Migration through the Diplomatic Lens
With the ascent of globalisation, the world has become increasingly intertwined and interdependent. Contemporary politics has led to the mushrooming of new forms of statecraft and diplomacy that are steadily gaining popularity.
Migration is intrinsic to nature itself. Be it the wild beasts of Serengeti or the Arctic tern, all living beings regularly migrate for survival. Human beings are no exception. Migration has been a common element running throughout our history. What has changed is the nature of this migration.
Till very recently, migration was viewed as a socioeconomic phenomenon which complements the innate human nature for progress, prosperity, and knowledge. States too have been acquiescent with this, and policies have developed around the rhetoric of controlling migrant flow to befit the domestic economy. An exemplary example is the ‘Gastarbeiter’ concept of Europe, wherein migrants are employed to meet a periodic demand for increased labour — be it for the apple harvest or the cultivation of the German favourite — Spargel (asparagus).
There have also been larger and more permanent migrant movements such as the settling of Turks in the newly divided Germany, but these were remained consistent in the post WWII world, i.e. right until the Syrian migrant crisis. Since then, within the last decade itself, the world has experienced multiple humanitarian crisis leading to an exodus of individuals throughout the globe.
From this have emerged new tools for states to exert diplomatic pressures, which are based not on the military, or economic capabilities of a country but on the sheer size of migrant population that resides within their home.
In February 2016, King Abdullah of Jordan declared that Jordan was at “a boiling point” because of an influx of Syrians (Doucet 2016). Within two day, a donor conference in London adopted the Jordan Compact, granting $1.4 billion in aid for a period of two years (2016–2018).
In the same month, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan adopted a more aggressive stance toward the European Union (EU): “We can open the doors to Greece and Bulgaria anytime, and we can put the refugees on buses,” he declared in Brussels. “So how will you deal with refugees if you don’t get a deal? Kill the refugees?” Erdoğan asked European Council President Donald Tusk (Reuters 2016).
Migration policy is the new bargaining chip for the states to pursue economic interests, enhance security and ‘boost soft power’ via cultural and public diplomacy (1).
So, who exactly stands to gain from this diplomatic power play?
Evolving from the concept of Game Theory in economics, there are two approaches to migration diplomacy — the zero-sum strategy and the positive-sum strategy.
Zero-sum, as the name suggests is a ‘Winner takes all’ strategy. It is a conflict strategy that focuses on absolute gains. An example would be the constant Turkish threats on the unilateral action against the Syrian refugee community.
Positive Sum strategy suggests a more negotiable stance, where the outcome is usually advantageous to all the involved parties — including the migrants themselves. In 2019, Ethiopia agreed to an ambitious aid package that would create 100,000 jobs in recognition to protect the migrants living within its borders (2).
Where does this finally head?
According to the UN World Migration report 2020, there are 272 million migrants across the world. This naturally ascertains migration diplomacy a significant spot in the contemporary global politics.
For the states, it creates a continuous dilemma between interests and values — between the inherent moral responsibility to those under duress and self-serving interest. The politics of diplomacy have till now been both, empathetic and astute to the sufferers of coercive migration.
The challenge remains in treading the thin line that maintains the tipping balance between the gains and exploits.