Weapons Of Mass Migration–Summary
Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy
Kelly Greenhill (Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Tufts University and Research Fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government) has written an academic analysis of the deliberate use of refugees/migrants as an instrument of coercion of one state (or entity) against another. Though I purchased her book, most of the discussion to follow is an distillation of the more manageable-sized article of the same name from the eJournal “Center on Contemporary Conflicts.” From the intro:
In Weapons of Mass Migration, Kelly M. Greenhill offers the first systematic examination of this widely deployed but largely unrecognized instrument of state influence. She shows both how often this unorthodox brand of coercion has been attempted (more than fifty times in the last half century) and how successful it has been (well over half the time). She also tackles the questions of who employs this policy tool, to what ends, and how and why it ever works. Coercers aim to affect target states’ behavior by exploiting the existence of competing political interests and groups.
This is a complex topic with many variations of how and why this type of attack would be carried out. She includes a table [page 6] of 50+ incidents in modern history where the threat of, or actual, flooding the target nation with migrants was used as coercion. One example of implied threat:
[T]hreats can be private [and] ambiguous. Consider, for example, the suggestive reply of then Chinese Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping to U.S. President Jimmy Carter during their historic 1979 meeting. After Carter asserted that the United States could not trade freely with China until its record on human rights improved and Chinese were allowed to emigrate freely, Deng smilingly retorted, “Okay. Well then, exactly how many Chinese would you like, Mr. President? One million? Ten million? Thirty million?” Whether Deng actually intended to influence U.S. behavior remains unclear, but, in point of fact, his rejoinder reportedly stopped Carter cold and summarily ended their discussion of human rights in China.
The Coercer: the entity (usually a country) threatening to engineer a refugee flood as a way of forcing concessions from the Target.
The Target: the entity to be flooded. To avoid this threat, the Target must accede to the wishes of the Coercer.
The mechanisms by which refugee flooding damages the target are several. The main are capacity flooding, and the creation of internal conflict within the target nation between the anti-refugee and pro-refugee factions with the intent of damaging the social fabric of the target nation.
Capacity flooding. The logistics of where to house, feed, school, provide water and sewage, employ and police the refugees causes disruption of communities receiving the floods. This group sees the realistic burden and likelihood of trouble with lots of non-native language speaking immigrants with few marketable skills which often end up concentrated in ethnic neighborhoods—a situation that typically creates inner-city ethnic slums, full of poverty and crime.
Behavioral norms in the immigrants may be very different from those of the target nation. (For example: seeing a woman with exposed skin or walking unaccompanied in public may be interpreted as implied consent for sexual contact.) This leads to great social stress.
- Creating internal conflict within the target population that divides the people into warring camps. Conflicts can lead to overthrow of leaders.
- Anti-refugee group—identified strongly with the language, culture, religion, dress, nationality, food that define what it is to be “us.” Wishes to maintain unified cultural/religious identity. “If you come here you speak our language.” Wants “a wall.” Derisively called “redneck” or “racist.” A Soldier of Odin with a shirt reading “Defend Finland.”
- Pro-refugee group—identifies as a world citizen and emphasizes the common humanity of the refugees. Points out that “we were once refugees also” and “could become refugees in the future, should things go badly.” Liberal democracy. Feels moral superiority to the anti-refugee group. Wishes to be inclusive and compassionate and be seen in this way on the world stage. Invokes publicly stated ethical and social norms and legal treaties obligating acceptance of refugees (such as the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights.) Failing to accept refugee flood exposes target nation to charges of hypocrisy. Opposes “a wall.” Enlists kind-hearted, but politically unsophisticated celebrities, to speak on behalf of the refugees. The “Save the Children” movement.
Deception: Blurring of the 3 groups into 2 groups.
The Pro-Refugee Group (PRG), in attempts to gain ascendance, may lump the Anti-Refugee Group (ARG) and Capacity Flooding (CF) groups together. The PRG then views all restrictions on immigration as racism. Both the ARG and CF are lumped together and viewed as a single group of bigoted simpletons. This is of course, not true. There are realistic reasons to limit refugee influx. The creation of culturally isolated pockets of unemployable and inassimilable peoples is a real issue.
Using Migrants to Deliberately Degrade Cultural Identity
It is long suspected that those who wish to have “one world society” (with themselves as its leaders) are actively seeking to destroy identification with local languages, history, cultures, and currencies. Europe cannot be a “United States of Europe” due to fiercely held national identities and language. The active insertion of migrant floods are suspected of being a way to destroy the national identity of Europeans. First the migrants enter, then the national icons of religion and culture are banned from the country in the name of equality and universal respect.
Creating Chaos to Necessitate Military Methods to Restore Order and Fight Terrorism
A group that desired a stronger, centralized, military/police state needs chaos to cause the public to accept this social structure. Frankly, I cannot think of any more effective way to do this than to flood a nation with culturally very different immigrant floods.
- Unlimited immigration due to “compassion” and to “save the children” without honestly facing the cultural impact and stresses the influx will create. Immigrants are welcomed by kind GREEN Meme citizenry.
- Inevitable cultural conflicts develop. Most inflammatory would be around the subject of sexual mores where an unaccompanied young woman in a swimming suit or cute dress is understood to have give a priori consent to sex. Rapes and molestations occur.
- Being unhappy with being sexually molested by immigrant males is framed as “racism.” Authorities downplay and hide these events because “we are an open and inclusive society.” Others fan the flames of chaos and publicize these events with sensationalism. (See the Gatestone Institute, a public face of the Neocon’s who are apparently active in the European immigrant drama)
- Citizens notice that many of the immigrants are “military aged males” and raise the fear that these young men are Trojan horses infiltrating to overthrow their nation.
- Citizens see the government is not protecting them and they take maters into their own hands forming militias. Militias patrol looking for misbehaving immigrants.
- Militia-on-Immigrant violence eventually erupts and the population is horrified in a cognitive/emotional storm:
- are the immigrants are actually terrorist infiltrators sent to destroy us from within
- the Muslims behave like animals. Our women are not safe.
- militarized citizens attempting to protect their own streets, but are framed as “right-wing bigots”
- Public shame in a GREEN Meme society at the bigoted and racist actions of militia members.
- Insecurity rises, with the liberal (GREEN) population, the immigrants and the militias. Social fabric is torn at between 3 factions.
- Finally, a state of emergency must be called “to protect the public.” The process of a centrally controlled state has ratcheted up a couple of notches.