Anarchy, Self-Help, and Migrants
3
Anarchy, Self-Help, and Migrants REVIEW BY PAUL ROE Department of International Relations and European Studies, Central European University Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma: Russia, Europe and the United States. By Mikhail A. Alexseev. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 294 pp., $70.00 (ISBN: 0-521-84988-8). Ever since Herbert Butterfield (1951) and John Herz (1951) published their foun- dational works on the ‘‘security dilemma,’’ the concept has come to define what Nicholas Wheeler and Ken Booth (1992:29) have called the ‘‘quintessential’’ di- lemmaFpenetrating ‘‘right to the heart of the theory and practice of international relations.’’ During the Cold War, the security dilemma concept appeared to frame accurately the arms competition between the United States and the Soviet Union (see, for example, Jervis 2001). During the 1990s, despite the end of the super- power confrontation, the security dilemma remained as perhaps the dominant explanation for the outbreak of ethnic conflicts, especially in Eastern Europe and sub-Saharan Africa (see, for example, Posen 1993; Kaufman 1996; Snyder and Jervis 1999). For Mikheil Alexseev, the concept is equally valuable as an explanatory tool with regard to migration. In Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma, Alexseev sug- gests that the security dilemma serves to exaggerate fears about migrants such that they are seen as potential threats to national identities and economic interests. In making this point, Alexseev is not alone. In the 1993 Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda, Ole Waever et al. (1993) argued that the emerging security agenda in Europe was not so much marked by a focus on the state and on military in- securities, but more on societies and identityFthat is, on societal insecurities. They further argued that tensions over migration, ethnicity, and the like might give rise to ‘‘societal security dilemmas.’’ However, Alexseev is alone in the extent of his empirical analysis and the methodological rigor that he has brought to this com- parative analysis of Russia, the European Union, and the United States. In this respect, his contribution is clear. Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma is based on the contention that, al- though existing theories of intergroup conflict can account for hostilities resulting from major migration flows, they cannot explain more minor instances of immi- gration phobiaFthat is, fears pertaining to ‘‘marginal’’ immigrant groups. Bor- rowing largely from Barry Posen’s (1993) work on the so-called ethnic security dilemma, Alexseev proposes that emerging anarchy, ambiguity over intentions, and the perceived ‘‘groupness’’ of migrants can account for the exaggerated fears that sometimes erupt over minor migratory flows. Although Alexseev spends some time discussing the security dilemma concept, the most important element of the concept is conspicuously absent: the spiral of action and reaction that leads to violence and war. This omission is not unconscious. Alexseev sees clearly that his approach diverges from existing IR theory. As he puts it, ‘‘the principle dependent variable under investigation is perceptions rather than behaviour and their origins more than their implications’’ (p. 35). In other words, Alexseev’s concern is with how migrants come to be viewed as threatening, not with how ‘‘threatening’’ migrants might begin an escalatory dynamic. However, even though the concept should indeed be able to explain worst-case thinking ‘‘long r 2006 International Studies Review. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK. International Studies Review (2006) 8, 495–497
Transcript of Anarchy, Self-Help, and Migrants
Anarchy, Self-Help, and Migrants
REVIEW BY PAUL ROE
Department of International Relations and European Studies, Central European University
Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma: Russia, Europe and the United States. ByMikhail A. Alexseev. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 294 pp., $70.00(ISBN: 0-521-84988-8).
Ever since Herbert Butterfield (1951) and John Herz (1951) published their foun-dational works on the ‘‘security dilemma,’’ the concept has come to define whatNicholas Wheeler and Ken Booth (1992:29) have called the ‘‘quintessential’’ di-lemmaFpenetrating ‘‘right to the heart of the theory and practice of internationalrelations.’’ During the Cold War, the security dilemma concept appeared to frameaccurately the arms competition between the United States and the Soviet Union(see, for example, Jervis 2001). During the 1990s, despite the end of the super-power confrontation, the security dilemma remained as perhaps the dominantexplanation for the outbreak of ethnic conflicts, especially in Eastern Europe andsub-Saharan Africa (see, for example, Posen 1993; Kaufman 1996; Snyder andJervis 1999).
For Mikheil Alexseev, the concept is equally valuable as an explanatory tool withregard to migration. In Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma, Alexseev sug-gests that the security dilemma serves to exaggerate fears about migrants such thatthey are seen as potential threats to national identities and economic interests. Inmaking this point, Alexseev is not alone. In the 1993 Identity, Migration and the NewSecurity Agenda, Ole Waever et al. (1993) argued that the emerging security agendain Europe was not so much marked by a focus on the state and on military in-securities, but more on societies and identityFthat is, on societal insecurities. Theyfurther argued that tensions over migration, ethnicity, and the like might give riseto ‘‘societal security dilemmas.’’ However, Alexseev is alone in the extent of hisempirical analysis and the methodological rigor that he has brought to this com-parative analysis of Russia, the European Union, and the United States. In thisrespect, his contribution is clear.
Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma is based on the contention that, al-though existing theories of intergroup conflict can account for hostilities resultingfrom major migration flows, they cannot explain more minor instances of immi-gration phobiaFthat is, fears pertaining to ‘‘marginal’’ immigrant groups. Bor-rowing largely from Barry Posen’s (1993) work on the so-called ethnic securitydilemma, Alexseev proposes that emerging anarchy, ambiguity over intentions, andthe perceived ‘‘groupness’’ of migrants can account for the exaggerated fears thatsometimes erupt over minor migratory flows.
Although Alexseev spends some time discussing the security dilemma concept,the most important element of the concept is conspicuously absent: the spiral ofaction and reaction that leads to violence and war. This omission is not unconscious.Alexseev sees clearly that his approach diverges from existing IR theory. As he putsit, ‘‘the principle dependent variable under investigation is perceptions rather thanbehaviour and their origins more than their implications’’ (p. 35). In other words,Alexseev’s concern is with how migrants come to be viewed as threatening, not withhow ‘‘threatening’’ migrants might begin an escalatory dynamic. However, eventhough the concept should indeed be able to explain worst-case thinking ‘‘long
r 2006 International Studies Review.PublishedbyBlackwellPublishing,350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148,USA,and9600GarsingtonRoad,OxfordOX42DQ,UK.
International Studies Review (2006) 8, 495–497
before the knives are sharpened and the guns are loaded’’ (p. 38), by not explainingthe ‘‘aftermath’’ of such sharpening and loading Alexseev uses at best only half asecurity dilemma. At worst, he does not describe a security dilemma at all. After all,security dilemmas occur precisely because, either literally or metaphorically, some-one sharpens knives, and someone loads guns!
Moving from theory to practice, Alexseev utilizes an impressive array of sec-ondary literature, personal interviews, and survey data to explore his three illu-minating case studies. With respect to both Russia’s Far East and the EuropeanUnion, his general finding is that insecure individuals who believe that migrantsharbor territorial claims, bring no general economic benefits, and politically threat-en the dominance of their own ethnic group are likely to support potentially violentresponses to immigration (p. 139). In itself, this conclusion is rather unsurprising.A number of other points, however, are of much greater interest. For example,Alexseev notes that Chinese migration into the Russian Far East translates intoheightened insecurity, not because of fears of being culturally ‘‘swamped,’’ butbecause the ‘‘gradual depopulation of the Russian Far East would give a pretext toBeijing to redress old territorial grievances’’ (p. 112). In other words, what Alex-seev reveals is not so much a societal security dilemma, that is, a dilemma betweenethnic groups driven by identity considerations. Rather, what he reveals is a con-dition that may facilitate the emergence of a regular, state security dilemma betweenRussia and China. In short, the ‘‘Chinese migrant’’ may eventually lead to the‘‘Chinese soldier.’’ With respect to the European Union, on the other hand, thesituation is clearly different. Unlike Russia’s Far East and despite heightened fearsin many EU member states, immigration phobia is unlikely, to say the least, tofacilitate a regular, state security dilemma in Western Europe. More likelyis the occurrence of societal security dilemmas in which host communities reactto perceived identity threats from immigrant groups.
Of Alexseev’s three cases, the United States potentially presents the best exampleof a ‘‘full’’ security dilemma because it is here that an actual violent outcome mustbe explained: street protests in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict. In LosAngeles, however, it is unclear whether a societal security dilemma explains theviolence or the violence explains an emerging anarchy, which may or may not haveled to security dilemma dynamics. An anarchic condition only emerged after theinitial bout of rioting following the King judgment. Moreover, the resultant gangwarfare seems more likely to have been the product of an opportune moment toredress old grievances or to settle old scores between the Black, Hispanic, Korean,and Chinese communities. Harboring malign intentions toward another group andwaiting for an opportunity to exact revenge are not the hallmarks of a securitydilemma.
Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma provides interested readers with athorough account of some of the dynamics of ingroup and outgroup relations inthe context of the immigration issue. It is a shame, however, that Alexseev goes nofurther. By not describing how emerging anarchy might escalate into actualhostilities between groups (the US case possibly excepted), Alexseev has not takenadvantage of this opportunity to explore the condition of self-help and itsconsequent spiral dynamics outside the usual confines of state security and militaryaffairs.
References
BUTTERFIELD, HERBERT. (1951) History and Human Relations. London: Collins.HERZ, JOHN. (1951) Political Realism and Political Idealism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.JERVIS, ROBERT. (2001) Was the Cold War a Security Dilemma? Journal of Cold War Studies 3(1):36–60.KAUFMAN, STUART J. (1996) An ‘‘International Theory’’ of Inter-Ethnic War. Review of International
Studies 22(2):149–172.
Anarchy, Self-Help, and Migrants496
POSEN, BARRY. (1993) The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict. Survival 35(1):27–47.SNYDER, JACK, AND ROBERT JERVIS. (1999) Civil War and the Security Dilemma. In Civil Wars, In-
security, and Intervention, edited by Barbara F. Walter and Jack Snyder. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.
WAEVER, OLE, BARRY BUZAN, MORTEN KESTRUP, AND PIERRE LEMAITRE. (1993) Identity, Migration andthe New Security Agenda in Europe. London: Pinter.
WHEELER, NICHOLAS J., AND KEN BOOTH. (1992) The Security Dilemma. In Dilemmas of World Politics:International Issues in a Changing World, edited by John Baylis and Nick J. Rengger. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
PAUL ROE 497
