Minorities and Migrants: An Issue of Security or Rights?

Issues relating to minorities and migrants are an increasingly important aspect of domestic and international policy-making. During post-communist transitions ethno-national conflicts have caused migrations, both through the displacement of minorities internally and by a significant outflow of refugees seeking asylum in other countries. It is less clear how far the economic depressions of transition have contributed to migration, though transitional restrictions on labour mobility have been imposed in many EU-15 states for persons from the ‘new’ Member States that joined in May 2004. In any event, the most mobile part of the populations have already migrated, making estimates about future outflows after EU accession far too high. The uncertainties arising from this dynamic situation have fed into the political debates over social cohesion, integration and fears of ‘terrorism’ that are the undercurrents of policy-making on security, migration and asylum flows in Europe.

The policy debate is marked by an absence of clear definitions for ‘migrants’ and ‘minorities’. The terms ‘old’ and ‘new’ minorities illustrate this problem. ‘Old’ minorities are described as ‘historical’, ‘autochthonous’ (i.e indigenous) or ‘traditional’. The distinction between ‘old’ and ‘new’ suggests a clear dividing line based on the temporal duration of settlement. In fact, there is a considerable grey area in between the two categories: how long does a recently arrived immigrant have to reside in a polity to be considered a member of the ‘old’ group? The distinction is important because the concepts of ‘old’ and ‘new’ are the basis of a hierarchy of status and determine the allocation of rights.

In the context of newly independent states, especially those emerging from the rubble of the socialist era federations, singling out ‘old’ and ‘new’ becomes particularly problematic and is a highly subjective politicised process. Slovenia, for example, concedes the status of ‘autochthonous minorities’ to the Italians and Hungarians (and the Roma in some districts), while the more numerous Croats, Serbs and Bosnian muslims are treated as ‘new’ minorities. Estonia and Latvia have imposed restrictions on citizenship for their Russophone populations, the majority of whom are Soviet era migrants, and treat them as ‘new’ rather than ‘old’ minorities. In this way, access to political and civil rights is controlled, and in some cases denied.

One can usefully distinguish between economic migrants (legal and illegal), forced migrants (refugees, asylum-seekers) and family migrants. As for minorities, a wider range of classification is necessary: national minorities (based on ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics), political minorities (politically organised groups distinct from the political majority but not necessarily based on ethnic criteria) and social minorities (socially disadvantaged groups). These categories of ‘migrants’ and ‘minorities’ are not mutually exclusive. A group like the Roma, for example, straddles the different categories and is territorially dispersed across many countries, making it difficult to devise policies based on the conventional classifications.

Both immigrant populations and national minorities tend to be geographically concentrated, and new immigrants often experience similar integration problems as the members of ‘old’ minorities. These problems can become the cause of new migrations. Migration is shaped primarily by access to territory and basic fundamental rights, while minority protection and minority rights are essentially concerned with the preservation of cultural differences and participation in a polity. Minority and migration policies jointly intersect with several key policy areas, such as employment, welfare and social policy, and foreign affairs. So far policy-makers and researchers have treated the two issue areas rather separately, although an integrated analysis would benefit our understanding of the challenges involved and make for a more coherent policy approach.

Policy debates, for example in the EU and OSCE, about migrants and minorities are characterised by a tension between security and rights-based approaches. A security-based approach focuses on the control of migration and minorities; a rights-based approach concentrates on the inclusion and participation of migrants and minorities. Rather than presenting the two approaches as alternatives, policy thinking on minorities and migrants can be usefully reframed in terms of a ‘security-rights-nexus’. It is the link between security and rights that matters. Arguably, the security dimension of minority and migration issues is best addressed through rights-based policies.

Finally, the term ‘integration’ itself is not unproblematic. Integration policies are often packaged as being normatively sound, however, they can involve elements of control, and they can conveniently shift the burden of cohesion to the immigrants and minority groups. Different types of integration require different sets of rights, ranging from social and economic rights to cultural and political rights. Ultimately, a meaningful use of the term ‘integration’ addresses both security concerns and rights. Securitization and securing rights are two sides of the same coin.

Dr. Gwendolyn Sasse is a Lecturer in Comparative European Politics in the European Institute and Department of Government at LSE

For a more detailed version of the argument presented here see the introduction and article by the author in the Special Issue of the Journal of Common Market Studies (November 2005, Vol. 43, No. 4) on 'Migrants and Minorities in Europe'.