QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Kandidatuppsats SOCK01, 15p
Varterminen 2014
Supervisor: Abdulhadi Khalaf
Sociologiska Instutionen
The War against the Asylum Seeker
Why 'boat people' became a security issue in Australia
Pernilla Ridell
Pernilla Ridell
The War Against the Asylum Seeker:
Why ‘boat people’ became a security issue in Australia
Kandidatuppsats SOCK01, 15p
Varterminen 2014
Supervisor: Abdulhadi Khalaf
Abstract
This essay aims to analyze Australia’s ambivalent relationship towards the
asylum seeker in general, boat people in particular, using the theoretical
framework of institutional panic, as formulated by Blum and ‘securitization’,
as developed by the Copenhagen School. It outlines the country’s past and
present relationship with migration, while focusing its analysis on events
preceding and following the 2001 federal election. The essay juxtaposes the
Australian historical fear of the ‘other’ onto the new insecurities emerging in
the late 90s (economic instability and an influx of asylum seekers), in order to
explain why migration became a security issue. Through a social
constructionist paradigm, it argues that the threat of asylum seekers,
especially boat people, was constructed through a securitization within the
political (threat to sovereignty and laws), economical (threat to nation’s
economy) and societal sector (threat to the collective identity), formulated
through the language of the state and facilitated by socio-political
circumstances and Australia’s history of fearing the ‘other’.
Keywords: Australia, Asylum Seeker, Identity, Securitization, boat people, Election 2001
Pernilla Ridell
Abbreviations
IMA
Illegal Maritime Arrival
APL
Australian Labor Party
DIMIA
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
DIBP
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Contents
Introduction ..……………………………………………………………………1
1
1.1
Research topic and scope of thesis..…………………………………………….1
1.2
Definitions………..……………………………………………………………..2
1.3
Methodology and Sources..…………………………………………………….4
1.3.1
Qualitative Textual Analysis.…………………………………………………4
1.3.2
Case Study……………………………………………………………………5
1.3.3
Sources.……………………………………………………………………….5
Previous Research………………………………………………………………6
1.4
Historical Background………………………………………………………….8
2
2.1
Immigration History……………………………………………………………9
2.2
Immigration Policy… …………………………………………………………10
2.3
Migration Sentiment….………………………………………………………..11
2.4
The Tampa Incident……………………………………………………………12
Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………..13
3
Securitization.………………………………………………………………….14
3.1
3.1.1
Security and the Threat………………………………………………………15
3.1.2
The process of Securitization………………………………………………...15
3.1.3
Desecuritization.……………………………………………………………..16
3.1.4
Critique………………………………………………………………………17
3.2
Institutional Panic.……………………………………………………………..18
3.3
The Nation, Identity and National Identity…………………………………….19
3.3.1
The dangerous ‘Other’……………………………………………………….19
Analysis………………………………………………………………………….20
4
4.1
4.1.1
4.2
The Change in Perception...……………………………………………………21
The 90s emergency…………………………………………………………..21
The first Attack..……………………………………………………………….23
5
4.3
Australia’s Fear of the Other…………………………………………………..24
4.4
The Tampa Incident……………………………………………………………25
4.5
The Terror-Migration Connection……………………………………………..26
4.6
The 2001 Federal Election…………………………………………………….28
Summary and Concluding Remarks…………………………………………..29
1
Introduction
In the lead up to the 2001 election, the Australian Government waged a war against its
increasing, so-called, Illegal Maritime Arrivals. A funding boost of $124 million dollars
was to be spent on the Coastal Surveillance Task Force, in an effort to patrol the nations
marine borders, detecting, pursuing and intercepting unauthorised vessels (DIMIA,
2002). In the following years, new policies under the ‘Pacific Solution’ legislation saw
Australia as the only country in the world to use mandatory detention of all unauthorised
entries by boat and made it almost impossible for boat people to gain permanent
residency (Hudson-Rudd, 2009). In the wake of September 11, the Australian
government declared that the world was dangerous and unpredictable, adding that
Australia only had room for ‘genuine’ refugees and that it was committed to the ‘fight’
against unauthorised migration (Costello, 2002). During an outcry of international
criticism, with some claiming a breech of the 1951 Geneva Convention, Australia
implemented new, draconian policies targeted at boat people in particular.
How did Australia justify this ‘war’ against the asylum seeker, and further, why
did asylum seeker become a threat to the Australian national security? These are some of
the aspects this thesis will focus on.
1.1 Research Topic and scope of thesis
This essay will explore the increasing securitisation of migration, and the dynamics of
this securitisation, that occurred in Australia in the mid- to late 90s. As the growing
globalisation not only effected the movement of goods but also people, there was a need
for a new concept of security with a focus on new threats, such as terrorism, which was
brought on by the growing fluidity across borders. This was the motivation behind the
concept of securitisation which was developed by the Copenhagen School and which will
be discussed in detail in the theory section of this essay.
1
With the country’s socio-economic and migration history, and the impending
election, as a backdrop, I will focus on the changing status of the asylum seekers arriving
by boat. The question in focus is;
-
Why did the asylum seeker become a threat to Australia’s national security?
Other issues that will be discussed are; Why and how did the perceived threat originate
and what, potential, socio-economic and political factors may have contributed? Was
Australia’s past issues of identity and nationality of relevance in portraying the asylum
seeker as a national threat? How does the Australian government relate to the signatory
1951 Geneva Convention? What role did politicians play in the securitisation of
migration?
Immigration is a broad term, and a migrant consists of several categories. In order to
narrow this thesis, I have focused on the asylum seeker, and more specifically, the
asylum seeker arriving by boat – ‘boat people’. The thesis discuss the increasing
securitisation, through stricter border control and harsher policies and, in Australia, these
measures have targeted one category of migrant in particular – the Illegal Maritime
Arrival. In the present text, the term asylum seeker will refer to those not yet determined
as refugees, further, when using the term ‘boat people’ I am referring to the asylum
seeker arriving by boat. Furthermore, as I find the dialect process of the State and
individual actors especially interesting in this case (as the harsher policies coincided with
a federal election) the essay will focus on securitisation in the political and societal
sectors.
Australia is a relevant case study as a nation with a long and often ambivalent
relationship towards the immigrant, a country, which received much domestic and global
criticism for its increasing draconian policies towards asylum seekers in the late 90s.
2
1.2 Definitions
Some terms in this essay are used more frequently. In regards to the authenticity of the
essay, the definitions are taken from where the term originated, such as the Australian
government and the United Nations.
1951 Geneva Convention relating to the refugee A legal document, signed by Australia in 1951, which defines who is a refugee,
their rights and the legal obligations of states.
“Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal
entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their
life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in
their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without
delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or
presence.”
(OHCHR, 2014)
Asylum seeker –
A person seeking protection, and is requesting refugee status (UNHCR, 2013)
Refugee –
The term of refugee is applicable to one who flees the own country because of
persecution, and is unable to return due to these fears, or other events that has caused a
fear of returning to the home country (OHCHR, 2014)
3
Illegal Maritime Arrival (also referred to as boat people) –
Asylum seekers arriving by boat, often with no documents (Australian Government,
2014)
Sources:
Australian Government. 2014. Department of Immigration and Border Security: illegal
maritime arrivals. [online] Available at:
http://www.immi.gov.au/About/Pages/ima/info.aspx [Accessed 4 May, 2014]
OHCHR, 2014. Convention relating to the status of the refugee. [online] Available at:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx [Accessed 4
May 2014]
UNHCR. 2012. Asylum and Refugee Status Determination. [online] Available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/52a723299.html [Accessed 4 May 2014]
1.3
Methodology and sources
As my thesis is focused on perception and subjective interpretation, I have chosen a
qualitative method, as it is defined by identifying the individual perspective, thereby
allowing studies on the meanings and interpretations attached to actions, objects and
events (Hennink et al, 2008:11). The methods used to connect my empirical material to
theory, is a combination of text analysis and case study.
In Australia, the concept of migration has, through political statements, policies
and history, developed several orientations. Because my theoretical framework is on
securitisation, the choice of text analysis as a method is natural as both tools stem from
an analysis of meaning. Furthermore, the Copenhagen School, recommends utilising the
analysis of political formations when discussing securitisation (Buzan et al, 1998:25).
4
1.3.1 Qualitative Textual Analysis
I have chosen a qualitative content analysis for this essay, as I have searched and selected
relevant data and information in order to develop the empirical basis for my analysis. As I
already had chosen the discourse for my essay, and which country and time period to
focus my analysis on, this method was best suited. I did not want the essence of my
analysis to be developed from shallow nor too detailed information, instead aiming for a
broad and comprehensive research in order to suit the purpose and aim for my thesis.
I have conducted a considerable search for information regarding my question,
and, in turn, performed a secondary content analysis, on the collected material. A
secondary content analysis is defined by Bryman (2004:208), as a focus on data, which
have not been collected by the researcher him/herself, in an approach and aim, which
might not have been the intention of those who first collected the information. This
definition sums up my method, as the main part of my research have been gathering,
reading and analysing material in order to gain a better understanding of my question and
for it to suit my purpose and assist in the analysis.
1.3.2
Case Study
In order to fully analyse the relationship between the state, its population and the asylum
seeker, through the discourse of securitisation, I decided to conduct a Case Study. Having
lived in Australia for eight years, I have had first hand experience of its ambivalent
relationship towards the asylum seeker, and to the domestic and international criticism of
its harsh immigration polices. As the policies surrounding asylum seekers had tightened
around the time of the 2001 election, it seemed natural to centre the analysis around this
event, focusing on the securitisation within the political and societal sector.
5
1.3.3
Sources
This thesis has adopted the use of primary as well as secondary sources. When using
definitions, numbers, statistics and policies, primary sources from the Australian
government as well as the United Nations have been used. As I already had decided my
theoretical framework to be securitisation, I chose to follow the Copenhagen School as
they constructed the discourse and have the most detailed academic sources detailing the
theory.
In the case study, I have referred to academic literature when outlining Australia’s
history, while, when using quotes from politicians and other public figures, I have used
secondary sources; always from peer reviewed journals, or in those instances the internet
have been used, the material is always from well respected sources. Materials obtained
through the Internet have been found through Google scholar, as well as EBSCO and
JSTOR, which are all respected academic online resources. In order to get a complete and
objective view of Australia’s immigrant past and present, I have also taken into
consideration a prospective bias, and have extended my reading to NGOs as well as
statistical evidence. The essay will focus on Prime Minister John Howard and
Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock in particular, as they were in charge of the policies
regarding border security and the asylum seeker during this time.
The negative consequences of using secondary sources is that I do not have the full
understanding of the authors methods, research and possible omissions (Bryman, 2004),
however, I have tried to limit these negative impacts through the use of peer reviewed
journals (always) and primary sources (when possible). The positive effects of using
secondary sources is the amount of time saved, and also an easier overview of previous
research, which has given me more time to reflect, and analyse these results for my own
purposes (Bryman, 2004).
6
1.5 Previous research
When reading essays and research on migration issues in Australia, conducted during and
previous to the 1980s, most researchers touch upon the racist ‘White Australia’ policy of
the 20th century, however, commending the nation of its (then) open and liberal policies
for accepting and integrating refugees while predicting an steady increase of numbers
accepted (see Price, 1986). These predictions, however, have not come true and currently
the country is experiencing international and national critique of the increasingly
draconian policies targeted at deterring, detaining and returning asylum seekers with
some suggesting a return to its old days of the ‘White Australia’ policy.
Sociological essays discussing the security-migration nexus generally fall into
two categories; those who are focused on identity construction on a micro-level, arguing
for the fear of an attack by the dangerous ‘other’ and its perceived threat to the national
identity. The other research category, focuses on a meta-level and often discusses the
increasing securitisation as a reaction to the perceived failure of the nation state, arguing
that it is the perception of lost control which leads to measures in order to settle the
population (see for example Caroline Nagensgast, 1994).
Research specifically focusing on the asylum seekers position in Australia; mostly
focus on its ambivalent relationship with the ‘other’ within a historical context (see
Niklos Papastergiadis, 2008: Alexander, J. Motyl, 2009: Nancy Hudson-Rodd, 2009:
Anthony Burke, 2008). This might stem from its history as an isolated young nation,
founded by immigrants, which early on, legislated harsh policies in order to keep the
nation British. There is some research which touch upon the increasing securitisation as
other than a result of a perceived threat to identity, however, these still discuss the issue
in the context of the fear of the invasion of the ‘other’ (see Nagengast, 1994). The
concept of securitisation in Australia is mostly used when discussing the process within
the economical sector (see for example J., Gyntelberg and E., Remolona, 2006).
Ian McAllister discusses the issue of asylum seeker within the context of the 2001
election. By focusing on quantitative research, he analyses the poll statistics and
juxtaposes those onto the political parties campaigns, concluding that there is a
correlation between negative rhetoric against asylum seekers and the increase of votes.
7
The analysis is centred on electoral issues and voter support, but does not delve deeper
into the consequences for the asylum seeker, however, his research is a useful tool in the
further analysis of the securitisation of the asylum seeker, and especially, while
discussing socio-economic and political facilitators.
Matt Mcdonald (2005: 2011) has written several essays on the securitisation of the
asylum seeker, discussing it in a context of the federal elections, arguing that it was
significant for the issue. The author goes on to discuss the process of securitisation of the
asylum seeker, establishing how the State, through language, convinced its audience of
the emergency, however, Mcdonald never discusses why the asylum seeker first became a
threat. There have been other essays written on the issue of ‘security’ in Australian
politics (see for example Jude McColloch, 2003 and Richard Devtak, 2004), however still
with a focus on identity and not through the theoretical framework of securitisation.
Research on Australia’s relationship with the asylum seeker is somewhat
extensive, mainly focusing on the discourse of identity. However, there does not seem to
exist a more comprehensive, in depth analysis outlining all factors surrounding the issue.
I find securitisation to be an ideal concept to use when analysing the political
environment in Australia in the mid- to late 90s; not only was the country’s population
feeling the effects of economic stagnation, but the nation was experiencing an influx of
boat people, all in the context of September 11 and an impending federal election.
1
Historical Background
Australia has been built through planned immigration, transforming the country from a
relatively trivial nation, mostly mirroring the British values and traditions, into a larger
society containing a Diaspora of not only ethnicities, but of races and religions. It is, what
Cornelis and Tsuda (2008:20) call a ‘classic country of immigration’ as it was founded,
populated and built by immigrants during modern times; “As a result, immigration is a
fundamental part of the founding myth, historical consciousness, and national identity of
these countries, and they anticipate and welcome large number of immigrants […]” (Ibid,
8
2008:20). By 2001, 6 million immigrants, 600,000 of whom were displaced persons or
refugees, had come to Australia since 1945 (Castles and Vasta, 2004). The initially
discriminatory immigration policies, admitting no non-Europeans under the policy
Immigration Act of 1901 (the so –called ‘White Australia Policy’), was abolished in 1972
and replaced by a non-discriminatory policy, meaning all different races, genders,
sexualities, religions and ethnicities are eligible to apply for visas. However, the view of
Australia as open and welcoming towards refugees changed in the mid 90s, as the
government’s new draconian policies towards, mostly, asylum seekers arriving by boat,
gained domestic and international critique, with some arguing it was breaching its
signatory 1951 Geneva Convention. To be able to analyse Australia’s ambivalent
relationship with refugees and asylum seekers, and its securitisation of migration, one
must first understand its long running history with foreigners since the nation was first
colonised.
2.1 Immigration history
Australia started out as a British colony of felons in 1788, however, in order to
successfully settle and use its agricultural and mineral resources, free settlement was
preferred. The 1850s saw a gold rush that resulted in a sharp increase in population and
required an increased labour force, which was not satisfied by British emigrants, leading
to employers calling for recruitment of non-British (mostly Chinese) workers. It was
during this time Australia’s ambivalent relationship to immigration began, as workers
became worried the new immigrants would drive down wages, accusing the ‘Yellow
Peril” for introducing disease and crime, and desiring their women. In order to satisfy the
worried population, some states took measures to exclude immigrants from China and, in
1901, the new federal Parliament passed, as one of their first laws, ‘The White Australia
Policy’, which was effective until 1971 (Castles and Vasta, 2004).
Up until World War II, immigration was fairly low, however, the war proved to
many policy makers in Australia that, in order to maintain their national sovereignty, the
country needed a larger population to keep the nation white and British, in following with
the ‘White Australia Policy’. During this time, immigration policy was less focused on
9
multiculturalism and instead aimed at following the economic and strategic
considerations at the time – the goal was to satisfy employee demand while keeping the
white, European homogeneity. However, the increase in production needed a further
increase in labourers and with the government assurance that immigrants would not take
jobs from Australians, it started recruiting manufacturing workers from Europe, however,
with a strict planned intake of settlers.
Times changed in the 70s when Australia’s boom was replaced by economic
stagnation. The security of full employment ended and the reaction by the Australian
Labour Party (ALP) was to tighten immigration, which meant a move away from ‘The
White Australia’ policy in favour of a points system, similar to that of Canada, with a
stronger focus on skilled labour (Castle and Vasta, 2004).
The first boat people to arrive in the country, since the settlers, were refugees
from Vietnam, who reached Northern Australia in the mid-70s, by then the ‘White
Australia’ restrictions had been replaced by an official proclamation of an immigration
policy that was to be non-discriminatory towards race, religion, sex and nationality
(Price, 1986). The sentiment from the, then, Government was to resettle, and up until the
90s, the political parties were, mostly, in agreement on emphasising the importance of
non-discriminatory policies regarding immigration and multiculturalism. However,
amongst the Australian population there was growing suspicion against immigrants with
some critics warning about “Asianization”, and the negative effects immigration would
have on the environment as well as employment (McAllister, 2003). These negative
sentiments arrived at new, harsher, policies against asylum seekers as a new conservative
government was elected in 1996, with John Howard as its new Prime Minister, calling for
restriction on immigration. The new Liberal-National Coalition stepped back from the
multicultural agenda while moving closer to its past days of the “White Australia’ policy.
It was also during this time that a new wave of boat people started arriving in increasing
numbers.
2.2 Immigration policy
The strict control of entries started already in 1945 when the Department of Immigration
10
became a permanent part of Australia’s political landscape. The department has since
seen several restructures and expansions, the most notable the Office of Multicultural
Affairs (OMA) in 1987, which was designed to bring multicultural issues forward,
however, with the election of John Howard’s Liberal-National coalition in 1996, OMA
was dismantled (Castle and Vasta, 2004). Issues of multiculturalism was downgraded and
returned to the (now renamed) Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
(DIMA), which saw minister Philip Rudduck in cabinet. With Ruddock in charge, DIMA
turned its focus away from multiculturalism and towards cuts in family reunions, harsher
policies for asylum seekers and a stand still in intake numbers. The department, which
since have been renamed Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs (DIMIA), has had one constant function, throughout its changes - admission
quotas in the different migration categories. During the Howard government, their duties
extended to assisting “the Coastwatch, the Australian Defence Force and the intelligence
community to detect suspected illegal entry vessels and prevent illegal landings on
Australian territory” (DIMIAb, 2013). During the late 90s, it also became the decision
maker on granting visas and refugee status’, in addition; the department carried the
responsibility for the centres with mandatory detention of those arriving without a visa
(including asylum seekers). However, the daily management of detention centres have
been outsourced to the Australiasion Correctional Management, which is a private
company, with its subsidiary based in the U.S. Besides running the camps, the company
also manages high security prisons on both continents (Hudson-Rudd, 2009).
2.3 Migration Sentiment
The public sentiments on migrants have been varied, however, public outrage over
asylum seekers have, through history, been closely related to a rise in unemployment and,
more importantly, negative statements by politicians (Castle and Vasta, 2004).
The main objections towards immigrants during the late 19th century and early
20th century was based in economic instability, with the general population fearing for
their jobs; a fear that spilled into other areas of life with some accusing the, mainly,
Chinese immigrants for other worries, a fear that eventually led to the ‘White Australia
11
Policy’ (Price, 1986). However, as employment surged in the following decades, these
anti-immigration sentiments waned, especially among employers who were in need of a
larger workforce. During Australia’s economic stagnation in the 70s, the nation also saw
an increase in Vietnamese asylum seekers, which led to an increase of expressions of
anti-immigration, however, the government was in agreement about emphasising the nondiscriminatory policies in a bid to calm the worried public.
When discussing the negative sentiments towards immigrants during Australia’s
first decades as a nation, one should also note, there have also been some governmental
groups, NGOS and lobbyists that have come together in order to push for a more liberal
stance and a more humane treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. This occurred first
in the 60s and 70s when NGOs started to emerge, as part of the expansion of the welfare
state, worried that Australia was returning to its racist past of the ‘White Australia
Policy’. Furthermore, according to public polls carries out through the 50s and up until
the 80s, a majority of the Australian population supported immigration (including asylum
seekers and refugees) (Castle and Vasta, 2004). This brief period of solidarity towards
refugees eventually waned and, as a reaction to the increasing globalisation of economy
and people, a new sentiment grew: one that was based on what potential negative effects
this would have on Australia, and, thereby, created a backdrop for the support of new
nationalist party agendas.
In the late 80s and early 90s, unemployment continued to rise and so did antiimmigration views, with polls showing a slight increase of public negativity towards
Asian immigration (Castle and Vasta, 2004). As a result of Australia’s stagnating
economy and an increasingly unhappy population, new political parties such as One
Nation Party (with Pauline Hanson as leader) as well as the (then) opposition leader John
Howard, gained popularity as they argued for a decreased number of approved visas for
Asians who, they argued, were the culprits (In Faist, 2002; McDonald, 2011, Castle and
Vasta, 2004). However, China responded with debates and reports highlighting and
questioning the issue, which in turn, influenced prospective investments and exports, as
well as potential students, a debate that eventually forced the Australian Government to
create a legislation condemning racism. During the late 90s, there was an influx of boat
people, and, faced by a worried public, Howard responded by tightening immigration
12
policy towards those he claimed to represent the biggest threat to the nations interest:
boat people, which had seen an increase of 345% compared to the following years
(DIMIA, 2002).
The winner of the 1996 election was the National-Liberal Coalition, which,
during its campaign, had pushed the agenda of stricter control of asylum seekers. After its
instalment, new, harsher policies enforced by their leader John Howard, had echoes even
outside Australia, with UNHCR and NGOs accusing the Parliament for breaching the
signatory 1951 Geneva Convention.
2.4 The Tampa incident
In August of 2001, 525 asylum seekers were picked up by a Norwegian freight ship
outside the northern coast of Australia (DIMIA, 2002). Their boat had started sinking in
the Pacific Ocean, and the MV Tampa had heard the distress call, rescuing the asylum
seekers who mainly had come form Iraq and Afghanistan (DIMIA 2001). Being in close
proximity to Australia’s Christmas Island, with passengers in need of medical care, the
ship headed for land. However, the Australian Government banned Tampa from landing
the asylum seekers, instead offering large payments to Papua New Guinea and Nauru to
accept them. There was a stand off as Tampa was anchored close to Christmas Island all
while generating media debates and international diplomacy. After a three-day standoff,
The Master of Tampa eventually decided to defy the Australian Government as he argued
that the asylum seekers were in need of urgent medical assistance that he was unable to
supply. This unleashed a violent response involving military vessels intercepting the boat
and the navy aggressively boarding it, placing the asylum seekers in the detention centre
on Nauru.
Through a social constructionist paradigm, this essay will argue that the securitization of
asylum seekers, especially boat people, was constructed through a securitization within
the political (threat to sovereignty and laws), economical (threat to nation’s economy)
and societal sector (threat to the collective identity), formulated through the language of
13
the state and facilitated by current socio-economic circumstances as well as Australia’s
history of fearing the ‘other’.
2
Theoretical Framework
My theoretical framework will be based around the theory of ‘securitisation’ developed
by the Copenhagen school for Security Studies, and outlined in the book Security: a new
framework for analysis (1998). The authors, and professors, Buzan, de Wildes and
Waever, develop a theory of securitisation which will assist me in analysing the current
security-migration nexus, focusing on Buzan’s notion of sectoral analysis and Waever’s
concept of securitisation.
Furthermore, as a complement and background to this theory; the essay will use
Blum’s (1996) theory on panic, focusing on the concept of Institutional Panic, in order to
further explore the role of the state in the construction of the asylum seeker as an
existential threat.
When discussing identity, this essay refers to the theory within social
constructionist paradigm, a paradigm that put emphasis on the flexible and ever changing
construction of national identity, which will be discussed with the help of Abdelal et al
(2006) and Vas Dev (2009). The nation state will also be discussed within this paradigm,
using Anderson (2006) and Nagengast (1994) to explain the role of the nation in identity
construction, but also in explaining its overarching function and purpose.
2.1 Securitization
In the introduction of their book on securitisation, Buza, Waever and De Wildes (1998),
state that they aim to create a complement to those who have questioned the dominative,
traditionalist military and State focus in the conceptualisation of security (ibid, 1998:1).
This narrow view had been conceptualised during the Cold War and the idea of a
common enemy, however, with the end of the nuclear threat, and the rise of terrorism, a
14
novel and undefined threat emerged, threatening not only lives, but also identities. In a
bid to expand the scope of securitisation, the authors adopt a more diversified schema, in
which securitisation also can take place within an environmental (a human-planetary
nexus), economical (trade-nexus), political (governing, authority, respect), and societal
(collective identity) sector. These sectors function along side the military sector (Buza et
al, 1998), together explaining an increasing securitisation, however, as this essay will not
be focusing on the environment I will not explore that sector any further. The authors
further suggest two ways of analysing the interplay of these sectors; Homogeneous
complexes - the ‘classic’ security complex, wherein, the sectors contain specific ways of
interaction, i.e. identity in societal complexes. Heterogeneous complexes - a complex
where sectors and its actors are fluid, a state is therefore not only confined to the political
sector but instead able to interact in the societal sector (Buza et at, 1998). Lastly, Buza et
al (1998) stress the importance of placing the security dynamic in these sectors on a
global, local or regional location, taking into consideration the ‘facilitation conditions’
(cause-effect) and ‘the process of securitisation in itself’ (when cause-effect is
ambivalent).
2.1.1 Security and the threat
The Copenhagen School argue that, to explain what constitutes a threat to international
security, one must look towards the traditional military-political understanding, which
relate security to survival (Buza et al, 1998:21). They further argue that the
transformation happens in the moment an issue gets classified as an existential threat,
towards a specific actor or agent (traditionally, but not exclusively, the State). This, in
turn creates a mechanism in which the threat justifies extraordinary measures in order to
protect the object/agent, legitimising a mobilising of the state, and, in turn; the use of
force, even such force that break traditional laws (Ibid, 1998:106).
The definition of existential threat, its referent object and the following
emergency measures are, is not universal, as it is dependent on what sector and level it is
analysed. In the political sector, the referent object is normally the State, and the
existential threat is usually a questioning of its sovereignty, through the questioning of its
15
legitimacy and authority, but also a challenging of norms and procedures. The existential
threats in the societal sector consists of those directed at identity, a threat which Buzan
(1998:120) argues consists mainly of immigration, as it introduces a change in the
composition of the community, meaning, a threat to the collective identity. In the military
sector, the threat is usually towards the State, with its destruction and disablement as the
threat.
2.1.2 The process of securitisation
Building from a social constructionist paradigm, Buzan et al, argue that for the process of
securitisation to be successful, it has to be accepted by an audience, meaning, that a
successful securitisation is not dependent on wether the subject for the process was a
threat to an objects survival, it merely implies that someone successfully constructed it as
such. According to Waever of the Copenhagen School (1995), the process is a “speech
act”, within the Austinian understanding of the concept. He argues that the idea of
securitisation as conceptualised through speech; “In this usage, security is not of interest
as a sign that refers to something more real; the utterance itself is the act. By saying the
word, something is done” (Weaver, 1995: 55). These speech-acts are carried out by, socalled, securitised actors who can be politicians, popular figures or lobbyists, and who
argue (successfully and unsuccessfully) for something that they believe poses a threat to
their community, civilisation or nation (Buzan et al, 1998:40). A successful securitisation
depends on facilitators; external (the social capital of the securitizing actor and the
character of the threat) and internal (the language used; security, emergency). The
process of securitisation is complete when the audience has accepted the issue as a threat,
with the authors putting emphasis on securitisation as a dialectic process between the
actor and its audience; “Thus, security (as well all politics) ultimately rests neither with
objects nor with subjects but among the subjects” (Buzan, Weaver and de Wilde, 1998:
31). They further, highlight the importance of the use of language stating that;
“Traditionally, by saying “security”, a state representative declares an emergency
condition, thus claiming the right to use whatever means necessary to block a threatening
development” (Ibid, 1998:21). Once an issue has become securitised, it is removed from
16
the political realm, and is thereby no longer an issue of democratic decision making;
signifying a move from ‘normal politics’ to ‘panic politics’ (Buzan et al, 1998:35).
2.1.3
Desecuritization
According to Waever, once an issue has become securitized, and deemed an existential
threat, it shifts outside the realm of democratic decision-making (1995). From this point,
the threat itself, and the ways in which its confronted, is made normative, a processed
described as desecuritization. Through this process, the issue is brought back from the
‘panic politics’, where it has belonged to elites, back into ‘normal politics’, a process
described as “the shifting of issues out of the emergency mode and into the normal
bargaining process of the political sphere” (Buzan et al, 1998:4). Finally, the Copenhagen
School argue, in contrary to the traditionalist view, that security is not something
desirable and positive. Securitization of a particular issue leads to a collapse of
democratic processes and therefore it should not be idealised. Instead, as a long-term tool,
desecuritization is preferred, returning issues to the ‘normal politics’ sphere where it
again becomes a part of the regular political process.
Securitization is the process where, through speech-acts and audience acceptance, certain
issues become deemed existential threats, and thereby handled as such. Furthermore, the
term security and threat, is not universal, instead meaning something different to different
actors, within different sectors, regions and times. The focus in the process of
securitisation is the construction of the existential threat, through a language of threat and
security, spoken by politicians and authority figures, in order to get a specific response.
Once the threat is accepted as a security issue, it becomes an emergency and moved into
the real of ‘panic politics’, solved by elite politicians, who work in secrecy to solve the
issue by any means possible. Through a normative process, it then returns to the realm of
’normal politics’. The goal of the Copenhagen school is outlined as follows:
“Based on a clear idea of the nature of security, securitization studies aims to
gain an increasingly precise understanding of who securitizes, on what issues
17
(threats), for whom (referent objects), why, with what results and, not least,
under what conditions (what explains when securitization is successful).”
(Buzan et al 1998: 32)
2.1.4 Critique
Most critique directed at the Copenhagen School and its theoretical framework
Securitization, highlight the issue of its normative limits within the concept of
desecuritization. McDonald (2011), discusses the theory in the context to the Australian
Federal Election in 2010, arguing that the framework under-theorizes debate and political
deliberation in ‘normal politics’. During the 2010 election, politicians encouraged debate
surrounding the issue of asylum seekers, something which McDonald generates questions
regarding securitization, as it claims the threat is created through authority figures, not
through a dialectic process with its audience. Other researchers draw on this critique,
extending it to the Copenhagen School’s narrow view of the audience role in accepting
the threat as well as the construction of security, ignoring images and material practices
in the securitization process (see for example Vladimir Sulovic, 2010) However, as this
essay does not contain a discourse analysis, these criticisms will not be analyzed in
greater depth.
2.2 Institutional Panic
Panic, as understood through a sociological discourse, is regarded as an (almost)
automatic response to a situation that is so overpowering that it limits the actor’s
response. In his essay on fear and panic, Blum (1996) builds on this notion, extending on
Durkheim’s normalisation of panic as a phenomenon, bounded in any and every part of
collective life, where it arouses desperation. This desperation; ”always concerns the
inability to influence those conditions that compel us to relinquish a concern with the
valuable and desirable for the sake of survival, self-interest and materiality” (Blum,
1996:675). Blum (1996) discusses panic as a response when faced by a fear and limited
18
options, a mechanism hopeful of a result of fearlessness, operative in all realms of social
life.
The fear of the dangerous ‘other, as it threatens our social security but also more
ontological threats such as borders and national identity, creates an emergency with Blum
(1996) adding that most major institutions in today’s society run on such a logic of panic.
It is during these times institutions invent “as their ethical requirements the task of
satisfying emergency conditions […]”, regardless of what the truth may be. “The
emergency is thus presented as fear” (Dumm, 1987) and provides a necessary reaction to
danger, which disables and incapacitates any other action, giving “reasonable cause” for a
“situational” ethics on the basis of temporary circumstances that may arise (Blum, 1996).
I find this theory to be of use when exploring the reasoning behind the Australian
state’s portrayal of the asylum seeker as the dangerous ‘other’, and find it a useful
complement to the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitisation and the existential
threat.
2.3 The Nation, Identity and National Identity
The general, sociological view of national identity is that it is constructed through the
subjective awareness of its members thereby constructing a collective will and sense of
sameness (see for example Nagengast, 1994, Vas Dev, 2009 and Andreas, 2000).
Nagengast (1994) argue that the main aims of modern, post-Enlightenment, states to be
homogenisation and assimilation, as well as a communital consensus on what kinds of
people are to be included in this narrow political and ethnic range. This consensus is
created through political and social institutions as well as cultural organizations and its
activities (Nagengast, 1994). The nation serves a purpose, as its collective identity
reinforces the community within the borders, furthermore, this collective identity is
strengthened through processes of exclusion; “othering” (Vas Dev, 2009, Abdelal et al,
2006), based on referencing “self” in comparison to other collective identities (Abdelal et
al, 2006), such as Kristevas (1992) dangerous ‘other’.
The identity of Australia is primarily one where Anglo-Australianess is valued
(Kampmark, 2006), an identity associated with committing to the rule of law, an
19
appreciation for democracy, equality between genders as well as the dignity of the
individual (Vas Dev, 2009), values that have been reiterated through past in furthering
and exploiting the fear of the dangerous ‘other’. When analysing the demonising of the
asylum seeker, these theories will be useful.
2.3.1 The dangerous ‘other’
The ‘other’ is something, which is undefinable; an abjection, which always lurks in the
background, existing outside our reality where it does not cease to challenge us (Kristeva,
1992). Kristeva (1992) describes this ‘other’, as being structured through its
unfamiliarity, that its lack of identity, system and order means it can only be experienced
as something instead of me. Most importantly, the ‘other’ causes not only repulsion but
also fear as it acknowledges the ‘self’ to be in perpetual danger. Through this fear
develops an emergency, as we perceive ourselves in need of protection from the
dangerous ‘other’.
These theories will be especially useful in discussing the role of politicians and the state
in the stricter policies towards asylum seekers. In all, these theories will assist me in
explaining the securitisation of migration in Australia, discussing the role of politicians in
presenting the asylum seeker as a dangerous ‘other’, constructing a threat towards a
referent object (the population and the State), which as a result, needs to be protected .
4
Analysis
This section will begin with a brief introduction of the socio-economic and political
circumstances of Australia during the mid 90s, conditions that were important to those
changes in migration policies, which later would start the securitisation of the asylum
seeker. Furthermore, by referencing history, the essay will aim to illuminate the
foundation of the fear of the invader. Within the securitisation framework, such
20
predisposed conditions of anxiety can be viewed as external and internal facilitators, in
convincing the audience of an existential threat within the political, military as well as the
societal sector.
I will place considerate attention on the concept of ‘speech-act’, and the changing
language in depicting the asylum seeker, using the context of the federal election of 2001.
The essay will analyse the role of the state in creating an existential threat through
furthering the negative sentiments of the population, drawing on Australia’s past and
present fears of the immigrant, while analysing specifically the heightened fear of
terrorism following September 11.
I will discuss how an influx of asylum seekers, in the context of high
unemployment, changed from the perception of the nation state’s failure to control
homogeneity, to a welcome scapegoat and a popular election promise and, eventually, a
normative way of justifying an increasing border security. I will argue that through socioeconomic and political circumstances, the securitisation of migration, at the core,
stemmed from nothing more than opportunistic politicians feeding on modern fears of the
‘other’, arisen through external circumstances and furthered by the state. I will discuss
the securitisation of the asylum seeker in three sectors; the political sector, the societal
and the military sector, organising my analysis in order of events, leading up to the
election. Finally, I will summarize the securitisation of the asylum seeker, concluding
whether it was successful or not.
4.1 The change in perception
Anti-immigration sentiment in Australia is not new, since its colonisation, the fear of a
foreign invader has been a constant throughout its history, however, during the last
couple of decades there has emerged a migration-security nexus. During the influx of
Vietnamese boat people in the 70s, the responses by the government was to resettle, and
to focus its migration politics on multiculturalism as a way of preventing the negative
sentiments towards the asylum seekers. By the 90s, this sentiment had changed, when the
country experienced their second wave of boat people (mainly from Iraq and
21
Afghanistan), the asylum seekers were met with SAS troops, intercepted and detained in
detention camps outside of Australia’s borders. What had changed?
4.1.1
The 90s emergency
The late 90s saw a change in Australia; the economy had stagnated and the nation was
experiencing another influx of Asian immigration and boat people, the latter had not only
found new modes and routes of transportation, but also increased by 325 percent in two
years (DIMIA, 2001). By international standards, the numbers were low, however, as a
country known for its strict procedures, policies, and particularly for its control regarding
intakes, this increase in numbers made headlines in the media.
There was a rise in anti-immigration sentiments, especially towards Chinese,
explained by a resenting middle-class who was experiencing an increase in
unemployment, lower wages and living standards (Brett, 1997 and Castle and Vasta,
2008). The sitting government was losing votes and a return of the Liberal-National
Coaltition party was highly unlikely as the opposition was leading with a comfortable 13
percentage points (McAllister, 2003). Australia’s discontented population was accusing
John Howard’s‘ cabinet of disregarding the negative impact of the Asian immigrant on
the economy and further, not being able to control the growing number of boat people.
As a result, votes were going to the opposition and far-right parties with the nationalist
One Nation Party, lead by Pauline Hansen, gaining in popularly by arguing for a stop to
further immigration. John Howard’s Coalition party was headed for a loss in the election,
the issue of immigration, threatening its sovereignty by questioning the control of the
State. Moreover, Australia was in danger of losing its lucrative Asian trade, expanding a
political issue into the economical sector.
In order to settle the worrying Australian middle-class, regain its authority and
keep its profitable Asian market, Prime Minister John Howard targeted policies towards
boat people, in an attempt to signal control, thereby framing them as a threat. The process
of securitisation of the asylum seeker had arisen from an institutional panic, wherein the
sitting government was facing a loss of authority, as a result of the issue of immigration.
22
The extraordinary measures were focused on an increased control through legislations on
stricter border security, responding to the population’s fear of the constructed dangerous
‘other’. Fear had to be controlled and even eliminated, in order to survive (Faist
2002:11).
Although, there was no evidence supporting the statement that the influx of boat
people, nor the Asian immigration, was causing any considerable effects on Australian
economy, the desperation based in Coalition survival, justified framing them as a threat
(In Castle and Vasta, 2004). It should also be noted that the fear of the ‘attack’ by the
refugee was somewhat disproportionate as Australia only holds 0,5 applicants per 1000
inhabitants, furthermore, no group of non-British origin have ever made up more than 1
percent of Australia’s population (Hudson-Rodd, 2008). The convenience of naming
immigration, as the explanation of unemployment, is that there is no need for concrete
evidence as empirical evidence outlining the effect from immigration is hard to establish
(Faist, 2002:11).
4.2 The first attack
The securitisation of asylum seekers started within the political sector, as migration
constituted a threat against the State’s sovereignty and authority, which in turn caused an
emergency or an institutional panic. Through the state’s justification of survival,
emergency measures were implemented through tougher legislations regarding border
security, in order to regain control. A shift in language began, as those arriving by boat
were deemed “illegal”, with Immigration Minister Ruddock calling them ‘queue
jumpers’, who were stealing visas from ‘genuine’ refugees, further arguing that these
were not only illegal, but also a threat to the sovereignty of Australia, stating that
measures to deter boat-people were needed (Faist, 2002; Castle and Vasta, 2004:
Costello, 2002, Ruddock, 2001)
As a result of the political and societal securitisation of asylum seekers, the government
had also created a situation where protection by the State was needed. In 1999, Prime
Minister John Howard announced that an increase of $124 million dollars was to be
23
directed towards the Coastal Surveillance Task Force for “improving Coastwatch,
Customs and Navy capabilities to detect pursue, intercept and search boats carrying
‘unauthorized’ arrivals” (DIMIA, 2001). By using, what Sharon Pickering calls a
‘vocabulary of war” the state was furthering the idea about boat people as an existential
threat, justifying measures which had to be implemented in order to protect the
population.
Metaphors of war justify the need to repel whatever is hostile and threatening.
"Immigration controls" become matters of "national security"; a "national
emergency" requires "full deployment" of the armed forces on a "prime defence
mission" to "detect incursions". (Pickering, 2000)
By using rhetoric such as ‘illegal’ and ‘non-genuine’ refugees, the State was furthering
the securitisation process of the asylum seeker, convincing its audience of the legitimacy
of the threat, creating a mechanism wherein extraordinary measures are justified in order
to protect the population.
However, as Wayne and Tsuda (2008) point out, whether this is policy response
called for by the masses or whether it is politicians riding on the wind of success is not
always apparent. It was true, however, that John Howard was receiving increasing
support after the new policies, with some arguing it was happening due to the fact that he
was taking an advantage of a fear the nation experienced since 1788, the threat of the
invading foreigner (in McAllister, 2004: Castle and Vasta, 2008).
4.3 Australia’s fear of the ‘other’
Historically, the immigrant has frequently been portrayed as a threat, as it is a stranger in
multiple aspects; through appearance, culture as well as religious beliefs. The immigrant,
in the role of the dangerous ‘other’, threatens ‘our’ housing, jobs and borders but, as Faist
(2002) adds, also “more far-reaching ontological threats to the borders of sovereign
states, bodily security, moral values, collective identities and cultural homogeneity” (ibid,
2002:7). As Australia’s immigration history proves, immigrants has frequently been
24
portrayed as threats to, not only jobs, but also the collective identity, with the example of
the anti-Chinese legislation of the early 20th century as an instrument towards not only
securing employment, but more importantly, keeping the nations homogeneity. This is a
fear that has been furthered through past and recent debates regarding immigration and
asylum seekers. (Vas Dev, 2009: Abdelal et al, 2006).
I would like to argue that the Australian national identity is fairly new, however,
since 1788, one can ascertain a clear dialectic process between state and population in the
construction of identity; an identity strengthened by ‘othering’ through its immigration
legislations. The identity of Australia is primarily one where Anglo-Australianess is
valued (Kampmark, 2006), an identity associated with committing to the rule of law, an
appreciation for democracy, equality between genders as well as the dignity of the
individual (Vas Dev, 2009), values that have been reiterated through the immigration
debate. In furthering and exploiting the fear of the dangerous ‘other’ through language,
and juxtaposing this fear onto boat people, the state also had to harden its asylum seeker
policies in order to make its own population feel more secure (Hudson-Rudd, 2009:186).
The securitisation of the asylum seeker grew out of an institutional panic, was
formulated through a shift in language, and facilitated externally by the socio-economical
and political circumstances, and internally by Australia’s history of fearing the ‘other’. In
order to convince its audience of the validity of the threat, the issue was redirected
towards the societal sector, constructing an image of the asylum seeker as a threat
towards Australia’s collective identity.
4.4 The Tampa Incident
Leading up to the election in 2001, an institutional panic arose from a threat to
sovereignty and the economy, causing an emergency, which gave ‘reasonable cause’
(survival) for ‘situational ethics’ (targeting the asylum seeker) (Blum, 1996).
During the Tampa incident, the sense of an immediate existential threat was
encapsulated in the military response directed at the freight ship carrying wounded
asylum seekers. Prime Minister John Howard, calling them ‘unauthorised’, when he
stated that the passengers of Tampa would never set foot on Australian soil, instead
25
sending them to detention camps on Nauru (Castle and Vasta, 2004). Hitherto, IMAs
detected in Australian waters had been taken to Australia and placed in detention centres.
After the Tampa episode, new harsher policies in order to deter, isolate and finally,
exclude asylum seekers were implemented. Although these new draconian policies came
under severe criticism, from both sides of politics as well as internationally, polls during
this time showed that the majority of Australians supported the refusal of those asylum
seekers onboard Tampa and how PM John Howard had handled the situation (Betts,
2001:42, in McAllister, 2004).
As a response to the Tampa affair, John Howard developed the Pacific
Solution policy, legislations targeting asylum seekers, justified through government
rhetoric highlighting the characterisation of asylum seekers as ‘illegal’ using language
such as ‘border security’ (Hugo, 2002), justifying the changes by the increase of IMAs,
by a change in nationality of those arriving (from Asian to Middle Eastern) and the
increase of people smuggling (Ruddock, 2001). The ‘Pacific Solution’ was a re-drawing
of Australia’s borders, with policies of intercepting unauthorised vessels (usually by the
Navy) and transporting asylum seekers back to sending countries or detention centres on
Nauru and Papua New Guinea, which by then was getting paid by the Australian
Government to hold its detainees (Phillips, 2012) – a backlash against more humanitarian
polices aimed at refugees. The securitisation of asylum seekers had shifted into a military
sector, formulating a threat to national security through language such as ‘border
security’ and ‘illegals’.
4.5 The terror-migration connection
When the events of September 11 happened, John Howard was in Washington. During a
speech in the days following, he highlighted the positive relationship between the U.S
and Australia, declaring his and the Nation’s support for a war on terrorism (National
Archive museum, 2014).
Prior to the terror attack on New York, the Coalition had decided to impose
harder restrictions on asylum seekers, making it the key, issue for their campaign. After
the event, the war on terror entered the political arena, entangling with the issue of
26
migration. This was possible because of three components; first, rhetoric, second, through
the increase of boat people with Islamic backgrounds, and finally, through the increasing
feeling of insecurity, in Australia and elsewhere, resulting in issues of security and
integrity of borders becoming popular amongst voters.
Some politicians and public persons, building on the anti-immigration sentiments
following the Tampa incident, suggested (unfounded) that some of the asylum seekers
arriving in Australia by boat could be terrorists, or ‘sleeper-cells’ (Mares, 2002).
At the height of the election campaign and on the trail of the Tampa incident and
September 11, Prime Minister John Howard reacted to an image of children of asylum
seekers being thrown overboard (an image which later was proved to be false) by stating
that ‘I certainly don’t want people of that type in Australia, I really don’t’ (Phillips,
2012). The scandal later got named “Child over board’, and highly criticized, however, it
clearly demonstrates the state’s construction of the asylum seeker as something different,
something that clearly did not fit the Australian values or way of life. The asylum seeker
was someone who was not like them, and therefore a threat to their collective identity –
the dangerous ‘other’ who they had feared since 1788.
These views were echoed in majority of the public and the fear of terror being
close was made real with politicians highlighting the fact that the most asylum seekers
arriving by boat during this time were from Iraq and Afghanistan, which were the
countries implicated in the attack of September 11. Furthermore, the government
continuously released statistics of boats intercepted and detainees on Christmas Island
and Nauru, which, in correlation with the reported negative behaviour of asylum seekers,
justified the need for these measures. The state was using imagery and language to depict
the ‘unauthorized’ arrival of asylum-seekers as a security issue, suggesting that they
constituted a threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Australia as well as its
Anglo-Australian values.
After September 11, most Western States intensified their border security in fear
of terrorism, justifying the implementation of stricter visa issuing, immigration policies
and the narrowing of refugee rights, with national security and these measures were
called for by the mass public (Cornelis and Tsuda, 2008). It became clear that the new
aim and main role for nation states was to protect its citizens from the threat of terror and
27
violence, merging military and civil forces in order to maintain its borders secure and, by
that, turning public safety into a warlike enterprise and a proving ground for the current
political leaders in a bid to satisfy the populations need for real results. In return, these
responses reinforced the connection between migration and security, “dramatizing a
publicly convenient link between international migration and security” (Faist, 2002:7).
As the threat of terror loomed and at a time when the nation-state was losing its
stewardship, it became increasingly important to “bolster symbolically the state’s claim
to territorial command and stewardship of a unified (post)national body” (Andreas, 2000)
4.6 The 2001 Federal Election
The political campaigning in 2001 was unusual. While previous campaigns had seen
politicians discussing domestic matters such as health care and school funding, this year
instead focused on border protection and national security. During his election speech in
October 2001, John Howard warned that there needed to measures in order to handle the
new dangers facing the modern world, including Australia, adding:
“National security is therefore about a proper response to terrorism. It’s
also about having a far sighted, strong, well thought out defence policy. It is
also about having an uncompromising view about the fundamental right of
this country to protect its borders. […]But we will decide who comes to this
country and the circumstances in which they come.”
(The Museum of Australian Democracy, 2014)
On November 1, 2001, the Liberal-National coalition, who had, previous to Tampa, been
lagging behind in polls, won the election and re-instated John Howard as the Prime
Minister. In 2002 the budget was announced with AUD2,872 million budgeted for border
security (Costello, 2002), an increase of AUD1,2 billion since the previous year (Castle
and Vasta, 2008). AUD219 million of this was spent on constructing off-shore detention
centers, according to Treasurer Peter Costello, in order to secure Australia’s border from
the potential threat of terrorism (Costello, 2002).
28
International migration in Australia has quite often been connected to dystopias of a
dangerous ‘other’, threatening women, jobs and borders. In the wake of September 11,
and Australia’s increasingly uncontrollable ‘attack’ of boat people, there developed a,
publicly convenient, link between border security and migration. Furthermore, the issue
of migration is not only connected to larger meta-issues such as military and threat, but
also, more importantly, economic, social, political and cultural issues (Faist, 2002). By
playing on the fear of the ‘other’ (deeming the asylum seeker a could-be-terrorist), and
responding in a way that is expected by the public (harsher immigration policies),
politicians, such as John Howard and Phillip Ruddock, established and furthered
xenophobic tendencies, justified by the threat of the asylum seeker. The constructed
existential threat was able to justify the way in which the Australian Government
implemented immigration policies in order to bypass the United Nations Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees signed by the country in 1951. According to the
Government, the ‘Pacific Strategy’ was a reaction to the increase in asylum seekers and
was justified as being in the interest of national security with the rise in IMAs, the
increase in people smuggling and the change in nationality from, mainly Asian, to those
of Middle Eastern origins (Hugo, 2002). However, as there were no empirical evidence to
support the need for protection, instead the government relied on statistics from detention
centres, statistics that were growing as a result from the harsher policies. After the
election, the Coalition government institutionalised this system of border protection as
the corner stones of its asylum policy. Through a shift away from ‘panic politics’,
securitisation led to a negative result for asylum seekers, and desecuritization saw
previously contended policies, become normative.
5
Summary and concluding remarks
The fear of dying, as a result of terror and violence, became a political instrument after
the events of September 11, and a strengthening of borders became the strategy to invoke
security in order to justify the need for protection from the asylum seeker. Through the
29
measures in which the nation tried to protect its borders (often with the justification that it
was responding to a worried public), by deterring, isolating and confining boat people,
the attack of the asylum seeker became even more obvious. Australia, which receives a
very small portion of the world asylum seekers by global standards, seem to panic by the
first sight of a boat, imagining a dystopia where they are no longer in control of their
nation.
In this essay I have argued that a successful securitisation of the asylum seeker
occurred in three sectors. Within the political sector, voters accused John Howard’s
government of not being able to control the ‘attack’ on its borders classifying the issue as
an existential threat to the State’s sovereignty and authority. There was a securitisation in
the societal sector, wherein the asylum seeker was classified as a threat to the collective
identity, images and rhetoric underlining its dissimilarities to the Australian values and
morals. Finally, after the events of September 11, and the increasing insecurity and fear
of terrorism, the securitisation occurred in the military sector, classifying the asylum
seeker as a threat to the national security of Australia.
These processes have been facilitated internally and externally. Firstly, by the
believability of the asylum seeker as a threat as it readily fits the negative stereotype of
the ‘other’, which has frequented Australian immigration history and has often been
connected with international migration (Faist, 2002: Buzan et al, 1998). Portraying the
stranger as a threat to, not only borders and economic security, but also larger meta-issues
such as collective identities and moral values. Lately, the greatest threat to Australia’s
borders have become the ‘illegal’ asylum seeker, with the fear of this “Other” growing
stronger in tact with the reported increasing number of boat-people attacking its borders.
Second, by the use of language the process of securitization has been facilitated
internally. Politicians have securitized the asylum seeker using rhetoric, convincing their
audience of the dangerous ‘other’ using language such as security, ‘queue jumper’ and
‘could-be’ terrorist when discussing the issue.
In trying to understand why Australia sees the asylum seeker as a threat, one must not
underestimate the influence of the State, as polls and elections clearly show a correlation
between politicians negative sentiments regarding the refugee and the public sentiments
30
towards the same issues. The essay has found a worrying pattern of issues of international
responsibility being taken advantage of by populistic political parties, in order to gain
respect, control and ultimately a position of authority. Although it is not always clear in
which ways these correlations work, one must note that the State does carry a
responsibility towards its population in discerning fact from fiction, especially when what
is discussed is that who is the most vulnerable – the asylum seeker. The framework of
securitisation might be able to aid in processes where desecuritization is needed, shifting
issues, like that of the asylum seeker, from ‘panic politics’ back into the realm of
democratic processes, and by that, reducing the mechanisms that justify the use of force,
and the breech of human rights, in order to protect its population.
.
References:
Abdelal, R., Herrera, Y., Johnston, A. och McDermott, R. 2006. Identity as a Variable.
[online] Perspective on politics. Vol. 4(4), pp. 695-711 Available at:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=FB454C2E314779743FB
2DB5BA8991CBD.journals?fromPage=online&aid=559512 [Accessed 18 Mars 2014]
Betts, K. 2001. Boatpeople and Public Opinion in Australia. People and Place, Vol 9(4),
pp. 34-48
Andreas, P. 2000. Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press
Blum, A. 1996. Panic and Fear: On the Phenomenology of Desperation. [online] The
Sociological Quarterly. Vol. 37(4), pp. 673-698 Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121410 [Accessed 20 October 2013]
31
Brett, J. 1997. John Howard, Pauline Hansen and the Politics of Grievience. In The
resurgence of Racism. Gray, G. and Winter, C., (Ed) Melbourne: Monash Papers in
History
Bryman, A. 2004. Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder. Slovenien: Korotan Ljubljana.
Castles, S., and Vasta, E. 2004. Australia: New Conflicts around Old Dilemmas. In: W.
Cornelis, T. Tsuda, P. Martin and J. Hollifield, ed., Controlling Immigration: A Global
Perspective, 1st ed. Stanford: Stanford Press, Ch 4
Price, C., A. 1986. Refugees and Mass Migration: Australia. [online] International
Migration Review, Vol. 20 (1), pp. 81-86. New York: The Center for Migration Studies
of New York, Inc. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2545686 [Accessed 7 May
2014]
Cornelis, W. and Tsuda, T. 2008. Controlling Immigration: The limits of Government
Intervention. In: W. Cornelis, T. Tsuda, P. Martin and J. Hollifield, ed., Controlling
Immigration: A Global Perspective, 1st ed. Stanford: Stanford Press, pp.18-34
Costello, P. 2002. 2002 Federal Budget Speech. [online] Transcipt from House of
Representatives. Available at: http://australianpolitics.com/2002/05/14/costello-federalbudget-speech.html
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). 2001.
People Smuggling, [online] Fact Sheet 74. DIMIA: Canberra. Available at:
http://sievx.com/articles/psdp/DIMIAFactSheet73.pdf [Accessed 13 March 2014]
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) b. 2002.
Joint Committee Of Public Accounts And Audit Review Of Australia’s Quarantine
Function: Submission From The Department Of Immigration And Multicultural And
Indigenous Affairs. [online] Canberra: Parliament House. Available at:
32
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:A_X_Ovt0EpIJ:www.aph.gov.a
u/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees%3Furl%3Dj
cpaa/aqis/submissions/sub23.pdf+DIMIA+function&cd=1&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se
Faist, T. 2006. Extension du domaine de la lutte: International Migration and Security
Before and After 11 September 2001. In: A. Messina and G. Lahav, ed., The Migration
reader: exploring politics and policy, 1st ed. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc,
pp. 609-615
Hennink, M. Hutter, I och Bailey, A. 2010. Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE
publications
Hudson-Rodd, Nancy. 2009. Australia Limits Refuge for the Refugee. Tamara Journal.
Vol 8 (8), pp. 186-205
Hugo, G. 2002. Australian Immigration Policy: The Significance of the Events of
September 11. [online] International Migration Review, Vol 26(1), pp. 37-40. Available
at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149527 [Accessed 13 March]
Kristeva, Julia. 1982. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. NY: Columbia UP
Mares, P. 2002. Reporting Australia’s Asylum Seeker ‘Crisis’ [online] Australian Policy
Online. Available at: http://apo.org.au/commentary/reporting-australias-asylum-seekercrisis
McAllister, I. 2003. Border Protection, the 2001 Australian Election and the Coalition
Victory. Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 38(3), pp. 445-463
McDonald, M. 2011. Deliberation and Resusitation: Australia, Asylum Seekers and the
Normative Limits of the Copenhagen School. [online] Australian Journal of Political
Science, Vol 46(2), pp. 281-295 Available at:
33
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ludwig.lub.lu.se/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=91df5c758235-4ae4-b59d-340093524535%40sessionmgr4005&vid=4&hid=4111 [Accessed 14
April 2014]
Nagensgast, C. 1994. Violence, Terror, and the Crisis of the State. Annual Review of
Anthropology. Vol 23, pp. 109-136
National Archives of Australia. 2014. Australias Prime Ministers: John Howard. [online]
Australian Government: Canberra. Available at:
http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/timeline/results.aspx?type=pm&pm=John%20Howard
[Accessed May 14 2014]
Phillips, J. 2012. The ‘Pacific Solution’ Revisited: a statistical guide to the asylum seeker
caseloads on Nauru and Manus Island. [online] Parliament of Australia. Available at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Li
brary/pubs/BN/2012-2013/PacificSolution#_Toc334509636 [Accessed 23 April 2014]
Pickering, S. 2000. The Hard Press of Asylum. Forced Migration Review, Vol 1(8), p. 32
Ruddock, P. 2001. Background paper on Unauthorised Arrivals Strategy. DIMIA:
Canberra
Titscher, Stefan, Meyer, Michael, Wodak, Ruth, & Vetter, Eva. 2000. Methods of text
and discourse analysis (Bryan Jenner, Trans.). London: Sage
Vas Dev, Sangjuta. 2009. Accounting for state approaches to Asylum Seekers in
Australia and Malaysia: The Significance of ”National” Identity and ”Exclusive”
Citizenship in the Struggle Against ”Irregular” Mobility. [online] Identities: Global
Studies in Culture and Power. Vol. 16(1), pp. 33-60 Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10702890802605679 [Accessed 17 Mars 2014]
34
Waever, O. 1995. Securitisation and Desuritisation. In: Ronny D. Lipschutz, ed., On
Security, pp. 46-87. New York: Columbia University Press.
35