From Weaponization of Migration to Instrumentalization of Securitization and Back

Greenhill introduced the term “instrumentalization of migration” or “weaponization of migration” and identified vulnerabilities that can be exploited by the instrumentalizing actor, such as the polarization of the target society and adherence to human rights norms. Subsequent research has explored the securitization of migration and its instrumentalization for political gain, both within and between state actors. Extensive research on internal securitization has highlighted its use in political struggles within states, whether to gain power, retain power, or expand mandates and authority. Conversely, less extensive research on securitization in international relations has examined how external actors exploit securitization to achieve international bargains or to provoke political instability and polarization. Recently, the instrumentalization of migration became part of the EU’s legal system and is used as an excuse to deepen the securitization of asylum seekers at the Polish-Belarussian border. In my study, I analyze the discourses, policies, and practices of three key actors (the EU, the recently elected Polish liberal government, and the Polish pro-migrant milieu) in relation to the instrumentalization of migration by Belarus and the EU’s reaction to it. Using the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) framework, theoretically grounded in securitization theory, I examine their narratives, discursive practices, and constructed definitions. Specifically, I focus on attempts to define terms such as instrumentalization, hybrid threat, externalization, the right to asylum, and pushbacks. Furthermore, I trace the current exchange of narratives and counternarratives, assessing their impact on the overall escalation of securitization in relation to power dynamics and practices. Finally, I compare my findings with developments in academic discourse on these issues to evaluate prospects for desecuritization.