Migration and security: some key linkages.

• Author: Choucri, Nazli

"As migration is defined as the movement of people across national boundaries--an inter-state phenomenon--we would expect it to be addressed by students of international relations.... It is ... glaring to note the absence of migration as a topic in graduate courses in the field and its practical non-existence in the textbooks."

Understanding the link between population movements and the security of states is particularly significant in an era of globalization and migration. The connection between migration and security, however, is particularly challenging and problematic because migration, security and the linkage between the two are inherently subjective concepts. They are dependent on who is defining the terms and who benefits by defining the terms in a given way. Although there has been considerable research on the subjects of migration and of security, few studies directly address the linkage between the two. Matters of definition, however contentious, are central to the linkage task and provide a necessary entry point for analysis. Some empirically based truisms define the nature of the definitional problem itself. The first section, "Matters of Meaning," below, provides a framework for tracking migration-security linkages. The framework highlights the complexity and multidimensional nature of migration and security. The next section focuses on the interconnections between migration and security. Specifically, it addresses the implications of state structures and institutional capabilities for the migration-security balance sheet. Given the conceptual challenges mentioned above, the ideas herein are designed to provide building blocks for further inquiry.

Several factors complicate the definition of key terms. In the domain of mobility, these are captured by the following observations:

1) What you see depends on how you look at it

2) Who counts defines who is counted

3) What is counted depends on who counts, how and why. In other words, who benefits?

In the domain of security, the companion truisms include:

1) One's security may be another's insecurity

2) Strategies designed to create security may actually enhance insecurity

3) Security may be "objective" but in the last analysis it is in the eye of the beholder, i.e., "subjective."

Superficial as these sound bites might appear, they do capture some puzzles that require systematic inquiry. Given the increasing politicization of migration in world politics and by definition the salience of population for politics, as well as the role of politics in national security, matters of definition are central, not peripheral: Clarifying key concepts requires specificity of dimension, logic, metrics and criteria for measure and the methodology of measurement.

Accordingly, we begin first with the meaning of migration and of security, and then we turn to the interconnections. Far from being a simple (and seemingly pedantic) exercise, it is the meanings assigned to these terms that capture the volatility that, under certain conditions, may erode the very foundations of social order--at any level and in any socio-economic context.

MATTERS OF MEANING: A FRAMEWORK FOR TRACKING MIGRATION-SECURITY LINKAGES

We start with the security calculus--proposing a way to capture the key factors and processes that constitute the condition we refer to as security. While the level of analysis here is that of the nation-state in international relations, the fundamentals at hand may well be largely generic, whereby the idiosyncrasies and specifics of a situation are accounted for, and captured by, a common logic. The same applies to the dimensions of migration. At the onset we may be on relatively solid ground. There appears to be an emerging consensus about the complexity of security and about the multidimensionality of migration.

The Security Calculus

The security calculus presented here is a derivative logic. It involves fundamental relationships among constituent elements of the social order. We posit this calculus as objective, amenable to empirical (and measurable) assessment. It is then reasonable to juxtapose the objective accounting to a subjective one, i.e., in terms of the meanings, interpretations, values and views ascribed to the calculus by different actors. (1)

This proposed calculus views security as a function of three interconnected imperatives that jointly yield one integrated and logical holistic. These imperatives cover the domains of

1) Military capacity and defense

2) Modes of governance and regime performance

3) Structural conditions and environmental viability.

Military Security (MS) refers to the conventional defense concerns that ensure the sanctity of state borders and/or to the use of military instruments for the pursuit of state objectives. It is the ability of the state to defend itself from incursion, attack or invasion. It is the ability to assure security from outside threats.

Regime Security (RS) is used here as a governance concept that refers to the ability of the government and its institutions to discharge formal responsibilities and also to protect itself from domestic disorder, revolt or dissension.

Structural Security (SS) refers to the ability to protect the resilience of life-supporting properties--as well as prevailing sources of livelihood--from erosive pressures.

Two of the terms, MS and RS, are self-explanatory and largely strategically defined constructs. The third, SS, is not obvious: It is the ability to meet the demands of the population (P) given the availability of resources (R) and the prevailing levels of technology (T) in the context of a given environment (E) and its life-supporting properties. As we have indicated in other contexts, we view P, R and T as master variables that shape the contextual configuration of a country. (2) The resulting calculus of national security (NS) can be expressed as a simple identity:

NS = f (MS, RS, SS)

This identity leads to the following proposition: A state is secure to the extent that all three dimensions or conditions for security are in place; and it is insecure to the extent that one or more conditions (or dimensions) of security are threatened or eroded. In practice, however, assuring SS is akin to a juggling act: if (or when) population growth leads to resource needs that exceed the prevailing technological capacity to meet the population's demands and needs, then conditions for structural security are eroded. Of course, the underlying imperative or dilemma is to make sure that populations do not strain the system's overall ecological, environmental and life-supporting properties. Extending this logic, we formulate structural security as:

SS = f (P, R, T) / E

These identities are highly simplified representations of realities. The specific functional form for this aggregate identity is an empirical question. Nonetheless, we do know that the right-hand terms are highly interdependent, causally connected, and possibly even in conditions of mutual hostage. For example, regime security is undermined to the extent that government is unable to perform its functions effectively (for example, by not managing its structural security). It may be also undermined by threats from the outside (i.e., military action). We also know that only when security of borders is assured can attention be given to the management of structural conditions.

The security logic thus represents a baseline framework to indicate where and how migration may enter into the security calculus. So far it is a static accounting; we have not yet introduced the sources of change that steer it toward `more' or `less' security. We can appreciate that the migration linkages enter this calculus primarily through potential perturbations generated by the population factor--but, given the attributes of the migrants and the forms of migration, it also affects, directly and indirectly, the R and T terms as well. In this context, however, since the P-factor is fundamental--pervasive in defining a social order--we need to recognize the parsimony and the power of the master variables. What happens to the security calculus when the P-factor is disturbed?

The P- Factor

In an earlier study, the role of population in international interactions has been characterized in the following forms, as a

1) parameter of a social situation, defining the actors, the contenders and the nature of the contentions at the starting line

2) multiplier of prevailing contentions, potentially shaping new ones as the dynamics of interaction work their way through time

3) variable both shaping and shaped by the dynamics of the interactions at hand and responding to both the parametric and the multiplier effects. (3)

These distinctions were the result of comparative case studies of 45 threats to security and violent conflicts in developing countries. These cases provided a baseline for the first systematic framing of the population-conflict connections. (4)

The three forms of the P-factor are noted here in the aggregate. The 45 cases further supported the proposition that, at this level of aggregation, migration per se can be characterized in the same way. Equally relevant is the companion result that the role and implications of the P-factor (and of migration) changes in the course of the evolution (or unfolding) of a conflict situation.

In consideration, for example, of the conflicts between the Arab states and Israel (and between Israel and the Palestinians), a near text-book case emerges of the role of population factors in the unfolding of a conflict as well as in the shaping of its evolution and transformation over time. Without presuming to provide a complete view of this conflict--or its ideological, religious and strategic dimensions--it would be fair to say that one of the major contributors to this long-standing set of disputes was the migration of Jews from Europe throughout the first part of the twentieth century and then more systematically...