Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe - Multiple Choices

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Normative and Methodological Discussion of Migration and Integration
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
74
•• Partiality as the normative foundation for the
securitisation discourse
While officially affirming the shared commitment
to human rights, democratic institutions and the rule of
law and emphasising the 'human aspects' of the common
EU- asylum and immigration policy, the real face of
European policies evolved towards a policy of sealing off
their own territory by means of restrictive and repressive
measures which treat almost every migrant and every
asylum seeker as a potential criminal. This securitisation
discourse, described above, builds on a second strand
within moral theory: partiality.
Partiality has its roots in virtue theory and its
modern versions like communitarianism (Foot, MacIntyre,
Sandel, Taylor). Those theories consider special relationships
and their partiality to be intrinsically valuable and therefore
concentrate on the importance of reciprocal duties and
responsibilities of citizens towards each other and of the
state towards its citizens. The question of state responsibilities
towards foreigners is of secondary importance. Based on
the principle of self-determination and a common sense of
belonging, nation-states argue to have a justified right not
to be submerged by huge migratory movements and thus to
treat differently non-citizens from citizens by border controls
and migration and integration policies.
Considering the predominance of the securitisation
discourse and concurrent measures in recent decades,
one could suppose that the humanitarian discourse has
disappeared completely from the EU-migration agenda.
Nevertheless, this is not the case: both are two faces
of the same coin. The European discourse on asylum and
migration is influenced by partiality as well as by impartiality.
Though contradictory in their consequences, these approaches
offer values and argumentative lines which are both relevant
for the difficult and complex question of how to respond in a
morally responsible way to the questions of asylum and
migration. In times of globalisation, this task seems to be
more difficult than ever. And although there are no easy
answers, it seems to me that the EU has chosen for the most
comfortable solution: emphasising the impartial humanitarian
discourse in official communications and formal decisions,
while applying the partial securitisation discourse in concrete
decision-making initiatives. By integrating the humanitarian
discourse into a wider security framework, the EU has
manipulated the language of human rights to legitimise the
language of security and a range of accompanying dubious
practices (Chimni, 2000). It goes without saying that this has
led to devastating effects, as well for migrants as for refugees.
Certainly in times of a global war on terror, the securitisation
discourse is likely to marginalise humanitarian agendas more
than ever before (Macrae & Harmer, 2003). This raises the
question whether any alternative approach is conceivable that
overcomes the dichotomy between those two discourses.
I think there is. In the following paragraphs, I will
argue in favour of an alternative normative foundation for
a truly human global migration policy which takes into
account both partialist and impartialist arguments and
concerns, but at the same time tries to avoid the deadlock
between both.
BEYOND THE SECURITISATION –
HUMANITARIANISM DICHOTOMY:
FROM CONTROL TO GOVERNANCE
The presented alternative approach is inspired by
the writings of Hermann Cohen (1842-1918), Martin Buber
(1878-1965) and Emmanuel Lévinas (1906-1995) and is
centred around the concepts of encountering dialogue,
receptive mutuality and asymmetrical responsibility. 10
These Jewish philosophical concepts, which I explain elsewhere
in detail (Verlinden, 2005) and which can be summarised
under the notion of dialogism, are capable of reconciling
partial moral concerns for those who are near to us with
impartial considerations of justice towards the whole of
humanity exactly by emphasising the mutual tension in
moral life between the particular (i.e. the face-to-face reality
in which all of us interact with other persons, people other
than and different from ourselves) and the universal (i.e.
man's moral duty to do justice towards his fellow-man).
In the final paragraphs, I will briefly indicate how dialogism
can be concretised in order to transform the current migration
control paradigm into a fair, global system of migration
governance. 11
In my view, dialogism can be the starting point
for realizing a shift towards a truly bi-directional migration
and refugee policy (Papademetriou, 2003), characterised
by an active involvement and participation of (1) all states
concerned – rich, receiving countries as well as poor, sending
countries – and (2) of those most directly involved – migrants,
refugees and their relatives. Since the Jewish conception
of dialogue includes the idea of an indirect, asymmetrical,
though unlimited responsibility towards the other, whether
s/he lives next door, in a neighbouring country or in the outside
world and whether s/he belongs to our own generation
or to the future generations, it can function as a normative
foundation for a renewed vision of international migration
as an inter-human encounter – an encounter which is both
co-acting and inter-acting. Therefore, dialogism offers a decisive
argument for replacing the current migration control policy,
with its emphasis on containment (which is a reactive
strategy) by an empowerment-oriented approach of migration
governance (which is a pro-active strategy).
The core of this approach consists of the empowerment
of the other – the 'outsider', the foreigner, the poor
and disadvantaged. Such an inclusive, pro-active, empowering
and development-oriented approach is partially present
in current practices of numerous home-state or home-town
Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe: Unpacking the Diversity