Security Implications of International Migration and the Challenge of Management and Regional Integration

Prolegomena: Understanding the Topic and Thrusts of Paper

Migration has become a problematic in both international law and relations because it not only raises questions on the conflict of laws, but particularly also on the conduct and management of international peace and security. Migration is a security issue. It is a means of economic survival, a means of political struggle, as well as a major threat to national and international security. Consequently, it is increasingly being investigated and discussed by scholars because of its multidimensional character. From Tuesday 23rd, to Thursday, 25th July, 2013, the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, in collaboration with the Delphi Consulting, held a special brainstorming session on Migration and Terrorism in West Africa, at the main auditorium of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Abuja. One major rationale for the brainstorming session was the recognition of the very insecure environment of the West Africa region by then.

One other rationale for the brainstorming session was the identification of migration as a dynamic of regional insecurity. Since then, migration has not ceased to be an issue. It has increasingly taken the centre stage of international politics to the extent that there are not only proponents and opponents of international migration, but also observers who showed more concern about the security dimensions and implications.

The security implications of international migration may not be well appreciated without first putting the understanding of international migration in its appropriate context. In other words, what do we mean by migration? What makes migration international? What sense of ‘international’ do we mean here: bilateral, trilateral, plurilateral, multilateral or global? More important, from the perspective of legality, which type of migration are we also talking about because migration can be legal or illegal? Both legal and illegal migration have their implications, and particularly for security in all ramifications.

In fact, there are several types of migration from the perspectives of direction and dynamic. For instance, we can distinguish, on the one hand, between in-migration and out-migration, and, on the other, between human migration, economic migration, and environmental migration, which can be prompted by human activities or by natural disasters, and therefore, difficult to delimit in terms of scope.

Put differently, one current international challenge, in this regard, is the issue of climate change which is intertwined with the environment and which is quite different from migration induced by habitat fragmentation, water and air pollution and rapid human population growth with which specialists are more conversant. The general expectation as of now is that sooner or later, earth warming has the potential to compel migration of people.

Consequently, the notion of international migration can be quite ambiguous.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) defines migration as ‘the movement of a person or a group of persons, either across an international border, or within a State. It is a population movement, encompassing any kind of movement of people, whatever its length, composition and causes; it includes migration of refugees, displaced persons, economic migrants, and persons moving for other purposes, including family reunification’. The key words in this definition are movement across borders, migration of persons, and purposes of the movement or migration. This is why the understanding of the security implications of international migration should begin with an objective interpretation of the topic. In other words, what is the required analytical challenge? For our purposes in this conference, we use ‘international migration’ to refer to both legal and illegal human migration in all its ramifications.

In the same vein, there is the need to put the understanding of security in context: what is security? Do we mean security in terms of human security as defined by Third World scholars or state security? Should the analysis be limited to security of the stomach? In fact, the topic can be examined from the angle of securitisation of migration, both in terms of how security policies affect migration and how migration shape security policy making. In whichever way security and migration are conceived and understood, they are currently very significant questions in the quest for global peace and security as at today.

This cannot but be so because the Global Commission on International migration (GCIM) has it that there are about 200 million migrants the world over, 60% of whom reside in the developed world while the other 40% live in the developing countries. In this regard, the GCIM also has it that one of every ten people living in the developed world is a migrant. If this is admittedly so, it should therefore be borne in mind that migrants are human beings who have their mania of living before migrating to another country, who have to adapt to another cultural way of living on arriving at their new host state, and who following arrival, can infringe on local laws on the basis of psychology of human differences or even contribute to societal development in their host countries.

From the foregoing therefore, international migration cannot but be a critical issue in international law and relations, impinging on inter-personal relationships and on global peace and security in many ways. The importance of international migration can be gleaned from the perspective that it is one of the major issues that also explains in part the controversial Brexit policy in the United Kingdom as at today. In the same vein, one major headache with which the incumbent President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump, is also faced is international migration.

And perhaps more notably, the cardinal objective of migration is not only security but also means of security. It is an anti-terrorism measure. Most unfortunately, however, the environment of migration is globally insecure. Its operational modalities are also insecurity-engendered, hence the growing anti-migration sentiments in many countries of the world. Explicated differently, it is not the act of migration that is the problem but the mania of going about it before, during, and after migration. This necessarily raises the challenge of management, implications for national unity and security, as well as the need to discuss migration and integration in the context of an environment of renewed and increasing nationalism that is increasingly very hostile to migration, and particularly to illegal migration.

This should be of a major concern to African leaders, especially the ECOWAS leaders because of insecurity in West Africa, and also because, of the 200 million migrants in the world, not less than 7 million of them reside in West Africa. Besides, one third of the people of West Africa not only live outside their district or village but also 42% of the total of international migrants residing in Africa are located in West Africa alone. In light of this, the discussion of the security implications of international migration has to reckon with the environmental conditionings of the ECOWAS region. And in doing so, this paper makes the following preliminary observations:

a)migration is first an intention before it is an act. As an act, it necessarily raises the problem of integration or admissibility in an intended host state. Consequently, migration and integration are not only important concepts and issues in contemporary international relations, but also constitute two sides of the same coin;

b)managing migration in any part of Africa cannot but go with complex challenges because, as a concept, migration is essentially about human life and its entire environment. Seeking to manage what is not well understood in its proper context cannot but also be futile in outcome;

c)the ECOWAS environment is currently fraught with many threats to national and regional security, and therefore to regional migration: the political imbroglio in Guinea Bissau, the political unrest in Guinea Conakry, the growing conflict between sanctity of colonial frontiers and the quest for self-determination, especially with the boko haramists in Nigeria, the Al Qaeda in the Sahel Maghreb sub-region, etc, are pointers;

d)while it may be possible to prevent or undo integration efforts, prevent insecurity, and particularly, terrorism, by dealing with the causal factors, as well as prevent or contain migration, it is important to also note that there is no way the intention to migrate can be out-rightly prevented. At best, it can only be controlled and managed. Consequently, in an elongated period of insecurity being witnessed in the world of today, migration can either be made difficult or facilitated, implying that the management of migration problems should be looked into in both ways (sending and receiving countries;

e)if integration at the national level is good and effective enough, and does not constitute a push factor for migration, the likelihood of migration will be at its lowest ebb, unless there is an environmental disaster or other force majeure. In the same vein, at the regional or international level, the hostility towards the enjoyment of the right of residence or establishment cannot but be reduced;

f)Insecurity and security is an important dynamic of migration because crises and conflicts constitute a push factor compelling the need to seek safety and security elsewhere. The boko haram-induced terrorism in the north eastern part of Nigeria has compelled many people to emigrate for reasons of force majeure. Consequently, the management of migration cannot but also be largely a function of how well a crisis or conflict is managed. In the absence of insecurity or threats of insecurity, migration cannot but be easier to manage;

g)The current era of national and regional insecurity is partly associated with Islamic fundamentalism. The world is currently faced with a high technology-driven terrorism, emerging new Cold War between the United States and China, arrogant display of politics of double standard such as evidenced in the mésentente between the African Union (AU) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as in the international cultural politics of gay rights. All these issues have implications for migration;

h)Development methodologies tend to place greater emphasis in contemporary international relations on integration as a possible catalyst for economic growth and development. It is partly for this consideration that ‘regionalism’ became an important subject in the study of international politics and relations. It is also for this reason that the United Nations has been pursuing global peace and security from a regional approach. At the level of Africa, for instance, for the purposes of enhanced economic development and fast-tracked integration in Africa, the African leaders decided to divide the continent of Africa into five regions (West, North, Central, East, and Southern) and then defined a sub-region as any two or more countries coming together within any of the regions of Africa. Thus, the expectation is that, if integration can be attained at the regional level, then it cannot but be easier to attain continental integration through increased migration and harmonization of the efforts of the five regions. In this regard, within the context of this integration needs, migration is supposed to be an issue to be addressed. In fact, this explains why the ECOWAS Protocol on Free Movement of People and that of Right of Establishment were done. Consequently, management of migration and ECOWAS integration is largely a function of how well the protocols are adhered to and particularly how well the challenges of implementation are articulated, objectively and honestly addressed within the context of a supranational commitment by ECOWAS countries;

i)migration constitutes a desideratum in contemporary international relations, and therefore, no country, and particularly Africa’s former colonial masters, can totally close its doors to migration. Since it is admitted that the colonial masters seriously undermined and underdeveloped Africa, the under-development of the African environment cannot but push Africans to seek greener pastures in Europe. If Europe wants to contain the inflow of African and non-African migrants, the European Union must redefine its policy of ‘Solidarity and the Management of Migration Flows,’ to reckon with the geo-political and the current situational realities in Africa as a whole;

j) in light of the foregoing, any objective of management of migration, as well as ECOWAS integration in an era of national and regional security, ought to first reckon with the causal factors of migration in the ECOWAS region and with the dynamics of national and regional insecurity. In this regard, the reckoning should be done at three different, but complementary, levels: reasons for migration; the act or form of migration, with emphasis on its manifestations; and the challenges of settlement or establishment in the receiving community or state;

k)in general, the management of migration is best done on a collaborative basis: if a government has the right or prerogative to manage migrants in its country, the moment the migrant goes beyond the international frontiers of his/her country, the law of the new host country naturally applies. Since a migrant can be a terrorist or a threat to regional peace and security, it is only a collaborative effort and management that can help nip in the bud unwanted migration. Since the ECOWAS Protocol on Free Movement is not only a multilateral agreement, but also a major source of migration problems and insecurity, management efforts should begin with the review and re-conceptualisation of the protocol;

l)And perhaps most significantly, ECOWAS Member States are to take a second look at their border security policies in light of the porous nature of their international frontiers. Nigeria, for instance, does not have border patrol guards. Nigeria does not even have a monitoring mechanism for foreigners living in local communities. It is useful to state here that, under the Olusegun Obasanjo administration, instruction was given to the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) and the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) to establish presence in all the 774 Local Government Areas. While the NIS is apparently seen to be responding, the NSCDC is not. There is the need to monitor the activities of foreigners in Nigeria and particularly the effects of migration into the country. Consequently, seeking management of migration should not be by wishing. It must go with commitment and provision of whatever is required for the management. We all are currently in a world of globalisation in which, not only ICT is predominating, but also in which migration and integration have become major issues of concern.

(See concluding part on www.thisdaylive.com)

Trump