A discourse analysis into how Dutch governmental precautionary rationalities transformed existing security dispositifs

(1)

A Discourse Analysis into how Dutch Governmental

Precautionary Rationalities Transformed existing Security

Dispositifs

Shan Almizori

Master Political Science: International Relations Research Project: European Security Politics Supervisor: Dr. Rocco Bellanova

Second reader: Dr. Dimitris Bouris Student number: 10634304

Date: 21 June 2019 Wordcount: 20727

(2)

List of Abbreviations

CITT - Commissie Integraal Toezicht Terugkeer KMar - Koninklijke Marechaussee

MIGO-BORAS - Mobiel Informatie Gestuurd Optreden – Better Operational Result and Advance Security

MTV - Mobiel Toezicht Veiligheid

NCTV - Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding en Veiligheid WODC - Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum

(3)

Ch. 1 Introduction

In 2012, the MIGO-BORAS surveillance was deployed at the border areas of the Dutch-German and Dutch-Belgian borders (van der Woude et al 2015: 20). The surveillance technology is an instrument of the Mobiel Toezicht Veiligheid (Mobile Supervision Security) unit deployed since 1992 in response to the increasing concerns regarding illegal migration and cross-border crime after the abolishment of the internal Schengen borders (Brouwer et al 2017: 77). However, the unit was initially focused on supervising only the movement of illegal migrants, which is

apparent from its original name, Mobile Supervision Illegal Migration (ibid). Due to regular encountering of human trafficking and identity fraud related to migration, the MTV adjusted its name by swapping ‘illegal migration’ with ‘security’ (ibid). This change became symbolic as it meant a move from immigration control to preventive criminal law enforcement (Van der Woude et al 2015: 28).

The MTV is a unit of the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (KMar). The mission of the KMar is to fight cross-border crime and thus contribute to Dutch national security (Defensie 2019, ibid). KMar is a police organization with military status, but with predominantly civilian police duties (van der Woude et al 2015: 29). As such, its main security activities are combatting drug-trafficking, money laundering, identify fraud, terrorism and human trafficking within the internal Dutch borders (ibid). One of the ways in which the Marechaussee does this security work, is through the MTV. The KMar’s functions within the MTV unit is monitoring compliance with legal requirements with regard to illegal immigrants (ibid). The MTV conducts checks and inspections that are implemented randomly on highways, in trains, on the water and at airports (ibid). This research is explicitly focusing on the unit’s surveillance technology (MIGO-BORAS) on the highways at the border areas. The security practice that takes place on highways operates in an area within twenty kilometers behind the Dutch border (ibid). The operation is limited to six hours a day to avoid it taking the form of systematic border control and clash with the Schengen Borders Code (Leers 2011). The objective is preventing illegal stay and other cross-border crimes such as human and drug trafficking and traffic violations at the earliest possible stage. The goal is to contribute to the fight against cross-border crime and illegal migration within the Schengen internal borders (Leers 2012).

(6)

1.1. Objective and Formulation of the Problem

In 2012, the Dutch government decided to expand the practice of the MTV by deploying a surveillance security technology. The MIGO-BORAS was deployed initially as reaction to prevent cross-border migration and traffic related violations (Teeven 2013). In order to prevent

individuals entering the Dutch territory, governmental actors further justified the use of risk analysis profiles to provide insights into migration flows (ibid). Risk analysis is done through risk profiles is by the MIGO-BORAS surveillance system, introduced in 2012 (ibid).The

implementation of the MIGO-BORAS camera system in 2012 and its expansion to relatively new security threats since 2014 are analyzed in this thesis. Arguably, the expansion was justified by the war on terror following the terrorist attacks on European soil. In addition, the political rhetoric after 9/11 in the United States of America also had an influence. What is especially noteworthy about the MIGO-BORAS surveillance system is that its justification lies in its purpose towards “a safer society” (Van der Steur 2016). The argument is made that the

surveillance system is intended to detect crime associated with migration to effectively prevent illegal residence, human smuggling, terrorism and identity fraud at “the earliest possible stage” (ibid).

This thesis conducts a micro-analysis on governmental security discourse and its materializations through rationalities of precautionary risk following the analytical grid of the concept of the security dispositif. Specifically, the transformation in the purpose that the MIGO-BORAS served will be shown to function within this analytical grid wherein holds rationalities of precautionary risk are presented. The key question is how are specific problematizations of risks and threats connected to particular forms of knowledge, security practices and technologies with the goal to construct and transform a security dispositif (Foucault 1977, wichum 2013: 165).

With this research, I want to contribute to the literature on the discussion of the move from spatialized to more temporalized understandings of security (Burgess 2010: 24). In particular, through researching the transformation of existing security dispositifs to precautionary risk rationalities by focusing on the MIGO-BORAS security practice/technology. The MIGO-BORAS has not been subjected to precautionary risk analysis or many other research for that matter. Thus, the attempt is to fill an empirical gap in the insufficiently researched border

(7)

technology in The Netherlands. By focusing on governmental texts that are addressed to the Dutch parliament (The House of Representatives) by the Dutch government (the related ministries), an effort is made to identify to what extent precautionary risk rationalities were present and used in the governmental logic that justified the necessity of the MIGO-BORAS. In addition, it is argued that due to the relatively new security threat terrorism, the initial purpose of the MIGO-BORAS technology has been transformed and modified.

1.2. Academic Relevance

One of the earliest researches regarding the MTV conducted by de Wilde (1998) discussed the early effects of globalization on international politics and the domestic situation of states (idem: 7). He argued that after the Cold War the international context was subjected to change by threats and disaster scenarios (ibid). Claiming that the problem is becoming more the flexibility that practice demands where international security in Europe is becoming more and more police work (ibid). He found that there is a change of the military shifting to the background where police units are becoming more intensified with military facets to fill this gap. Concluding that the struggle between police and military units will only intensify in a world that reaches for more globalization (ibid).

A different and more recent study on the MTV unit concluded that the process of crime associated with migration, which means the interweaving of criminal and immigration law, is visible at the political, public, legislative and implementation level (Brouwer et al 2017: 74). The authors argue that this development effectively treats immigrants as criminals which is

addressed with all available resources (ibid). In their contribution, they focused on the

implementation level, in particular the manner in which the MTV personnel was involved in the implementation of their discretionary power (ibid). They found that Marechaussee personnel have a lot of discretional space to convert official policy goals into actual action (idem: 85). Moreover, they argue that the complex legal framework of the MTV is ambiguous which allows immigration supervision to be overlapped with criminal enforcement. Combining this relatively large freedom of discretional space with the process of migration/crime and ad hoc

(8)

effectively (idem: 86). The authors argue that these circumstances allow for the intertwining of the professional and personal beliefs in decision-making. This way, the MTV contributes to the further blurring of the boundary between immigration control and criminal enforcement at the border areas (ibid). The authors used observing and interviewing methods in order to achieve their results. The MIGO-BORAS security measure was not mentioned in this research and thus not researched.

van der Woude et al (2015) also focused on the discretionary space that the MTV staff exercises with the aim to provide an oversight on the differences in task perceptions between street-level and organizational personnel. The authors conducted a discourse analysis on three selected periods regarding the MTV (idem: 24). Two were periods before the MIGO-BORAS surveillance, in the last period between 2011-2013, the MIGO-BORAS was deployed. However, the surveillance system was not researched by the authors when they focused on the

discretional limits of the MTV staff. They found again that the MTV checks offer a great deal of freedom for the independent judgement of individual KMar personnel when selecting persons and vehicles in border areas to halt (idem: 30). They further argue that there is no clear

consequence of exceeding their discretional freedom.

Although the researches on the discretional space of the MTV staff did not focus on the MIGO-BORAS, their findings offered potential insights into the discretional freedom of MTV personnel regarding the MIGO-BORAS as well. This is because their researches suggest that the MTV staff is almost free in their decision-making when it comes to halting passengers at the border. This could arguably mean that the surveillance system is also subjected to discretional freedom as this security measure is also operated by these personnel. The researches leave an empirical gap regarding the MIGO-BORAS security technology and its discretional freedom. Conducting a research into the discretional space regarding the MIGO-BORAS may be the next logical step. However, this thesis is more interested in how the security dispositif surrounding the MIGO-BORAS materialized in the first place and was influenced by new security challenges. Thus, leaning more towards de Wilde’s (1998) research subject where indeed police units with military facets are intensified in the contemporary globalized context of international relations.

(9)

1.3. Research Questions

This thesis conducts a micro-analysis on governmental security discourse and its

materializations through rationalities of precautionary risk following the analytical grid of the concept of security dispositif. Specifically, the transformation in the purpose that the MIGO-BORAS technology served will be shown to function within this framework. By focusing on governmental precautionary rationalities that led to technologies such as the MIGO-BORAS surveillance system, the research questions formulated below are attempted to be answered.

This research aims to contribute to our understanding of European security and the national reactions entailing the intensification of the internal border security following the terrorist attacks on European soil. Moreover, this paper contributes to our understanding in how

precautionary risk rationalities are being used to manage the unknowable and uncertain threats in the future. The main question that this thesis tackles is:

ÿ To what extent do governmental precautionary rationalities transform existing security dispositifs in the face of contemporary security challenges?

To answer the main research question, the analytical chapters answer the two sub-questions: 1. To what extent did governmental precautionary rationalities had a role in the security

dispositif of 2011-2013 that materialized into the MIGO-BORAS security technology? 2. To what extent did governmental precautionary rationalities had a role in transforming

the existing security dispositif to new security threats between 2014-2016?

The sub-questions each answer the main research question partly. Both contribute to the final conclusions of this thesis. In order to define a transformation, a preexisting security dispositif that rationalizes through precautionary rationalities is presented. The second sub-question tackles the transformation of this security dispositif that was also rationalized through precautionary rationalities.

(10)

1.4. Structure of this thesis

Chapter 2 consists of the literature review that will provide an overview of the notion of risk in security studies. It will also address the different approaches used in this regard. The third chapter of this thesis consists of the theoretical framework. This entails the precautionary principle and the analytical grid of the security dispositif on which this thesis is structured. The fourth chapter will delve into the research design and methodology. Elaborating on the choices that have been made in an attempt to clarify the justifications. After this chapter, the analysis chapters follow.

The analysis part consists of two chapters. First, the precautionary risk discourse on the MIGO-BORAS camera system for its justification in in 2012 is analyzed. Data is analyzed in the timeframe 2011-2013 to fully grasp the precautionary rationalities present beforehand the deployment. The second part (chapter 6) discusses the precautionary risk discourse, wherein rationalities that transformed the existing security dispositif between 2011-2013 for the deployment of the MIGO-BORAS are presented. Following both analyses chapter (5 and 6), chapter 7 discusses the findings and recommendations.

(11)

Ch. 2 Literature Review

2.1. Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to review the related different theories on risk in security studies. Ultimately, it is argued that in order to understand how governmental discourse affects security outcomes, the precautionary approach provides the most fitting framework for this thesis. This chapter is divided in two parts. The first part will elaborate on how risk was introduced in security studies as these two fields were initially separated. The second part will discuss the diverse approaches to risk in security studies. In this section, the argument is made that precautionary risk rationalities offer a fitting theoretical framework to answer the main research question of this thesis.

2.2. Risk in Security Studies

The strategy of countering possible risk through security is a development of what Amoore (2013: 158) calls the imagery of high impact low probability events since 9/11. Today’s security policies are developed in response to preventing similar events by using techniques of risk management and assessing them into manageable risk factors (idem: 17). Algorithms imagine future scenarios and are used in contemporary border control systems that allow for imagining future risks (idem: 10). In line with Stephens (2018), Amoore argues that security strategies moved from practicing deductive proving/disproving to the inductive enforcement of suspicion, imagination and preemption (Amoore 2013: 10). This belief is also shared by Côté-Boucher (2017), which argues that there’s a distinction between the old and new ways of policing borders. The old ways entail traditional border enforcement skills such as detection of behavioral risk indicators and interviewing (idem: 150). The new ways embrace the use of firearms and risk management principles (ibid).

What is remarkable is that the academic fields of risk analysis and security studies have never been linked to one another until quite recently (Petersen 2011: 694). Both fields had respectively different emphasis. Security studies was preoccupied with International Relations while risk analysis was a concern for sociology, economics and natural sciences (idem: 694).

(12)

Petersen argues that these two academic fields have been intersected where risk has been translated into security studies. Consequently, the debates on risk have evaluated the contemporary practices of security in the field of International Relations (idem: 696). As Petersen claims, risk analysis has had its usage as a tool for calculating to render the rationalization of fears and dangers possible regarding the economy (idem: 694). In other words, risk was seen as measuring uncertainty in economic terms. It was a highly used theory amongst economists during the 20th _{century (idem: 697). The intention of the theory was to estimate the probability and} present economic value of future events (ibid). Due to contemporary security contexts such as terrorism, climate change and other transnational threats, the two fields have been converged. Their research agendas have become similar because of the focus on catastrophic events (ibid). This converging development is also visible in the increasing use of risk in security articles (ibid). Kessler and Daase (2008) argue that the changing forms of conflicts, wars and crises after the Cold War have opened the door for different kinds of security threats where military threats are no longer the esteemed problem of world politics (idem: 211). One approach to this was to reformulate the danger that security policy addresses. Risks then dominated the security agenda, which effectively redefined the task of security policy to pro-actively preventing possible harm (Daase and Kessler 2007). Risk is about control, managing and shaping everyday practices, which routinize and normalize practices that used to be considered an exception (Kessler in Burgess 2010: 24). Eventuality is calculated in security practices through risk, this changed security measures to no longer being reactive but act preventive and proactive in order to manage not what is fact but what is imagined (idem: 25). New security measures that appear to provide meaning to this open and uncertain future are favored as a consequence of the desire to manage the imagined. Thus, risk has changed security in threefold: the commodification of security through managing contingency (eventuality), the acceleration of time from reactive to proactive security and biopolitical security through examining strategies of human life processes (Kessler in Burgess 2010: 25).

(13)

2.3. The diverse approaches to Risk in Security Studies

Petersen (2011: 696) argues that risk studies within security studies adhere to different definitions of current social developments and trends. Risk is defined as risk-society, culture of fear or within risk/security dispositifs. Thus, when conducting risk analysis, it is important to keep in mind the different contextual approaches which have been subjected to different usages to grasp new developments (ibid). In contemporary academia, scholars agree that risk today has a wider range of fields, from traffic, to health, crimes, climate change. The expanding into these fields has also meant a subjection to governmental regulation, citizens and private businesses (ibid). The precautionary principle is part of the constructivist discipline that Petersen (2011) lays out where she argues that in contemporary societies, limits in knowledge and science are acknowledged (idem: 700).

Petersen (2011) concentrates on three of the core disciplines of risk, one informed by economic theory which is understood as the mainstream position within risk studies. The argument made in this discipline is that risk can be measured and managed (Petersen 2011: 697). By taking preventive actions, future risks are anticipated and controlled through economic models of risk (e.g. cost-benefit analyses). This approach views risk as out there to be tamed and thus does not question its ontology or epistemology (idem 698). The second discipline entails the cultural theory where what risk is depends on the cultural perceptions and worldviews (ibid). This discipline is also considered as cultural as its focus lies on what is considered to be risk is socially embedded which depend on social groupings, identity, institutions and worldviews (idem: 699). The cultural analysis aims to manage and develop our socially and culturally defined risks (ibid). The third and final discipline Petersen lays out is the social/radical constructivist approach to risk. Which is one of radical constructivists who argue that risk is a modern discursive construction that is subject to change as a result of continues political struggle and decision-making (ibid). This discipline also focuses on political guiding but is not focused on the cultural diversity and local practices. Rather, the emphasis lies on the risk practices of contemporary industrial and capitalist societies (ibid). The studies that fall under this discipline are amongst others, Michel Foucault’s governmentality, Ulrich Beck’s risk-society as well as Luhmann’s research on risk. Risk is a political term used in this discipline to capture socio-political developments (idem: 700).

(14)

Indeed, Kessler (in Burgess 2010) argues that there is not one approach to risk in security studies, rather, different conceptual schemes capture different modes of contingency production. Risk, as viewed via Beck’s notion of risk society, is characterized by its anticipation of possible risks which provides the rationales for measures (Kessler in Burgess 2010: 18). Beck argues that the larger the risks are, the more they are uninsurable and uncontrollable (idem: 19). This anticipation influences present decision-making as global risks such as terrorism are uncontrollable (ibid). Beck’s stance implies an assumed incompetence and shortcoming when it comes to insuring and calculating risks by governments (Beck in Burgess 2010: 20).

Aradau and van Munster (2007) counter this assumption by stating that Beck’s view on the assumed inability to insure and calculate risks is too simple because it ignores the politics that make risks not beyond control (Burgess 2012: 20). The authors argue that the deployment of precautionary measures is acting on the limits of knowledge that Beck argues to be insurable and incalculable (idem: 19). The precautionary measures allows for the governance of the unknown and works at the boundary of risk and uncertainty (idem: 21). Uncertainty implies a domain where rationalism breaks down but where the attempt is made to assign rational calculus (ibid). The framework offered by Aradau and van Munster (2007) uses a Foucauldian approach, which according to the authors, understands precautionary risk as a dispositif (idem: 107). This approach allows studying the attempts made by governments to manage the unmanageable by overcoming the knowledge limit in Beck’s view. The result is global risks being controlled by states through pro-active security policies such as the deploying of surveillance systems to track movements of an entire population rather (Burgess 2010: 20, Aradau & von Munster 2007: 107).

Another point Beck and Aradau and von Munster (2007: 107) differ in is that Beck concludes that politics in his risk society model will be reinvented along democratic lines which will slow procedures where deliberation of expert knowledge will take place. Aradau and van Munster oppose this aspect by concluding that their precautionary risk principle is exempt from slow procedures due to its preference (almost enforcement) of politics of speed that is based on sovereign decisions made on dangerousness (ibid). The authors thus deviate from Beck’s thesis on risk society and urge concentrating more on governmental analysis of risk which focuses on

(15)

that conducting research focused on governmental precautionary rationalities will allow for a better understanding of ‘multiple and heterogenous practices’ that are incorporated under a different label (ibid).

Luhmann’s constructivist view takes a different approach than Beck and Aradau and van Munster as Luhmann tackles the very term of risk itself (Holmström 2007: 255). He claims that the notion of risk is meaningless until it is separated and differentiated (Burgess 2010: 21). Instead of focusing on what risk ‘is’ in an ontological way (focusing on what exists), Luhmann puts the focus on what risk does and what societal preconditions are necessary for its specific use (ibid), Luhmann is concerned with societal meaning which paves the way to viewing risk as ingrained and reproduced by overlapping and conflicting discourses (idem: 22). For example, the notion of risk used in the environment has different meaning from the notion being used in economic, religious or health contexts. This enables ‘risk’ to have different meanings and in this way it is always effectively differentiated from something. Risk, in Luhmann’s view is an ascription, an attribution to what it is meant for. Hence, the notion of risk differs depending on its use and societal meaning that social, time and reality structures give to it (Holmström 2007: 258). Luhmann argues that this aspect of ‘multiplicity of risk’ presents a constitutive uncertainty (Burgess 2010: 22, Holmström 2007: 259). If we study the different and multiple societal usages of ‘risk’ we can see risk embedded in many domains and have different meanings.

2.4. Conclusion

Having identified the diverse theories on risk in security studies, this paper chooses to focus on the risk management principles of precautionary risk (Aradau and van Munster 2007). Precautionary rationalities are considered belonging to new ways of securitization and have been used as a legitimation tool for security measures (technologies such as the MIGO-BORAS). This thesis attempts to contribute to the debate in security studies through analyzing precautionary risk rationalities used in governmental policies that lead to the ordering of actions deemed necessary in an attempt to manage uncertain futures. The analytical grid through which these rationalities are researched is provided by Michel Foucault’s security dispositif. The elaborated theoretical framework will be discussed in the next chapter.

(16)

Ch. 3 Theoretical Framework

The purpose of this chapter is to elaborate on the theoretical framework this thesis uses as the approach to analyzing the data. This thesis conducts a micro-analysis on governmental security discourse and its materializations through rationalities of precautionary risk following the analytical grid of the concept of security dispositif. In the principle of precautionary risk, the concept dispositif offers a distinctive approach to conduct a micro-analysis on governmental risk management. The precautionary principle focuses on the rationalities in governmental discourses that justify implementation of security technologies and measures such as the MIGO-BORAS security technology. By looking at governmental rationalities this thesis will analyze how a security dispositif was created and consequently transformed to contemporary security problems.

The discourse in governmental policies on border-control regarding the security technology will be shown to function within the analytical grid of the security dispositif where rationalities of the precautionary risk principle are present. Concluding, that the transforming purpose of the MIGO-BORAS is a materialization of governmental precautionary rationalities. Thus, this chapter is structured as followed. First, how the perspective of risk by Aradau and van Munster (2007) is situated opposed to a threat-based approach is discussed. This is of importance because it provides a valuable understanding on why using risk-based perspectives are of value in security studies. This is then followed up by introducing the reasons for Aradau and van Munster’s precautionary risk theory. The second part delves deeper into this theory by discussing the conceptual tools used for this thesis, which are the precautionary principle and the analytical grid of the security dispositif. This part also elaborates on why the security dispositif is used as analytical grid.

(17)

3.2. The Risk Perspective of the Precautionary principle

Critical risk studies aim to be critical on how decisions on risk management and policies on security establish meanings of politics and political power (Petersen 2011: 701). However, Aradau et al (2008) argue that appropriations of risk in International Relations have conflated the concept of risk with those of danger and threat (Aradau et al 2008: 147). The argument is that what is at stake when dealing with risk is the difference between how risk-based and threat-based perspectives address the security question. The difference also affects the policies and governmental technologies that are prescribed (idem: 148). A threat-based perspective focuses on agency and intent between the parties in conflict and intelligence to eliminate threats. Whereas risk-based perspectives focus on populations that are believed to be at risk of diseases, environment, terrorism or crime. Risk-based relies on data, modelling and speculating used initially by insurance companies (ibid). By conflating risk with danger and threat, risk has mobilized security measures from interpretation and the need to manage contingencies (ibid).

In light of changes on international relations, a relatively new school of thought emanated from the authors Aradau, van Munster and Lobo-Guerrero. It entails the risk perspective and is presented as an alternative to the old ways of security studies (Petersen 2011: 701, Aradau et al 2008: 148). The empirical focus of this academic and analytical alternative is the study of risk governance going beyond the narrow focus of threats to confined states (Petersen 2011: 701). The risk perspective transcends the old-fashioned categorization of inside-outside, war-crime and military-police, with the intent to emancipate or evolve security studies from its narrow focus on the traditional threats to states (ibid). The risk perspective concentrates on risk governance in the practices of governments as well as companies. It goes beyond Beck’s risk society (discussed earlier) which, in the eyes of the authors, fails to acknowledge that risk is a social technology by means of which an unknowable future is presented as knowable and actionable (Aradau et al 2008: 150). In the view of Aradau et al (2008) and their risk perspective, risk is calculable. Indeed, this is in contrast to Beck’s incalculable threats that does not pay attention to diverse ways in which risk technologies of today are implemented to make the incalculable calculable. Modern security practices/technologies are used to imagine, calculate, identify, prevent and mitigate uncertainties such as crime, terrorism or pandemics (ibid). Aradau et al (2008) are convinced that

(18)

we are witnessing a “hybridization of technologies that seek to render contingency calculable” (ibid). In other words, there is a transformation taking place in which the old-fashioned belief of threats being incalculable is being challenged. Challenged by a perspective of risk that takes into account diverse and multiple ways in which life is secured. This view has put the ambiguous space between calculability (knowledge) and incalculability (the limit of knowledge) under scrutiny as security practices and technologies are deployed against contemporary security contexts in effort to relief this limit in knowledge. Consequently this means that the hard line between national intelligence, crime control and emergency management is becoming ambiguous as well (Petersen 2011: 708). Thus, modern governmental risk management has justified security practices as socio-political conditions have changed the original purpose of risk. For this reason, this thesis argues that we should focus on understanding socio-political meanings that has been given to risk in modern security measures. These modern security practices/technologies lean towards assumptions that everyday crimes, immigration, war, and terrorism can be appealed in terms of risk management (ibid). Accordingly, analyzing risk management in governmental rationalities behind security practices appears to be more relevant than ever before.

3.3. The Precautionary principle and the Security Dispositif

This thesis will make use of the rationalities in the precautionary principle and the Foucauldian notion of security dispositif as analytical grid to shed light on the governmental logic behind the MIGO-MORAS. The focus is on a transformation of its initial purpose. The security practice initially did not serve the purpose of the war on terror, a transformation in its purpose has taken place in wake of the security threat terrorism.

Within the broader spectrum of risk analysis, the precautionary risk principle has emerged as a new logic of risk when other ways of governing terrorism have failed or not proven effective. Aradau and van Munster (2007: 91) argue that the war on terror entails a new form of governmentality. This form evolves knowledge and decision-making at the limit of knowledge (ibid). Consequently, this resulted in strategies of surveillance and drastic policies against anti-social behavior (ibid). In other words, the rationalities of precaution this principle tackles has paved the way for new configurations of risk which require preventing catastrophic events in the

(19)

future. Moreover, analyzing security as a dispositif is a Foucauldian governmentality approach. “Governmentality studies encompass security as strategical effect of specific relations of power, knowledge and subjectivity” (Wichum 2013: 165). In a dispositif of security, both the discourse and its materializations of security are the focus of analysis (ibid). The key question in this viewpoint is how are specific problematizations of risks and threats connected to forms of knowledge, practices/technologies and affects that create assemblages of (in)security that even intensify each other further?

3.3.1. A Perceived Risk Approach

The precautionary principle affects policy-making on two elements: hazard and risk. Hazards are defined as the threats to people and the things they hold valuable (Mclean et al 2009: 549). Risk is a concept which is defined as the probability of a harmful future event (ibid). In the debate on hazard and risk, two approaches are established: objective risk (science-based risk assessment) and perceived risk (the cultural constructs of risks) (ibid). Objective risk is understood as the classic scientific investigative methods (idem: 550). By contrast, perceived risk describes a different version of risk where risks are culturally determined. This approach subjects the possibility of hazards under political, moral, economic and cultural factors in contrast to objective risk measurements (ibid). This perceived risk approach is confined with uncertainties in the processes of defining hazards and risks when determining whether the defined hazards and risks need remedial action (ibid). Consequently, this results in scientific uncertainty going beyond what is known and observable. Aradau and Munster (2007: 103) argue that the precautionary principle only targets those situations that are marked by the two elements of the possibility of irreversible damage (hazards) and the scientific uncertainty regarding the risk. Furthermore, they argue that these elements are not inherent to terrorism, but rather “have emerged out of a contest over the representation of terrorism” (ibid). This representation takes place in processes of the perceived risk approach that takes into account hazards and risks subjected to the above mentioned factors.

(20)

3.4. Security dispositif

Rationalizing contingencies of threats is done through the logic of precaution, this principle enacts a particular form of knowledge and practice that govern the unknown (Wichum 2013: 168). Governmental rationalities here are understood as the reason of governments (Foucault 1977: 237). Foucault explains this as to “…govern rationally according to necessity” (idem: 287). In other words the state commands governmental reason as it is supposed to read reality and give rise to a certain way of thinking, reasoning and calculating (idem: 286). When there is a case of emergency, the regime of security imply rationalities that in turn imply particular practices and technologies to anticipate the uncertainty and risk of this emergency. Thus, how emergencies come to be can be understood through governmental rationalities of security (ibid). The radical uncertainty of threatening events is anticipated by the security dispositif, which in turn activates particular practices, forms of knowledge as well as discursive components to rationalize the emergent threat of an uncertainty (ibid).

With the use of the broader concept of dispositif, Foucault argued that he is interested as much in the “said” as the “unsaid” (Frost 2019: 159, Foucault 1980: 194). What is attempted to identify with a dispositif is the nature of a connection that is present between heterogenous elements described as discourse, institutions, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements and philosophical moral propositions (ibid, Foucault 1980). Foucault understood dispositif as a formation with the function of responding to an urgent need within a given moment (ibid). A human is established as a subject by power relations and dispositifs, the dispositif acts as a transcendent referent for the human subject (idem: 160). Therefore, dispositifs are a productive force in the sense of them being responsible for ordering lives. Governments and politics have become preeminent in modern times as they are the focus of governing that structure and delimit subjects (idem: 162). This research will however focus on the concept of dispositif in the security field. By explicitly analyzing only the discourse in governmental institutions consisting of scientific statements and its governmental decisions.

Aradau and Munster (2007: 97) argue (borrowing from Foucault 1980: 194) that risk can be understood as a “dispositif” to govern social problems. Risk inscribes reality as harboring

(21)

potentially and dangerous irruptions and allows for the deploying of technologies to avert these events in the future (Aradau & Munster 2007: 98). The elements that make up the dispositif within the precautionary risk principle can be understood as rationalities and technologies of government. As Aradau and van Munster (2007) note:

“Rationalities appear as knowledgeable discourses that represent objects of knowledge, confer identities and agencies upon social and political actors and identify problems to be solved… they are ways of thinking about a social problem that will make its management practicable” (idem: 97).

Technologies are used as means or materializations of realizing rationalities as they are “…the social practices which are aimed at manipulating the social and physical world according to identifiable routines” (ibid). Governmental rationalities and technologies in turn affect behavior and construct forms of ordered agency and subjectivity in society to be governed as part of the security problem identified. This is where the concept of security dispositif is of importance. By emphasizing the security rationalities and its materializations (technologies, bodies and affects), the intent is to trace back the deployment of security measures to specific precautionary rationalities of power and decision-making. In the precautionary principle, “…ordinary, everyday risks such as crime risks and extraordinary and catastrophic risks such as terror risks [are linked]” (ibid). In other words, risk has paved the way for security measures that are appealing to immigration, war, terrorism and crime (Petersen 2011: 708). Consequently, this means that a security dispositif is subject to transformation and modification depending on the knowledgeable representation of a security problem that requires subjects to be governed.

3.4.1. Elements of Security as a Dispositif

Security practices are results in the creation of a product to respond to a security problem. This is what Michel Foucault refers to as a security dispositif (Lobo-Guerrero 2007: 321). When conducting risk-analysis with the use of the security dispositif, the emphasis lies on crisis response groups and the constitution of mobilizing a complex cast of expert knowledge on security, that are then followed by security practices. Lobo-Guerrero (2007) calls for analyzing security phenomena through this security dispositif by studying the problematizations of security

(22)

posed in terms of danger and threat (idem: 331). He concludes that it is then possible for an embarkment on the analysis of the security dispositif. Indeed, in Foucault’s security dispositif, the aspects discourse and the materialization of security are the focus of analysis (Wichum 2013: 165). Security as a dispositif aims at what hasn’t yet taken place. This results in security strategies operating as managing uncertain futures that are only controlled by estimating probabilities (Foucault 1977: 20). The presence of contingent threats is rationalized by security dispositifs, in the war on terror, this is achieved through the logic of precaution among others (Anderson 2010: 98, Wichum 2013: 167).

This thesis conducts a micro-analysis on governmental security discourse and its materializations through rationalities of precautionary risk following the analytical grid of the concept of security dispositif. The analytical grid consists of two elements of the security dispositif. The first is the fundamental object of governmental security dispositifs: the population or crowd (ibid) and second, the spaces of security involved in the safety of the territory (idem: 169). These elements will be elaborated further in the following part.

3.4.2. Population/Crowd

The population is the fundamental object of governmental security dispositifs (Wichum 2013: 165, Foucault 1977: 74). The crowd represents a sphere of influence for governmental intervention which is regarded as governable, de-democratized social units (ibid). The population is “…a surface on which reflected and calculated transformations can get a hold” (Foucault 1977: 75). Aradau argues that through reformulating contingencies of terrorism as a problem of controlling and governing the crowds, the crowd as a whole is put into the scope of today’s security dispositifs (Wichum 2013: 165). This positions the crowd as constantly being a threatened and threatening entity at the same time (ibid). In other words, crowd control is increasingly affecting the population. The security of the population is a constitutive counterpart to its freedom within this liberal governmentality (ibid). Freedom in liberal governmentalities is understood as the “management and organization of the conditions in which one can be free” (Foucault 2008: 63). Freedom is deemed as something that is continuously produced, this implies an ambiguous relationship as it also considered restricted (idem: 65).

(23)

The possibility to restrict freedom of the population is where a security dispositif comes into existence as it acts as a correspondent of freedom within liberal rationalities (idem: 166). “The relationship of freedom and security is thus subject to a liberal-economic calculation, where circulation is defined as the essential problem of security” (Wichum 2013: 166). In other words, freedom of circulation has been surrendered to security issues at hand. The key question that arises is how should things circulate or not circulate? (Foucault 2008: 64). This question justifies the usage of security technologies and practices (e.g. surveillance, CCTV, body scanners, biometrics). Indeed, security technologies deployed at the border or in urban areas (society) are attempts to govern this freedom of circulation in a rational way (Wichum 2013: 166). Through digitization, regimes of security are shaping this ambiguous tension between freedom and security (ibid). The intent is to maximize good circulation through monitoring (by creating digital data bodies) and store behaviors into databases (ibid). In other words, risks of bad mobility are materialized into mass digital data. Security technologies hold specific powers and distinctive processes of subjecting populations as they identify and exclude potentially dangerous elements at borders or society (idem: 167). Indeed, as the architectural design of control shows disciplining signs where databases are used for the purpose of control (ibid). Wichum argues that for this reason, research should focus on the specific logic of the technologies used by analyzing how the characteristics have disciplining affects on population.

3.4.3. Spaces of Security

Spaces of security are referred to as power over a territory in Foucault’s view (Wichum 2013: 169). Consequently, space is processed by governmental security dispositifs through the materials that are given (Foucault 1977: 19). The specific space of security refers to the temporal and the uncertainty which are inserted within a targeted space (ibid). Regulating space through spatial elements according to their probabilities maximizes the positive elements of security while minimizing risky and inconvenient circulation (idem: 19). These territorial spaces of security are also characterized by spaces of discipline with the aim to establish presences and absences to organize analytical spaces (Foucault 1979: 143). Disciplining spaces of security is done by processing the targeted through the principle of partitioning by eliminating effects of imprecise distributions, uncontrolled disappearance of subjects (individuals) and their spread circulation

(24)

(ibid). Moreover, spaces of security also includes other shapes of territoriality (Wichum 2013: 170). Analyzing spaces of security is done by “…understanding space in its modes of re-territorialization and de-re-territorialization” (ibid).

This thesis will make use of the precautionary risk principle and the Foucauldian concept of security dispositif in risk analysis as conceptual tools to shed light on the security practice/technology MIGO-MORAS. Specifically arguing that the security practice initially did not serve the purpose of the war on terror. Rather, it has undergone a transformation in its purpose in wake of the contemporary security threat terrorism. The threat of terrorist attacks have increased significantly in 2014 by 61% compared to 2013 (41%) (Shengelia 2015: 81). This significant change that exceeded the fifty percent mark is thus taken as separating point. Accordingly, the governmental and expert documents have been adjusted to produce two analytical chapters. The first chapter focuses on the 2011-2013 timeframe where initially the MIGO-BORAS surveillance was introduced and later deployed in 2012. This chapter discusses the existing security dispositif which is of importance to understand the transformation of its purpose in the second analysis. Consequently, the second analytical chapter focusses on the 2014-2016 timeframe in which arguably a transformation of the purpose of the MIGO-BORAS security technology has taken place. It is argued that due to the security threat terrorism, the initial purpose of the MIGO-BORAS security technology has been transformed and modified. In other words, modern governmental risk management justified transforming security practices due to changes in socio-political conditions. The conceptual tools: precautionary principle and the security dispositif have been used in both analytical chapters. Ultimately, the attempt is made to understand socio-political changes that justified the MIGO-BORAS transformation in its purpose and how this affected the population and spaces of security. In addition, this also provides an explanation to understanding the additional security measures that were introduced through the transformed security dispositif. The key question both chapters answers is: how are specific problematizations of risks and threats connected to forms of contemporary knowledge and security practices to transform an existing security dispositif.

(25)

Ch. 4 Research Design

The previous chapter argued that this thesis will make use of a discourse analysis, specifically on governmental documents. This chapter will clarify the choice of research design, methodology and data used. The chapter is divided into four sections. First, the research design, a qualitative case study, is described. The choice for this design will be justified related to the ways in which it provides the most fitting design for the purpose of this research. Second, the method that fits this design best for this research, a critical discourse analysis, is presented. Third, the analytical focus of this research is discussed (i.e. the actors and data). The final and fourth section reflects on the reliability of the chosen research design and method.

4.2. Qualitative Case Study

A qualitative case study has been chosen for this research. Specifically, this research focuses on a single case study. This section will concentrate on how this research design fits this research with regard to its specific focus. Bryman (2012: 383) argues that a qualitative research design has a general focus: the role of language and the development of meaning. The goal of qualitative research is not focusing on what has already been written, but rather to explore with the intention to develop grounded theories or establish a new theory (Flick 2009: 21). In addition, qualitative research demonstrates variation in perspectives of subjects within a case, which can provide social meanings related to it (idem: 16). A constructivist ontological position in this regard is utilized for this thesis. This position entails that meaning and social phenomena are produced through social interactions (Bryman 2012: 575). Thus, they are always in a state of alteration. Harmonious with the theoretical framework, this design allows for the analytical focus on interactions and discourse and how discourse can play a role in the construction of the social world (idem: 621). Correspondingly, the use of a qualitative research design will allow this research to deconstruct discourse in governmental actors’ rationalities. Ultimately, the intent is to gain an understanding of how governmental actors facilitate and transform security dispositifs.

(26)

A case study is focused on detailed and intensive analysis of one case (Bryman 2012: 66). A case can range from a community, to a school, an organization, an event, a police service and an individual (idem: 67). Case studies can be sites for quantitative as well as qualitative research, as long as the case is the focus of interest (idem: 68). A single case study design will be used to for this research, specifically focusing on the role of governmental actors in security dispositifs. Using a single case study allows this research to focus explicitly on its particularity and its complexity (ibid). In other words, this allows the focus of this thesis to dive deeper into unique dynamics of the specific case. Concluding that the choice for a qualitative case study permits this research to draw special attention to a particular discourse (governmental) that utilized practices/measures of governmental actors within a specific context of European internal border security.

4.3. Method: Critical Discourse Analysis

A qualitative research allows for the case to be the determining factor for choosing a method (Flick 2009: 15). The methods used in qualitative research analyze the practices and interactions of the subjects within a case in everyday life (ibid). The focus is on a specific case in its temporal and local distinctiveness. In particular, the expressions and activities in local contexts (idem: 21). In order to answer the research question, this thesis makes use of the qualitative interpretative approach. The interpretative approach allows for qualitative in-depth methods such as discourse analysis of a case-study (Nygaard 2017: 27). Thus, it will focus on how meanings in security have changed over time. Discourse analysis is an approach to language that can be applied to communication forms such as texts (Bryman 2012: 528, 537). Specifically, the use of a critical discourse analysis (CDA) emphasizes the role of language as resources of power (idem: 536). This approach has insights incorporated from the work of Michel Foucault (ibid). Discourse was a term that indicated “…the way in which a particular set of linguistic categories relating to an object and the ways of depicting it frame the way we comprehend that object” (idem: 528). This understanding and linkage with Foucault fits this research further because it utilizes Foucauldian concepts. Discourse here is conceived as having a generative mechanism, making certain activities possible (idem: 537). Accordingly, this research focuses on particular actors drawing on

(27)

influencing other discourses. Thus, it involves exploring why some meanings are more privileged while others become marginalized (idem: 538). The use of CDA is thus justified for this research it focuses on how governmental actors create dominate security dispositifs by marginalizing others. Finally, the choice for a discourse analysis also explains the structure of the research question. Indeed, the research questions in discourse analysis are relatively open ended (idem: 529).

4.4. Data Selection

The approaches mentioned earlier are suitable for the data and the collection method (ibid). Through critical discourse analysis, governmental rationalities are the main focus in this research. Specifically by analyzing the articulations of preventing potential and potentially dangerous futures (precautionary risk rationalities) in chamber letters from the Dutch government. Chamber letters are informative written documents exchanged between the Dutch governmental institutions and Dutch Parliament (Overheid.nl). The relevant quotes from these statements are discussed. The data gathering method only targets letters from governmental institutions that are addressed to the Dutch parliament (The House of Representatives). Specifically from the actors (ministers and state secretaries) of the Dutch Ministries of Justice and Security and Immigration and Asylum. The choice for design and method allows this data selection as these are governmental actors holding decision-making power that has a generative effect. By drawing on existing discourses, actors attempt to influence (transform) these discourses. Indeed, this allows for the legitimating certain actions (security practices/technologies). The selection of the data has been guided by these notions in order to provide the best possible statements that answers the main and sub research questions accordingly.

The focus on specific individuals is not needed for this research as the focus is not on specific individuals but on actors holding decision-making power within the related Ministry within the specified timeframes. However, the names and positions of these governmental actors, as well as the expert actors, are presented. The data that was selected for this research is presented in the tables below (see 1 and 2). This is to provide a clear referencing point in the

(28)

analyses chapters. This table includes which governmental actor or expert actor provided the text and on which date it was delivered (i.e. name of person, institution, expert panel), the type of data it is (e.g. chamber letter, governmental factsheet, expert report), its letter number if there’s any, and the reference as provided in text. A final note in this section is that the data is originally written in Dutch, these are translated accordingly as much as possible. The translated statements are used, rather than the original, for the purpose of making the reading experience comfortable. The original text that was translated can be found in the footnotes of their respective pages. Table 1: Data references Analysis I

Actor & date of delivery Type of document Reference

Minister of Immigration and Asylum: G. B. M. Leers. Delivered on 8 July 2011.

Chamber letter (Kamerstuk) 19 637, Nr. 1435. (G. B. M. Leers 2011, nr. 1435) Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek en Documentatiecentrum (WODC). Delivered on 21 June 2011.

Report Schattingen Illegaal in Nederland verblijvende vreemdelingen 2009.

(WODC 2009)

Commissie Integraal Toezicht Terugkeer (CITT). Delivered 2012 and 2013.

Annual reports 2011 and 2012.

(CITT 2011/2012).

Minister of Immigration and Asylum: G. B. M. Leers. Delivered on 10th_February 2012.

Chamber letter (Kamerstuk) 19637 Nr. 1492

(G. B. M. Leers 2012, nr. 1492)

Minister of Immigration and Asylum: G. B. M. Leers. Delivered on 10th_February 2012.

Factsheet on the MIGO-BORAS measure.

(Factsheet MIGO-BORAS 2012)

(29)

State Secretary of Justice and Security: F. Teeven. Delivered on 16 April 2013.

(F. Teeven 2013, nr. 1647)

Minister of Immigration and Asylum: G. B. M. Leers. Delivered on 14th_{May 2012.}

(G. B. M. Leers 2012, nr. 1526)

State Secretary of Justice and Security: F. Teeven. Delivered on 29th_{November 2013.}

(F. Teeven 2013, nr. 1760)

Table 2: Data references Analysis II

Actor & date of delivery Type of document Reference

State secretary of Justice and Security: F. Teeven. Delivered on 4th_{April 2013.}

(F. Teeven 2013, nr. 1647)

Minister of Justice and Security : G. A. Van der Steur. Delivered on 24th_{June 2016.}

(G. A. van der Steur 2016, nr. 389)

Minister of Justice and Security : G. A. Van der Steur. Delivered on 14th _November 2016.

Chamber letter (Kamerstuk) 29754 Nr. 406.

(G. A. van der Steur 2016, nr. 406). Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek en Documentatiecentrum (WODC). Delivered 2016. Report Jihadisme en de Vreemdelingenketen. (WODC 2016). Nationaal Coordinator Terrorismebestrijding en Veiligheid (NCTV). Delivered 2016 Report Dreigingsbeeld Terrorisme Nederland 43. (NCTV 2016).

(30)

4.5. Reliability of the Research Design and Method

Limitations present in this research will be briefly addressed. The main critique of qualitative analysis is the researcher’s reflexivity (Flick 2009: 16). ‘’…the subjectivity of the researcher and of those being studies becomes part of the research process’’ (idem: 16). In other words, the background, impressions, position, feelings and irritations will affect what the researcher chooses to analyze and which framings are most appropriate. This can create bias in a research, which is regarded as undesirable. Flick argues that these reflections and observations of researchers become data on their own as they are a part of the interpretation (2009: 16). This is especially important for this research as it analyzes translated text. This critique was taken into account as much as possible in selecting, translating and interpreting the data.

The second limitations entails a popular critique of case studies. Which is the question on how generalizable a single case really is (Bryman 2012: 68). Indeed, there is a limit in external validity and generalizability. In other words, how can a single case be generalized and applied to other cases? It would be difficult to apply the results of this research regarding the specific border technology in the Netherlands to other border technologies in or outside the European Union. This is because different contexts should be taken into consideration. For example, the MTV in the Netherlands makes use of the MIGO-BORAS surveillance in a limited manner as it is subjected to the Schengen Border Code, this could differ in countries outside the European Union. The state in which the surveillance operates is important as well, the use of border surveillance can potentially have different manifestations (in population and spaces of security) at the external borders of the EU and/or other EU countries due to these restrictions and differences in legislation. Also, states can differ in how valuable privacy is to them when it comes to taking risks as well as to what extent their legislations allow it.

(31)

This chapter presented and justified the selection of the research design and the method of the critical discourse analysis. In the following chapter this approach is utilized in the analysis of the data through the documents displayed. Thus, the following chapter conducts the critical discourse analysis in order to understand how governmental discourse regarding precautionary rationalities affect a security dispositif in a transformative way.

(32)

Ch. 5 The Security Dispositif of the MIGO-BORAS in 2011-2013

5.1. Introduction

The first chapter of the analysis focuses on documents from the Ministries of Justice and Security and Immigration and Asylum, specifically letters to parliament from the ministers and states of secretaries. By conducting a discourse analysis on these documents in the 2011-2013 timeframe, we can understand how the materialization of the MIGO-BORAS camera

surveillance was initially justified. The main purpose of this chapter discusses the rationalities in governmental discourse that justified the implementation of the surveillance system at the Dutch borders. As such, this chapter tackles the first sub-question of this research: to what extent did governmental precautionary rationalities had a role in the security dispositif of 2011-2013 that materialized into the MIGO-BORAS security technology? To address this sub-question, the chapter carries out a micro-analysis on rationalities presented by governmental actors and experts that resulted in the MIGO-BORAS security measure. Rationalities are reasons given by governmental institutions that present ways of thinking about a social problem (Foucault 1977: 286). Governmental rationalities in this case study are reasons of governmental institutions that give rise to particular ways of thinking, reasoning and calculating a social problem (idem: 287). Risk management consists of proactive practices of security professionals in order to prevent threatening events in the future from taking place (Aradau and Munster 2007: 90).

Governmental risk management seeks the rationalities and technologies deployed by governmental institutions as a way to approach security problems (ibid).

By focusing on specific years that the MIGO-BORAS security measure was discussed in government before its potential deployment, this chapter also answers part one of the main research question: to what extent do governmental precautionary rationalities transform existing security dispositifs in the face of contemporary security challenges? In the conclusion of this chapter, the results are discussed briefly before moving on to the second chapter of the analysis. The second chapter analyzes the extent governmental rationalities had a role in transforming the existing security dispositif when faced with the contemporary security challenge terrorism. It answers the second sub-question: to what extent did governmental precautionary rationalities had a role in transforming the existing security dispositif to new security threats between

(33)

2014-2016? To answer this, another micro-analysis is conducted on governmental rationalities between 2014-2016 that transformed the existing security dispositif.

5.2. Structure of this chapter

The following chapter is divided into three parts. The first part analyzes the governmental rationalities deployed in justifying the implementation of the MIGO-BORAS surveillance measure. It unpacks letters from the minister and state secretary of the Ministry of Justice and Security at the time. These actors hold governmental positions with decision-making power. Thus, the actors had an influence in the rationalization and consequently in the justification of deploying the MIGO-BORAS surveillance. The data analyzed are informative letters to the Dutch Parliament regarding decisions and their rationalizations. Quotes are used from statements in these letters, these elements compose the discourse on the security measure MIGO-BORAS. The second part focuses on the role experts had influencing governmental rationalities presented. Specifically, this section analyzes the role of two independent commissions which report on the process and progression of services deployed by civil servants regarding illegal migrants in the Netherlands (Teeven 2013, WODC.nl). The commissions publish yearly reports on the related fields and make the necessary recommendations to the Dutch government on which decisions are made. In conclusion, governmental and expert rationalities specifically focus on how the population is influenced and which spaces should be targeted as spaces of security. This is of value as it explains why specifically the MIGO-BORAS security measure was chosen.

The third part of this chapter analyzes the MIGO-BORAS surveillance and its affect in practice. The surveillance measure was deployed in 2012 in response to the discourse on the security problematization in part one and two. In other words, the measure is the direct materialization of the discourse. Arguably, the choice for this specific measure is because it fits the security problems and its challenges identified in the discourse. For this reason, it is of value to scrutinize what affects the security measure in practice has to fully understand why this measure was deployed rather than another. The security measure affects behavior and constructs forms of agency and subjectivity in the population and spaces of security in a specific

(34)

way that fits the rationalities. This is also presented in a schematic provided by the Dutch government.

5.3. The Population and Spaces of security in Governmental Rationalities

The following section focuses on governmental rationalities through implying dangers and threats to the population in order to justify the deployment of the MIGO-BORAS. The goal is to govern according to what is believed to be necessary through rationalities. The rationalities implied in this chapter are analyzed from chamber letters wherein statements and justifications from governmental institutions (the relevant ministries) are presented.

In a statement from the minister of Immigration and Asylum at the time in 2011, the Dutch population is being portrayed as a threatened social entity by Minister Leers (G. B. M. Leers nr.1435). The minister argues that illegal residency is socially burdensome for the population as it is associated with “nuisance and crime” including the threats of human smuggling, illegal employment etc. (ibid). This way of thinking rationalized the emergency of the presented multiple threats that need to be prevented “at the earliest possible state” (ibid). The Dutch government views effective and efficient border controls (e.g. the MTV) as highly important in preventing the emergent threats. This statement explicitly rationalizes the use of the MTV security unit at the border through reasons such as illegal stay burdening society, causing crime and nuisance to the population.

“Moreover, illegal residence is socially burdensome in several respects. Indeed, illegal residence is often accompanied by various forms of nuisance and crime, including trafficking in human beings, smuggling of human beings, illegal employment and house milking, and residence under degrading conditions. Illegal migration and illegal residence must be prevented at the earliest possible stage [...] the Mobile Supervision Security (MTV) is important in this regard”1_{(G. B. M. Leers, 2011 nr. 1435).}

1“Bovendien is illegaal verblijf in meerdere opzichten maatschappelijk zeer belastend. Illegaal verblijf gaat namelijk vaak gepaard met diverse vormen van overlast en criminaliteit, waaronder mensenhandel, mensensmokkel, illegale tewerkstelling en huisjesmelkerij, en met verblijf onder mensonterende omstandigheden. Illegale migratie en illegaal verblijf dienen in een zo vroeg mogelijk stadium te worden voorkomen […] het Mobiel Toezicht

A discourse analysis into how Dutch governmental precautionary rationalities transformed existing security dispositifs