There was a time (actually, pre-9/11) when not only nukes, oil/gas and terrorism were in the focus of national security policy debates, but also migration pressure (and fresh water supply).
These topics haven't lost their relevance, but were overshadowed by the more en vogue topics. Fresh water and migrants don't seem to be existential problems for Western nations (except -surprise- Israel), after all.
Migration pressure (most acute Latin America to USA and Africa to Europe) is based on the 'magnetic' attraction that rich countries have on the lower middle classes of poor countries (really poor people usually cannot afford the travel).
This attraction can be reduced by some information campaigns and the poverty can be reduced with some successful forms of (mostly rural) development aid, but ultimately these measures cannot stem the tide.
That's relevant for both internal and to some degree also for external security of the target nations and even relevant for their economy (especially the low-level employment market).
A strategic response to reduce the relative attractiveness and to divert more of the migration movements might be to create nodes of growth close to the origin countries.
The urban areas of these countries already attract most rural migrants - it should be possible to create additional special economic areas that attract the migrants - think of many small Hong Kongs and Singapores along the African coastline.
It's highly unlikely that the European states will invest their attention/money into a strategic response to a creeping problem like intercontinental migration, though. Well, I don't expect it until terrorists and oil lose their attraction - and they won't do so for another at least three years in my opinion.
These topics haven't lost their relevance, but were overshadowed by the more en vogue topics. Fresh water and migrants don't seem to be existential problems for Western nations (except -surprise- Israel), after all.
Migration pressure (most acute Latin America to USA and Africa to Europe) is based on the 'magnetic' attraction that rich countries have on the lower middle classes of poor countries (really poor people usually cannot afford the travel).
This attraction can be reduced by some information campaigns and the poverty can be reduced with some successful forms of (mostly rural) development aid, but ultimately these measures cannot stem the tide.
That's relevant for both internal and to some degree also for external security of the target nations and even relevant for their economy (especially the low-level employment market).
A strategic response to reduce the relative attractiveness and to divert more of the migration movements might be to create nodes of growth close to the origin countries.
The urban areas of these countries already attract most rural migrants - it should be possible to create additional special economic areas that attract the migrants - think of many small Hong Kongs and Singapores along the African coastline.
It's highly unlikely that the European states will invest their attention/money into a strategic response to a creeping problem like intercontinental migration, though. Well, I don't expect it until terrorists and oil lose their attraction - and they won't do so for another at least three years in my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment