedented levels of population displacement, and as the ramifications of the ongoing war in Ukraine, the COVID-19 pandemic, and climate change continue to challenge governance in the region, opportunities to exploit and instrumentalise migrants will continue to grow and develop. Growing evidence of migrants being recruited for military purposes, such as Iran’s use of migrants as proxies, continues to raise concern about the ethical and human rights implications of migrant exploitation. These trends point to a growing need for international attention and a more decisive legislative and practical response, both domestically and internationally, in order to safeguard the rights of migrants globally. 

The EU has labelled the instrumentalization of migrants a hybrid threat, and the overarching question is how to deal with it. There is an acknowledged difficulty when it comes to the conflict of interest between trying to help mitigate a humanitarian crisis and putting emphasis on national security. One approach could be legislative, as the EU is doing, and attempt to normalise border procedures between target states, in order to enhance information sharing and securitize borders while decreasing harm to migrants. Alternatively, the approach could be more humanitarian, by increasing the involvement of international organisations and relief associations in direct access to migrants to ensure that their rights are respected. Either way, solutions are not straightforward and involve multiple stakeholders, requiring cooperation to address the issue. Overall, the instrumentalization of migrants presents a significant security concern and can be considered an aspect of hybrid warfare, but it is important to acknowledge that the foundation of this strategy is a humanitarian crisis, meaning that utmost importance must be attached to safeguarding fundamental human rights.