Why Politicians Need to Stop Talking About the “Weaponization” of Migrants

Maxine de Havenon is a current graduate student in University of Chicago’s Committee on International Relations where her research focuses on humanitarian intervention and international law. She also serves as a Research Assistant at the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, a UN-supported think tank researching mass atrocity prevention.

 

In November 2021, as temperatures in Europe dipped below freezing, Poland announced it was facing a major “security crisis.” Hundreds of migrants from the Middle East had amassed along its border with Belarus, claiming, with proof, they had been encouraged by Belarussian President Aleksander Lukashenko to try and enter the European Union. Poland, in turn, rejected all who attempted to cross, labeling them as Lukashenko’s political pawns intended to punish the EU for imposing sanctions on his government.

Over the next few months, the conflict only intensified. Poland sent 12,000 troops to its border, calling Belarus’s actions a form of “hybrid warfare” and condemning Lukashenko’s “weaponization” of refugees. Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia declared a “state of emergency” barring all journalists and aid workers from the region. European officials characterized the situation “not as a migration crisis but a geopolitical crisis” and accused Belarus of “using human beings in an act of aggression.” All the while, the actual human beings at the border remained in limbo with limited food and no shelter. Some eventually froze to death in the punishing Baltic winter.

There are no easy solutions to the plight of refugees, whose global numbers are now the highest on record. Just because a state has chosen to exploit, threaten, and intimidate refugee populations for its own political gain does not mean the global community should surrender to its demands. And yes, mirroring Belarus’s securitized rhetoric does count as a form of surrender.

Identifying Lukashenko’s manipulation of refugees as an “attack on the democratic world” signifies Europe’s surrender to the political agenda of an autocrat and cedes control over the narrative, news cycle, and legal framing of the altercation. It also diminishes the hardships of refugees like Kochar, a Kurdish young man stuck at the border, who rejects being called a weapon and admits, “we don’t like it… we are here for life, not for fighting.”

This is not the first time an authoritarian has attempted to manipulate the free movement of peoples for political gain. Over the past decade, refugees and asylum seekers have been exploited by governments who see them as a new potential tool of coercion. This was the case during the 2020 EU-Turkey border crisis and when the Indonesian government threatened to send a “human tsunami” across the Timor Sea to Australia.

Fortunately, those defending against such actions diffused the crises through negotiation and a global rejection of describing humans as weapons. But this makes the fact that Poland was so quick to adopt the language of the aggressor an even more troubling new development. As stated by the Refugee Law Initiative, the discourse on the part of these purportedly “defensive” states “has been unique in its overt militarizing language.”

Some argue that the EU must fight fire with rhetorical fire; that by highlighting Belarus’s scheming as an “act of aggression,” they are taking a tough stand against a dictator and proving they aren’t going to be pushed around. And maybe there is an argument to be made that it is the EU’s duty to call it like it is – that the only way to reject aggression is to name it as such.

But what does this really do other than offer a pulpit from which to rain more criticism down on a despot who already faces crippling sanctions from the European community? The prospects of a military engagement are unlikely, so it’s not as if these postures are preparation for some broader altercation. It is certainly not helping the migrants on the ground, who are caught between two countries shouting at one another.

Obviously, Belarus’s actions are abhorrent. But if Europe wishes to honor its commitments to refugee law and set itself apart from bullies, it needs to do a better job of choosing its words. Lukashenko is clearly attempting to goad the EU into raising its defensive hackles. Its responses – mired in the language of war, security, and threat rather than aid, rights, and concern – are playing right into his hands.

But beyond letting Belarus dictate the terms of engagement, Europe’s quick move to adopt the rhetoric of weaponization has consequences of greater concern.

First, it accelerates the ongoing securitization of migration policy by embedding the issue within the “war-time” national security complexes of individual nations. This undermines the likelihood of global cooperation and “hardens” the borders of states and regional blocs. Second, it legitimizes the rhetoric of leaders who present migration as a political bargaining chip. By allowing concessions on migrants to be traded for other political favors, concerns over refugee populations become strategic instead of humane.

Finally, and perhaps most troublingly, such language undermines the agency and personal narratives of individual migrants. This results in a clear differentiation in how such refugees are treated by the media, the local populations of host countries, and the global community. Filippo Grandi, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, recently highlighted how dangerous these sentiments can be when he stated that the language of “migrant threat” “stigmatizes refugees… and gives legitimacy to a discourse of racism, hatred and xenophobia.”

The EU would instead be wise to focus its rhetoric on the human element of the crisis. The individuals at the Polish border are no different than those in any other region attempting to flee human rights abuses. Universalizing the language of migration regardless of the politics of host countries will diminish the power of Lukashenko’s posturing. It will also inject (much needed) empathy back into the narrative.

There are many ways for political leaders to accomplish this. Reframe migrant manipulation as a violation of international humanitarian law instead of a calculated offensive attack. Leave such leaders to find their actions framed not as legitimate methods of battle, but rather as gross violations of human rights. Focus on the individual – not political – costs of such actions. Fight the urge to allow issues related to migrants to become politicized by rejecting mention of “geopolitical” concerns.

Finally, consider accepting the refugees because really, what would be the most effective way to defang the autocrat’s intimidations and prove the EU will not concede to the demands of a dictator? Welcoming the “weaponized” population with open arms.