Abstract
Conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria over the past fifteen years have produced the largest waves of displaced people and refugees since World War II. As European Union (EU) leaders braced for an influx of thousands of people fleeing from these conflicts, they faced pressures to revisit and modify legal rules that left countries in Southeastern Europe and the Mediterranean unable to cope with a crisis of unprecedented proportions in the twenty-first century. While the logistical challenges of this humanitarian disaster threatened to undermine Southeastern and Mediterranean states’ capacity, multiple terrorist attacks across Europe magnified the security concerns of EU leaders. This paper compares how two of the European Union’s newest member states – Bulgaria and Hungary – have tackled the migrant crisis and assesses the impact of security concerns on their refugee policies. Some of the responses of these countries’ governments were similar – both governments mandated the erection or extension of physical barriers to impede migrants’ entry on their countries’ territory. While the Bulgarian government took cues from the rhetoric and actions of key EU leaders such as Angela Merkel, the Hungarian government continuously antagonized EU leaders and declined to cooperate with their proposed multi-lateral strategies of handling the migrant crisis. Decisions taken by the two governments were, to some extent, dictated by security concerns. The rhetoric of the Hungarian government, however, contained stronger nationalist overtones than that of the Bulgarian government. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his right-wing government led an anti-migrant and anti-refugee campaign that sought to exclude foreign nationals due to the patent incompatibility of their cultural values with those of Hungary’s nationals. On the other hand, the rhetoric of Bulgaria’s Prime Minister – Boiko Borisov – was more dualistic and contradictory. His policy statements to the foreign press or at EU summits reflected the general sentiment of the top EU brass, whereas statements made to the Bulgarian media focused more specifically on security concerns and were far more critical of the foreign nationals attempting to enter Bulgaria’s territory. Moreover, the security-focused rhetoric and actions of the government became more strident immediately before and after the Bulgarian presidential elections of November 2016, which led to the resignation of Borisov’s cabinet. Political parties in Bulgaria, including Borisov’s GERB party have increasingly become critical of refugees living in Bulgaria’s admission centers. Borisov’s government even extradited a group of Afghan asylum seekers due to their involvement in a riot at one of the refugee admission centers. This study is based on a content analysis of statements made by Bulgarian and Hungarian government officials and media coverage in several Bulgarian and Hungarian news publications between 2015 and 2017.
Highlights
As civil conflict ravaged Syria, and Afghanistan and Iraq struggled to sustain peace and newly fledged democratic institutions, Europe braced for a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions
The rhetoric of Bulgaria‟s Prime Minister – Boiko Borisov – was more dualistic and contradictory. His policy statements to the foreign press or at European Union (EU) summits reflected the general sentiment of the top EU brass, whereas statements made to the Bulgarian media focused on security concerns and were far more critical of the foreign nationals attempting to enter Bulgaria‟s territory
Political parties in Bulgaria, including Borisov‟s GERB party have increasingly become critical of refugees living in Bulgaria‟s admission centers
Summary
As civil conflict ravaged Syria, and Afghanistan and Iraq struggled to sustain peace and newly fledged democratic institutions, Europe braced for a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions. After examining the evidence about the types and magnitude of the security threats posed by migrants and refugees who were fleeing to Europe, the paper establishes that traditional security theories do not provide an adequate understanding and explanation of the refugee policies adopted by the Hungarian and Bulgarian governments during this time period. The paper relies on the framework of the Copenhagen School of security studies and argues that state responses to the refugee and migrant crisis, as in the cases of Bulgaria and Hungary, were motivated by concerns over the cultural identity, cohesion, and societal integrity in their countries and the perception of terrorist threat stemming from the migrant crisis. Buzan and Weaver argue that the securitization of a given issue leads to extraordinary measures because it compels policy makers to respond quickly in order to diminish a security threat This securitization narrative tends to generate the necessary public support for. Why did governments in Eastern and Central Europe choose to treat refugees as a security threat rather than the victims of a humanitarian crisis? What type of security threat did political elites and the media in these countries identify in their accounts of the refugee crisis?
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.