The daily border security practices performed by FRONTEX, Europol and Bulgarian border officials in their interaction in the issue of irregular migrants transiting through Bulgaria

(1)

1

The daily border security practices performed by FRONTEX, Europol and

Bulgarian border officials in their interaction in the issue of irregular

migrants transiting through Bulgaria

Deyvid Stefanov 11012528

Master Thesis Political Science: European Politics and External Relations Research Project: European Security Politics

First reader: dr. B. İşleyen

Second reader: prof. dr. M. De Goede 21/ 06/ 2019

(2)

2

List of Abbreviations

AFIS Automated Fingerprint Identification System EMSC European Migrant Smuggling Centre

EU European Union

EURODAC European Asylum Dactyloscopy Database

Europol European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation FRONTEX European Border and Coast Guard Agency

ILP Intelligence- Led Policing

MEPs Members of the European Parliament NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NGO’s Non-governmental Organisations SIS Schengen Information System

SOCTA Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

(4)

4

Introduction

While borders in the European Union (EU) have faded due to the internal market and the Schengen Agreement, multiple scholars point at the importance of the outer borders of the Union for protection of the internal security (Monar 2007: 54; Georgiev 2010: 256). Since security is seen by almost all people as being of primary interest and importance, the

(external) borders of the EU form a societal interest for all citizens of Europe (Waever 1996: 111). The topic of this thesis connects to the issue of security and outer EU-borders, as this research focuses on the interaction between the international actors European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX), European Union Agency for Law Enforcement

Cooperation (Europol) and the Bulgarian border officials aimed at contributing to security for Bulgaria and Europe through border practices regarding irregular migrants.

Here, the term ‘border practices’ has a rather broad meaning, as the different actors contribute in various ways to the improvement of border security, for example by

implementing daily control practices, coordinating joint operations on data collection and data sharing or providing training for people who work on border security. As the thesis aims to examine which border practices exactly take place, the concept of ‘bordering’ suggests that ‘border practices’ do not only refer to activities happening right at the territorial border as indicated by maps, but will also include practices in other contexts which shape or construct the border in places away from official sovereign lines (Scott 2015: 3; Balibar 1998: 126). Furthermore, it is important to mention that Bulgaria borders Romania, Serbia, North Macedonia, Greece, Turkey and the Black Sea. For the sake of the feasibility of a Master Thesis research, it can be expected that not all of these borders can be studied at once. Therefore, this research will mainly focus on the practices carried out at the Bulgarian- Serbian (constituting an external EU- border) and Bulgarian- Romanian (both EU countries, but outside Schengen) borders. A more thorough explanation of the choice to study these borders can be found in the ‘research design’ section of the thesis.

In addition, it is important to note that the idea that FRONTEX, Europol and the Bulgarian authorities interact to ‘contribute to security for Bulgaria and Europe’ comes from several official documents. These documents speak of ‘establishing security’ as a central objective in the cooperation between the EU and Bulgaria with regards to the borders of the two involved players. For example, on the topic of security and migration, ‘The White Paper on the Future of Europe’ proposes different scenario’s which all encourage the cooperation on the matter of border management between EU institutions and Member States that construct

(5)

5 the internal and external EU borders (European Commission 2017: 29). Next to that, the Bulgarian National Assembly updated and adopted the ‘National Security Strategy of the Republic of Bulgaria’ in 2018, which points out the migratory pressure on the country and indicates that the national authorities will increase their cooperation with the EU on this issue (Bulgarian National Assembly 2018: 15). Speaking of ‘establishing security’ or ‘safeguarding borders’ already indicates a certain discourse of the ‘good’ Europeans protecting themselves against some ‘evil’ threat. As this research is carried out in the context of critical security studies, I distance myself from depicting an image of involved actors as ‘safeguarding heroes’ or ‘evil migrants’. Following from this, I decided to rather use the more nuanced notion of ‘done in the name of security’ for the interaction between FRONTEX, Europol and the Bulgarian border officials, which still can be seen as a central objective of the combined efforts of these actors.

Still, one point which deserves more elaboration, is the rather broad usage of the term ‘security’. Security is most often linked to the idea of ‘survival’, but the survival itself can have different meanings, depending on the sector one focuses on (Waever 1996: 108-109). Stemming from this, classic ideas on security focus on the state with an emphasis on the political and military sectors as most important spheres for ensuring security (Tadjbakhsh 2005: 4). However, more contemporary ideas have brought up the concept of human security, in which the individual has a more central place than the state and survival is about ‘humanly central’ aspects such as identity, income or political freedom rather than state sovereignty (Gasper 2005: 223). Hence, by prioritizing certain concepts one emphasizes specific understandings, while excluding others. This confronts academics to choose a focus and decide whose security is at stake in certain contexts. Relating this to the topic of the thesis, different answers can be found when thinking about whose security is at stake in Bulgarian security practices aimed at irregular migrants transiting through the country. For instance, illegal migrants might be considered a threat for one’s identity at the individual level, a threat for the sovereignty of the state on the national level or a threat for the whole of Europe on a regional level, all depending on which aspects one decides to put emphasis.

Overall, the societal relevance of the Schengen Area, internal and external EU- borders is clear and well translated in academic circles, especially in the field of the critical security studies. However, academic research on these outskirt EU borders is both limited geographically and in time dimension. Most articles on this topic deal with the EU external borders as they were before the 2007 enlargement or focus mainly on Italy or Greece, which in recent years have encountered a high number of irregular migrant arrivals (Belloni 2016:

(6)

6 104). This creates a gap in the literature with regards to the ‘shifted’ borders of the EU to South- Eastern Europe and more specifically the borders which Bulgaria ought to ‘protect’. Whereas the difficulties of Turkish- Greek border cooperation are drawn up by looking at poor migration management (Baldwin- Edwards 2006: 6) and transborder human trafficking (İçduygu 2004: 311), the borders of the EU constituted by Bulgaria have been relatively disregarded in the academic world. Hence, looking at the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders1, the scientific relevance of this research is that new data and information will be added on an important issue which has been relatively overlooked. In order to do so, the thesis will borrow the concept of the ‘practice approach’, which allows to zoom in and look at the micro-level and the everyday happenings around the two borders that are to be studied, providing the opportunity to grasp the specifics of these borders (Côté-Boucher et al 2014: 200). On the other hand, looking at the broader picture of the topic, the thesis will aim to contribute to our understanding of interaction between international and national actors on the topic of security, which itself adds to the scientific relevance of the research.

Finally, the societal relevance briefly mentioned at the start of this paragraph also plays an important role in this research. The current status of Bulgaria in the international migration regime might be described as largely neglected, especially since migration flows through Greece and other countries have claimed most attention (UNHCR 2018: 1). However, the migration pressure in recent years has posed new challenges to the Bulgarian borders and hence the border and migration regime had to adapt in the context of the refugee crisis

(Bulgarian National Assembly 2018: 15). Furthermore, according to the ‘Strategy for National Security’ document, the importance of the Bulgarian borders is growing, considering the active role the country has in maintaining international peace, as well as its commitments to the security of the non-Schengen, internal and external borders of the EU (idem: 7). This does not imply that irregular migrants are threatening international peace, but rather shows how highly Bulgarian official documents rate the importance of the country’s borders. Next to that, documents from both FRONTEX and Europol display the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders as essential points of irregular migrants transit routes (FRONTEX 2019b: 16; Europol 2018b: 9; Europol 2018c: 12). Following from this, it can be argued that by improving our comprehension on Bulgarian border practices, we can better apprehend and acknowledge how EU agencies and Bulgaria interact to foster security for the European

1_{The choice of focus on these borders is implied by the access and feasibility of research, which is thoroughly}

discussed in the ‘research design’ section. Next to that, the nature of these borders is further clarified in the ‘state of the art’ section.

(7)

7 Union. In this way, although Bulgarian border security practices might seem distant to some, it is important to sense that this topic is actually of both direct and indirect relevance for all citizens of the European Union.

Formulation of the problem

While the academic relevance of the topic comes from Bulgarian border security practices being widely overlooked, the societal relevance is that all EU Member States and their citizens are to some extent (in)directly dependant on Bulgaria’s borders for governing EU external borders and the management of irregular migration to the Union. Despite the drawn up picture of the Bulgarian borders being a key transit point of the routes that irregular

migrants often take and hence constituting a significant security issue for the whole of the EU, the main problem of this topic and field is that there is a lack of empirical knowledge of the border security practices that are implemented and performed on a daily bases at the

Bulgarian borders (such as the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian) with regards to irregular migrants.

The Bulgarian Ministry of Internal Affairs published a chart, as seen in Figure 1, showing that the number of detained migrants around the Bulgarian borders has decreased. However, the chart also shows that in the past few years, every two months, hundreds of irregular migrants were being detected around the Bulgarian borders. This comes to show that the migrant pressure has indeed decreased, but still very often Bulgarian border guards have to deal with irregular migration.

(8)

8 Figure 1: Detained persons at the entrance and exit at a state border or in the hinterland

without registration by the authorities of the Ministry of Interior. (Source: Zakrila, Ministry of Interior). The red colour indicates migrants entering the country. The blue colour indicates migrants exiting the country. The green colour indicates irregular migrants in the hinterland.

To get a more contemporary understanding of the problematic puzzle that is ‘Bulgaria as EU’s (external) border’, I turned to news articles from the past year. In February 2018, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) visited Bulgaria to inspect FRONTEX’ operations at the Bulgarian borders and delivered positive feedback (IBNA 2018). European Parliament member Judith Sargentini from the Dutch Green-Left party, however, warned that harsh measures for prevention of border crossing might contribute to human trafficking and the rise of corruption (Joop 2018). Next to that, Bulgaria’s Interior Minister stated that ‘there had been a drop of 84 percent in migratory pressure on Bulgaria’ (ibid). However, another news report expressed more worries, stating that between August 2018 - October 2018 more than 2 000 ‘illegal migrants’ had been detained by Bulgarian officials inside the country (Bordermonitoring 2018). A report from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Serbia furthermore pointed out that 29% of the noted refugees coming to Serbia transited from Bulgaria (UNHCR 2018: 1). Furthermore, in October and November of 2018 multiple big migrant groups have been detected inside Bulgaria in areas close to the borders (Bordermonitoring 2018). Whereas the Bulgarian- Serbian border has been known as a key crossing area for groups of irregular migrants (BNT 2016a), news articles have also pointed out that there have been irregular migrants trying out different routes and opting to cross the Bulgarian- Romanian border (Darik 2017). Most tragic of news is the fact that dead bodies of

(9)

9 unknown migrants have been found along Bulgarian borders (BNT 2016b). However, less than a month ago, Inger Støjberg -Danish Minister for Immigration, Integration and Housing- visited the Bulgarian borderlands and expressed her positive impressions on how Bulgaria takes care of the borders of the EU (24 Chasa 2019). Overall, the news on the topic is rather confusing, giving both positive and negative arguments on how Bulgaria contributes to the security of the borders of the EU. The academic literature on Bulgarian border security practices does not offer much contemporary understanding and knowledge either, as the case of the Bulgarian borders has mostly been left out of focus.

Hence, the objective of this thesis in the first place is to provide empirical knowledge of the everyday border practices - aimed at improving security - that are performed at the Bulgarian-Serbian and Bulgarian-Romanian borders with regards to irregular migrants. However, the thesis should not be limited to just summing up the discovered border practices. Therefore, the research will aim to understand which (inter)national actors are active in this issue, what their roles are and what perceptions or objectives these actors have regarding irregular migration and the Bulgarian borders. By applying the conceptual approach of the ‘practice turn’, the thesis will furthermore shed light on the interaction between different actors in terms of cooperation and struggles. Overall, making use of the conceptual

framework, the research will show the perceptions of different actors of irregular migrants, as well as how actors from different scales interact (both through cooperation and struggles) in the execution of daily border practices.

In order to contribute to the identified literature gap, the central question of the research is: Which border security practices aimed at irregular migrants transiting through

Bulgaria are executed on a daily basis and what does the implementation of these border practices tell us about the interaction between the Bulgarian border officials, FRONTEX and Europol ?

This main question can be divided in the following subquestions:

1) How do FRONTEX, Europol and the Bulgarian border officials perceive irregular migrants in the context of border security?

2) What are the daily border security practices related to irregular migration executed by FRONTEX on the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders ?

3) What are the daily border security practices related to irregular migration executed by Europol on the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders ?

(10)

10 4) What are the daily border security practices related to irregular migration executed by the Bulgarian border officials on the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders ?

By looking at the attitudes of the different actors towards irregular migration and by examining who does what (and thus who takes which role), the thesis will both provide empirical knowledge on what border practices are executed on a daily basis and will also describe how the several actors with various understandings and different roles interact to make the daily border practices happen. In this way, the thesis will show how actors from different scales interact to establish and implement the border practices that are executed on a daily basis. The executed practices and occurring interaction between the actors have a societal relevance as they determine how the governance of EU (external) borders looks. Also, this displays the political relevance, as the interaction between a EU Member State and EU institutions will be examined. Adding to that, the added value and relevance of the research for academic literature is the new data that will become available through studying border security practices and a certain interaction between actors that has not been touched upon before.

Put simply: Subquestion 1 helps us understand the different perceptions of the actors towards irregular migration. The subquestions numbered 2, 3, and 4 describes the empirics of the daily border security practices implemented. Linking up the results from all four

subquestions will construct an understanding of what the different perceptions and the

empirics mean for the roles that actors have and the overall interaction that takes place. In this way, an answer to the central research question will be provided.

The thesis will continue by giving a thorough elaboration on the state of the art concerning the studied field and topic, which will allow to identify what has been said on this topic, what information is lacking and how this research will contribute to the literature gap. Then, the theoretical framework will be set out, which offers an explanation to the most important concepts used for the research. Next, the ‘research design’ section will follow, which will present more insights into which data is used, how the data is collected and what method of data analysis is applied. After that, a section with ‘empirical analysis’ will briefly summarize all key data and results that have been obtained. Subsequently, the first empirical chapter ‘Perceptions of irregular migration’ will follow, which will provide data and an interpretation for the first subquestion. Thereafter, the second empirical chapter ‘Daily border security practices’ will bring forth data and analysis for subquestions 2, 3 and 4 by describing the daily executed border practices and offering the evaluation of the Bulgarian border

(11)

11 officers on their interaction with FRONTEX and Europol. Finally, the thesis will end with a conclusion, which will summarize the research steps and the most important data, ultimately providing answers to the central question of the research.

State of the art

As mentioned before, there is not much academic literature related to the specific case of Bulgaria and the country’s security measures regarding the EU (external) borders. However, looking more broadly, scholars have significantly engaged in the debate on border security practices and the involvement of FRONTEX and Europol in such issues. With the downfall of Communism and the Iron Curtain, some scholars suggested that the progressive notion of globalism would lead to a ‘borderless’ world (Johnson et al 2011: 61). Although the Schengen Area can be seen as a pure display of this world view, others have argued that our

understanding of borders should not just be limited to fixed lines on the outskirts states (ibid). Rather, states have systematically altered the governance of borders by turning to more technological practices (Paasi 2009: 230). Despite the changing context, borders are seen as “rules and institutions, formal and informal, that aim at regularising cross-border flows of people, goods and capital” (Berg 2000: 82). Not only do borders in this way provide security to state territories, they also reflect the relations between the states at either side of border, by serving as barriers, filters or passages (O'Dowd & T. Wilson 1996: 2). Hence, borders are often seen by scholars as important social institutions that come about through and are symbolic for the daily geopolitical power relations (Paasi 2009: 226; Berg 2000: 82).

To shift the focus from these more abstract ideas on borders, it is helpful to look at the literature of border practices themselves. Scholars have argued that with the rise of the ‘war on terror’ notion and the increased migration flows, classic practices such as surveillance, interrogations, new border fences and increased violence have re-established themselves at borders (Bigo 2014: 210; Johnson et al. 2011: 61). More notable, however, are newly

introduced practices that are the result of better technology and the developing understanding of borders. Well studied examples here are extended and modernized airport security checks, monitoring and exchange of data between the state and private actors or the use of satellites and biometric passports (Bigo 2014: 219; Johnson et al. 2011: 61). However, the implemented and executed border practices vary along different borders due to dissimilarities in

geographical dimensions and the relations between the involved actors at certain borders (Berg & Ehin 2006: 67). This indicates that doing research on a specific border -such as the

(12)

12 Bulgarian- Serbian or Bulgarian- Romanian border- will generate sui generis data and

information, as the results will be bound to the geopolitical context of this particular border. Following from this, it is important to note that the two studied borders contain

significant differences. Whereas Serbia is not part of the neither the Schengen Area, the EU or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Romania is a member of both the EU and NATO, but does not take part in the Schengen Area. Overall, this indicates that the Bulgarian-Serbian border is an ‘external’ EU- border, while the Bulgarian-Romanian border is an ‘internal’ EU-border where still all border control measures apply to control who or what crosses the border. Despite these differences in characteristics, both borders are part of cooperation programmes developed by the European Commission (Interreg V-A; Interreg IPA- CBC). Before Bulgaria joined the EU, the country had to individually take care of the border cooperation with its neighbours (AER 2018). However, once the country became an EU Member State, the European Commission developed border cooperation projects to enhance the links between countries on both the internal and external EU borders (ibid). The objectives of these programmes are remarkably varied, as they cover topics such as

sustainable development of tourism, cross-border environment, harmonious socio-economic development and a safe and improved connection between regions (Interreg V-A; Interreg IPA- CBC). The similarities and differences of the two borders provide sufficient background knowledge for the studied contexts. It is possible to argue that the Bulgarian- Serbian border, by constituting an external EU border, has more complex policy specificities compared to the Bulgarian- Romanian border, where two EU member states cooperate. Despite that, the political relevance of neither border should be downplayed in the context of this research, as both these borders form vital crossing points in the mobility of irregular migrants (Europol 2018c: 12). Hence, in the context of this thesis, the different borders do not pose changes in conceptual terms for this research. Finally, it should be noted that the thesis will not be comparing the 2 borders, but will rather study them both to acquire a more complete view of the Bulgarian border security practices along different kinds of borders.

Although many agreements and treaties are often introduced to improve cooperation on the variety of border practices, one study argues that such agreements are open for interpretation and eventually national governments have an important decision to make in how to govern their borders (Popescu 2008: 428). This is illustrated by examples such as Spain taking responsibility for securing the external EU border while still intensively

interacting with Morocco, and Estonia providing Russians with free visa’s to the EU despite pressure from the EU to stop this practice (Berg & Ehin 2006: 62-63).

(13)

13 States are, however, not the only important actors that are involved in establishing border practices. As part of the securitization of migration, European Member States established the organization of FRONTEX in 2004 (Léonard 2010: 232). Since then,

FRONTEX has been dedicated to “supporting operational cooperation amongst EU Member States with regard to the management of the external borders” (ibid), which is its main aim. Following from this, it is clear that the organization has been directly involved in multiple issues concerning the external borders of the EU, especially in the context of the aggravated refugee crisis Europe faced. A study on border police and FRONTEX in the region of Evros argues that, despite being criticized by non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) and other European institutions, the organization of FRONTEX balances its actions by “attempting to secure the borders through (preemptive) interventions often justified in humanitarian terms” (Pallister-Wilkins 2015: 67). Studies on FRONTEX also include Europol as an important actor and collaboration partner, arguing that the two organizations have developed a decent relation in terms of sharing data- information and producing joint reports (Léonard 2010: 242). On multiple occasions, Europol, supported by the European Commission, has

introduced ‘intelligence- led policing’ (ILP) techniques (Mounier 2009: 593). This was aimed at improving the internal cooperation of law enforcement agencies in countries, which would then also enhance Europol’s cooperation with the countries’ police and border departments (ibid). All these ameliorated relations are illustrated by the study of Pallister-Wilkins on the Evros region, which points at the transnational crime of smuggling, which brings together Europol, national border police forces and FRONTEX (Pallister-Wilkins 2015: 60-61). These existing scholarly works suggest that international organizations such as FRONTEX and Europol matter and should not be overlooked, as they maintain close ties with various countries on issues transcending the national level, such as cross-border organised crime or the refugee crisis. In the case of irregular migration towards Europe, FRONTEX is directly involved as the organization supports the border management of EU Member States (Léonard 2010: 232), whereas Europol has created the European Migrant Smuggling Centre (EMSC) which combats criminal networks smuggling irregular migrants to their desired destinations (Europol).

Paying more attention to South-East Europe in border security studies, a notable amount of scholars have focused on either the Greek or Turkish border. An interesting study on the Greek-Turkish border argues that human rights lose out against the harsh border practices such radar systems, patrol and aerial surveillance and fences, which have costed thousands of migrants’ lives (Topak 2014: 830). Despite this risk, migrant mobility in this

(14)

14 region still enjoys shockingly high figures (idem: 821). In trying to understand everyday border practices at the Turkish border, İşleyen argues that state officials genuinely do have a humanitarian understanding for refugees, but the border guards are also obliged to act as professionals in their daily border practices (İşleyen 2018a: 855).

Another country in this region that has faced the refugee crisis, is Bulgaria. However, the functioning of the Bulgarian borders on this issue have largely been overlooked,

especially compared to the amount of studies contributing to our understanding of Greek and Turkish border security. One of the few studies on the Bulgarian border has showcased a good cross-border cooperation relations between Bulgaria and Greece on the water quality of the river Nestos (Efthymios 2002: 374). Next to that, the forced migration of Muslim minority groups during the last 5 years of the socialist regime in Bulgaria has enjoyed interest in the academic world (Parla 2009: 750; Petkova 2002: 42). Another study argues that Turkey offers residence permits to people from the Turkish minority in Bulgaria and in return these

migrants vote in the Bulgarian elections, which offers Turkey an effective tool to interfere with Bulgarian elections and politics (Kasli and Parla 2009: 211). Turning the focus more to the link between contemporary migration of refugees and Bulgaria, it proves hard to find studies which combine the two issues, leading again to the conclusion that Bulgaria has largely been overlooked in the context of the refugee crisis and migration flows. However, one of the few available articles on this topic argues that Bulgarian online news often portrays refugees either with empathy and concern, or as an irrevocable national catastrophe

threatening all domains of society (Nedelcheva 2017: 62). In line with the latter notion of refugees, academic and professor Mirchev has argued in his blog that the increased migration advances multiculturalism, Turkish interference in Bulgaria, a demographic crisis and

islamisation, all of which are incompatible with the identity of Bulgaria and hence pose threats to the stability and integrity of the nation state (Mirchev 2016: 3). Touching more on the topic of this thesis, Roberts has argued that “the entire length of the Bulgarian-Turkish border is now equipped with advanced surveillance technology, including sophisticated motion sensors, thermal imaging and night vision cameras able to penetrate several kilometres into Turkish territory”, which however still leaves question marks on how suitable

humanitarian protection will be generated for refugees, keeping in mind the nationalistic and anti-immigration context of the country (Roberts 2016: 53). Albeit here attention is payed to an important Bulgarian border, the study is focused mainly on the available technology rather than the daily border practices that are conducted to exercise control over people transiting through the country. That being so, the literature shows a gap in explaining which daily

(15)

15 border security practices are executed in Bulgaria in relation to irregular migrants transiting through the country, and the aim of this thesis is to fill exactly this gap by doing research on the everyday practices at the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders.

Overall, the debate on borders and border practices has enjoyed high interest in academic fields. Adding to that, FRONTEX has been involved in many studies in this field, while Europol seems an important cooperation actor who has not been touched upon much with regards to its partnership with national border police officers in the context of irregular migration (Mounier 2009: 583). The importance of the South-East European region in border security and refugee crisis can be traced back from the studies on Turkey and Greece.

However, the everyday Bulgarian borders practices -and in particular those performed around the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders- have been majorly overlooked. Also, there is a lack of studies showing the cooperation or interaction between FRONTEX, Europol and national authorities on the issue of illegal migration. This thesis aims to fill these gaps in the literature by studying the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders and providing empirical knowledge on the daily border security practices aimed at illegal migrants transiting through Bulgaria. In this way, the thesis will then offer an understanding of the overall interaction between international and national actors in this field.

Theoretical framework

To provide sufficient answers to the research question of the thesis, I will use the concept of the practice turn. To obtain a significant understanding of border security practices, I cannot study this issue at a distance or be limited to discourses (Côté-Boucher et al 2014: 200). The practice turn will allow me to go beyond dry language or policies, as it will aim to understand not only what happens as a daily routine on the Bulgarian borders, but also will focus on the meaning that national officials give to their practices (idem: 197). Applying this concept to my research question will put me in a position to go to the ‘field’, talk with people working on the border security department and implementing border practices as a daily routine, which then will provide information on “how actors conceive their roles, how they go about their daily routines, how they incorporate security practices and perform their identities, how they justify their actions” (idem: 200). Hence, the practice turn implies that the empirical

knowledge acquired from following these practices first hand can go on to provide an understanding and criticism for contemporary transnational relations (idem: 199). This concept has previously been used successfully by Frowd, who used the power of direct

(16)

16 experiences, ethnography and interviews to do research on Mauritania’s landscape as security terrain (Frowd 2014: 230-231). The study mainly emphasizes the importance of non-human factors, as it argues that “security is therefore not only the result of an institutional or

professional interplay; it is also an outcome of material processes, the deployment of security tools and the agency of objects” (idem: 229).

As touched upon in the literature review, scholars have argued and proven that the world is not ‘borderless’, but rather border practices have changed in the contemporary context and thus are not only executed at the border per se. Engaging with border practices, I will avoid limiting my research to just the territorial border by borrowing the concept of ‘bordering’. This concept relocates the focus from the sovereign lines, as it looks at “the everyday construction of borders among communities and groups, through ideology, discourses, political institutions, attitudes and agency” (Scott 2015: 3). This indicates that ‘bordering’ can happen in different contexts and through different actors. However, this keeps the concept of Scott quite broad, which could make the concept too vague for a Master thesis research. A similar idea about bordering comes from Balibar, who argues that borders are “dispersed a little everywhere, wherever the movement of information, people and things is happening and is controlled” (Balibar 1998: 126). Building on this, scholars have argued that “borders are increasingly characterized by movement rather than statis” (Johnson et al., 2011, p. 65). This hints that there are various ways of performing or constituting borders, ultimately demonstrating that borders undergo a “shift in resources and enforcement practices to

offshore and interior locales” (idem: 63). Put differently, by borrowing the concept of ‘bordering’ from Johnson et al., this research will not be limited to physical practices that happen at sovereign lines or territorial borders. Rather, the concept of bordering will allow the research to look at different ways in which borders are constructed, for example by paying attention to the attitudes of border guards, the process of data sharing through technological networks or information sharing with inland citizens. Hence, by combining the practice approach and the concept of bordering, I will leave out the focus on discourses which the concept of Scott suggests, as this would make the research too broad and would drift the attention away from the everyday border security practices, which hold a central place in this research. Further relating to the concept of bordering, it is important to note that while some scholars view the process of bordering as a construction of internal togetherness for a community (Scott 2007: 25), others point out that it is mainly implemented due to external pressures from outside (Brenner 2004: 449). Bordering thus suggests that borders are not permanent, but are created and reproduced by different actors, in different contexts and

(17)

17 through different methods, such as stereotypes and perceptions. (Scott 2015: 6). Hence, the concept of bordering moves away from the formal demarcation lines and nation state borders, allowing ‘the border’ to be used in a more fluid sense. Previous academic works have

provided concrete examples for this by using a similar concept of bordering as I am doing for my own research. For example, İşleyen argues that checkpoints and travel documents are prime examples of border practices which happen inland and figuratively pull the border away from static lines of maps (İşleyen 2018b: 27). Another study highlights the role of the

ordinary people, as “citizens, entrepreneurs, and ‘civil society’ actors, amongst others, can engage in bordering, or what is here termed borderwork, the efforts of ordinary people leading to the construction, dismantling, or shifting of borders” (Rumford 2012: 897). These examples showcase how bordering can be done by different actors, in different moments, places and contexts.

So, whereas some border practices are happening at the border and are easily notable with the practice approach, the concept of bordering will allow the research to go further and pay attention to practices that do not necessarily happen at the formal demarcation lines, as this concept offers room to look at the agency of different actors in different contexts. Although this broadens our understanding of borders, it allows this research to focus on and extract information from people performing different border activities, both at the actual, physical border as well as in other circumstances. Finally, the research will not be able to focus on all possible border creating actors (such as political party discourses or

schoolbooks), but will stick with people working for the department of border security and dealing with everyday border practices both at the nation state border as well as in other border-constructing- contexts. This conscious choice of focus is made in order to enhance our understanding of border practices executed by people who work for the border security department or at the physical border itself.

Research design

First of all, I used a big number of academic articles and secondary sources. The aim of including these previous works on border security and border practices is to draw a picture of the state of the art, which shows existing works in this field of and simultaneously also points out the gap in the literature which I am trying to fill with my research. I further used existing works to construct my theoretical framework and conceptualization, mainly by borrowing the ideas of ‘practice turn’ and ‘bordering’.

(18)

18 Furthermore, I used a variety of primary sources. Sticking to the concept of the

‘practice turn’ and in order to obtain a complete understanding of all border practices implemented, I went to the field in Bulgaria and spoke with different officials that work on the issue of border security. I conducted interviews with both officers that have higher positions in the border security department, as well as with border guards who actually implement the everyday border practices. Hence, the field interviews constitute the most important primary source of data that has been collected and used for the research. I

conducted a total of six interviews with seven interviewees2. Four of the respondents work on the Bulgarian- Serbian border, while two of them are active on the Bulgarian- Romanian border3. The final interview was conducted with the Bulgarian Head of the liaison bureau to Europol. I used semi-structured interviews and talked with border officials about the daily border practices aimed at irregular migrants transiting through Bulgaria that they perform, giving the interviewees the option to bring up all kinds of new and different ideas or opinions, as long as they were related to the research topic.

Whereas the ‘practice turn’ concept suggests that interviews are the most suitable way of collecting data (Salter and Mutlu 2012: 85), I experienced that carrying out such field interviews on the topic of border security is easier said than done. As the initial plan for this research was to focus on the Bulgarian- Turkish border, I contacted the Bulgarian officials working on this case via phone and mail, but never received an answer for the interviews. Following from this, I decided to go to the field and try to meet the people working at the Bulgarian- Turkish border in person. After spending multiple days at that particular border, I was denied access for interviews on several occasions. Most importantly, I was informed that no one would answer my mails or make the effort to give me an interview if I did not know an inside person from this field. This forced me to change my initial ideas and respectively I chose to alter the focus of my research towards the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders. Embracing the reality that emails would not bring my research much further, I was lucky to know one border guard from both borders via personal connections. Hence, after explaining my situation and convincing these personal connections of mine, these so- called ‘inside persons’ agreed to be interviewed and assured their colleagues that I

2_{One of the interviews on the Bulgarian-Serbian border was conducted with two respondents simultaneously.}

When quotes from this interview are used in the research, the first letter of the quoted person will precede the citation.

3_{The position of the interviewees, questionnaire, transcribed interviews and date on which the interviews were}

conducted, can be found in the Appendix. The interviews in the Appendix are transcribed in the original

language in which the interview was held, namely Bulgarian. Quotes used from the interviews in the research are translated into English for the sake of clarity and transparency.

(19)

19 can be trusted in the context of these interviews. Once the border guards were convinced by their colleagues and had more trust in me, I was able to ensure more interviews through the snowball effect, asking the border guards if they could refer me to other colleagues of theirs. In this way, I ended up overtaking the problem of access to the field and I managed to conduct interviews with border officials, which proved to be truly valuable sources of information for my overall analysis.

However, I did not just stick to field interviews for my research. As the

conceptualization sections hints, the concept of the ‘practice turn’ pushed me to try and conduct interviews on the ground in order to gain a better understanding of the perceptions and daily routines of all present actors in the field. Since both FRONTEX and Europol did not get back to me and my request for interviews, I had to change my plans on doing interviews with their employees. Hence, I decided to employ an interpretive analysis on the reports and policy documents published online by FRONTEX and Europol on my research topic, which ultimately provide information on the goals, objectives, ideas and actions that these

organizations take with regards to the topic of irregular migration (in the context of Bulgaria). Although (policy) documents analysis is not integral for the practice turn, arguments can be made why policy document analysis is an important aspect in understanding the perspective of organizations such as FRONTEX and Europol. As Eugee Bardach argues, in interpretivist social science research “almost all likely sources of information, data, and ideas fall into two general types: documents and people” (Bardach 2009: 69). When one is not able to reach the people in a research, it makes sense to turn to the documents of the organization. What is even more so, both policy documents and interviews hold special relevance for the practice approach (Salter and Mutlu 2012: 107). In her noteworthy book on interpretive policy analysis, Dvora Yanow argues that “document reading can also be part of an observational study or an interview based project. Documents can provide background information prior to designing the research, (…) they may corroborate observational and interview data, or they may refute them (Yanow 2007: 411). Opposite of seeing documents as just pure and sober facts, one study argues that documents have an important normative dimension, which gives information on the goals, values and assumptions that organizations have (Owen 2014: 7). Hence, these written materials are valuable sources of information on meaning production, actors’ perception of the self and others and discursive struggles over meanings which are attached to issues such as migration, borders, security (Salter and Mutlu 2012: 104). As this research aims to study such meanings, perceptions and attitudes, both interviews and policy documents are suitable sources for the goal of the thesis. Examples of such documents related

(20)

20 to this research are Programming Documents, General Reports and Evaluation Reports which are all publicized on the internet websites of FRONTEX and Europol. Following from this, I argue that the (policy) documents and reports draw up the organizations’ view on irregular migration, their role and objectives on this issue and the practices they perform on a daily basis with regards to irregular migration in the context of Bulgaria.

However, an important downside of policy documents analysis should not be overlooked. As one study relates documents to facts, it argues that “the facts of history and evaluation never come to us ‘pure,’ since they do not and cannot exist in a pure form; they are always refracted through the mind of the recorder” especially since the facts we find in

documents “have been selected by the recorder” (Caulley 1983: 28). Furthermore, documents are to be perceived as non- stable things, but are rather “produced in social settings and are always to be regarded as collective (social) products” (Prior 2003: 26). Some academics even go as far as arguing that documents are produced to “benefit someone or some cause dear to himself or herself.” (Caulley 1983: 24). Although it can be argued that this reasoning displays a certain downside to policy documents analysis, this downside is not problematic for this thesis. Primarily, the thesis has the aim to display the (different) perspective of the studied actors. Hence, the arguments that documents are ‘biased’, ‘selected for someone’s purpose’. ‘refracted’ or ‘the product of some social setting’, should not be seen as disturbing, but rather as an indication of the perspective of the studied actors. Thus, the dynamics or objectivity of documents should be considered, but since the aim of the thesis is to provide the perspectives of the different actors, this downside of policy document analysis will not be a central

drawback of the research, as the ‘bias’ in documents will actually provide more information on the studied perspectives.

Whereas the ‘limitations’ of using policy documents are clearly laid out, the

downsides of interviews are also important to be mentioned. As noted previously, I went to the ground in Bulgaria and talked with different employees of the Bulgarian security

department at the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders. The interviews give a good, first-hand idea on the daily routine, perceptions and experiences of the border guards. However, with this comes the limitation that the interviews are related to a topic where secrecy is common (Kuus 2013: 118). This limitation is clearly articulated through the issues of limited access and unwillingness of border security guards to provide me with information at first, which I encountered in the process of collecting data. Although the specific problem of secrecy is not extensively debated and theorised, a forthcoming work of multiple authors prognosticates that ‘bureaucratic obfuscation, silences and delays in replying to research

(21)

21 requests’ are complications that can be expected in security studies and in addition these obstacles themselves present a comprehension of the malfunctioning of the state (De Goede et al 2019: 21-22). Furthermore, it is possible that actors will conceal some information and will only provide information that is suitable for them (Pallister-Wilkins 2015: 56). However, this does not appear as a central issue for the research, as this projects tries to give the

perspectives of the interviewed border guards and hence everything they say or conceal is part of their own perspective they wish to offer.

The method for collecting data has been different in terms of constituting the perspective of Europol and FRONTEX on one side and the perspective of the Bulgarian border guards on the other. Since the primary sources I used for the FRONTEX and Europol perspectives were publicized online, I did not have to collect this data myself. However, I have used the method of interviewing to collect data and gather information from Bulgarian officials. As arguments can be made for the importance of both policy documents as well as interviews in this research, I decided to use both types of sources. Leaving one out for the sake of the other would weaken the research and the depth of the data would be reduced. However, using the techniques of document analysis together with conducting interviews has provided this research with the opportunity for triangulation of data, which has made it possible to obtain an abundant understanding of the actors and their daily routines in the field of irregular migration.

As mentioned before, the main objective of the research is to look at border practices and understand what this practices tell us about the interaction of the different actors. Still, some of the information and data on border security practices has been gathered through conducting interviews and reading policy documents on this topic, which indicates that language does have a role in the research as “discourse is also a form of practice in that it is through discursive articulations that social action is presented and meanings and legitimations for social practices are constructed” (İşleyen 2018b: 26). As an example, Hansen combines a focus on both Western security practices and security discourses on the Bosnia war, arguing that both issues represent and embody the identity formation of Western countries in the context of the conflict (Hansen 2006: 37). However, the research of this thesis distances itself from using a pure discourse analysis, as this is conflicting with the main goal of looking at practices. Rather, the research will use an interpretive approach in terms of data analysis to understand and relate the data from the policy documents and interviews to my research. This method of analysis has a flexible nature, as it allows “meanings of the key concepts and,

(22)

22 often, of the concepts themselves to emerge from the field” (Yanow 2014 :132). In this way, based on the analysis of words, the interpretive analysis gives meanings, here understood as values, beliefs or sentiments, a central role in comprehending social realities (idem: 134). Relating the approach further to understanding social realities, it “argues in favour of thickly contextualized renderings of social realities and of recognizing the inescapable subjectivity of the researcher as well as of the researched, along with the intersubjective making of situated meaning” (ibid). A notable limitation of the interpretive analysis method is that this method of analysis brings a sense of arbitrariness with itself (Bryman 2016: 566). However, openly presenting the data and then clearly analysing it will increase transparency and reduce this possible bias. Furthermore, the interpretive approach seems suitable for the aim of the

research, as similar previous researches on security practices have also successfully employed this approach for their work (İşleyen 2018b; Côté-Boucher et al 2014; Pallister-Wilkins 2015).

Connecting this approach to my own research, I will first of all be looking at what exact border practices are mentioned to be executed on a daily basis and how these practices are evaluated. Second, I will examine how the interviews and policy documents describe the ideas of the actors on their multilateral interaction and on the issue of irregular migration, which will provide us with the attitudes of the different actors. The empirical chapters are structured as follows: Data is presented (either from interviews, online documents or publications) and is then analysed through the interpretive approach, so that the importance and meaning of the presented data can be explained for the purpose of the research. Similar to Bigo’s research, this will include what actors “say they do, and what they say others are doing; what their official objectives are; the strategies they employ to develop the technologies they consider necessary to achieve their objectives; the targets they have in mind; and their own appreciation of the successes and failures of their way of controlling and the methods of control used by other actors” (Bigo 2014: 210).

Overall, this research design has provided sufficient data for my research question, as the border practices are laid out and the meaning behind them is analysed and interpreted in order to tell us something more about the interaction between international and national actors. In turn, this provides information for the existing problem of lack of material for what is happening at and around the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders with regards to border security practices and multilateral cooperation.

(23)

23

Empirical Analysis

Analysing the empirical data from interviews, policy documents and other publications has resulted in many findings on both the border security practices carried out at the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders, as well as on the interaction between FRONTEX, Europol and Bulgarian border officials in the context of irregular migration. First, the analysis shows that the actors hold a number of (different) perceptions of irregular migrants transiting through Bulgaria. Second, the analysis shows that there are a number of techniques that predominantly feature in the border practices carried out by the studied actors. In order to give a clear overview of the large amount of data obtained, I will use multiple tables to summarize the key findings on both the perceptions and border practices of the several actors.

Perceptions of the self Perceptions of irregular migration - ‘Supportive’ role to EU

Member States

- Shared responsibility

- Poses security threats

- Links with crimes, criminal networks, terrorism

- Increases pressure on EU Member States

- Not every migrant presents a threat

Table 1: FRONTEX’ perceptions

Perception of the self Perceptions of irregular migration - Assists partner countries - Main target: criminal networks who

profit from irregular migration

- Provides opportunities for criminals

- Links with a number of direct and indirect crimes

- Poses security threats (like terrorism)

(24)

24 Perceptions of the self Perceptions of irregular migration

- Protectors of the law

- Europe’s gatekeeper

- Carry big responsibility

- The ones who breach the law

- No documents, suspicious

- Links with criminal networks, terrorism

- Contribute to rise in criminality

- Foster corruption

- Threaten social welfare systems of EU countries

- International threat

- Have conflicting norms, values, identities

Table 3: Bulgarian border official’s perceptions

Table 4: Bulgarian border officials evaluating the interaction with FRONTEX and Europol Comments on FRONTEX Comments on Europol

- Characterized by negativity

- Does not work with concrete data

- In practice they do not perform the activities as described on paper

- Have restricted powers

- Language barrier

- Fail to combat corruption

- Positive: financial help, supervising implementation of EU laws (to some extent)

- Rather positive about interaction

- Their practices have added value

- Works in favour of the country

- Contribute to security cooperation in Europe

- Financial aid

(25)

25 - Stationary border surveillance, patrolling

- Organizing briefings

- Monitoring in operational area

- Stop people, check documents, ask questions on intentions

- Security body searches, transportation of migrants

- Coordination of information with bordering countries

- Supervise correct enforcement of EU laws

- Other, general tasks

Table 5: FRONTEX’s practices on Bulgarian-Serbian and Bulgarian-Romanian borders

- Collecting data, arranging data exchange

- Monitor and analyse data, provide analytical and technical assistance

- Expert assistance

- Organize trainings

- Provide financial support

- Liaison offices for quick communication

Table 6: Europol’s practices concerning the Bulgarian-Serbian and Bulgarian-Romanian borders

- ‘The human factor’: preventive activities, collaboration with locals

- Prophylactic checks, rapid interventions

- Use of technical measures: fingerprint databases, special binoculars, surveillance cameras, jeeps with thermal vision cameras

Table 7: Bulgarian border officials practices on Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders

(26)

26

Perceptions of irregular migration

This chapter will give a background overview of the researched actors that play a role in the issue of irregular migration in the context of Bulgaria. By drawing on the actors’

understandings of irregular migration, the chapter will lay out the differences and similarities that FRONTEX, Europol and the Bulgarian border officials hold in their attitudes towards the studied phenomena. The chapter is structured in three main sections which separate the different actors. The first section focuses on the perspective of FRONTEX. The second one draws up the perception of Europol on irregular migration, while the third section describes the views of the Bulgarian border officials. The perspective of the Bulgarians is drawn up from the interviews that I have managed to conduct at the Bulgarian- Serbian and Bulgarian- Romanian borders. For the perspective of FRONTEX and Europol, the research has turned to the large scale published documents gathered from their websites for first- hand information. Some themes that one actor links to irregular migration are repeated by other actors, while certain other themes are pinpointed singly by one actor. In this way, the chapter draws up to what extend FRONTEX, Europol and the Bulgarian border officials share the same ideas and how their perspectives differ from one another on the issue of irregular migration.

FRONTEX’ perspective

Starting off with the ideas of FRONTEX, it is interesting to see that the organization does not have a clearly pronounced statement or perception of irregular migration. Rather, the

overarching mission statement of FRONTEX suggests that “together with the Member States, we ensure safe and well-functioning external borders providing security.” (FRONTEX 2019a: 10). However, reading between the lines and looking into more specific documents, the link that FRONTEX makes between ‘providing security’ and irregular migration can be traced back (Neal 2009: 334). The political framework under which FRONTEX is constituted, suggests that the organization works as part of the European Agenda on Migration (ibid). This Agenda on Migration came about as a result of an initiative from the European Agenda on Security, which suggested that a separate agenda should be established to support the border practices of EU Member States and to coordinate border management in the context of the rising migration pressure that Europe faces (European Commission 2015a: 6).

Looking top-down at the issue, the process goes as follows. The European

(27)

27 delicate topic which needs further assessment in an ad-hoc document such as the European Agenda on Migration. This showcases how irregular migration is framed as a security issue. Then, the Agenda on Migration advocates for reinforcing and elevating the role and capacities of FRONTEX on the issue of irregular migration (European Commission 2015b: 11-12). This displays FRONTEX as a leading tool of the European Union to address the risks that irregular migration could entail for the overall security of the Union. So far, a clear picture is drawn of irregular migration being seen as a key security issue, on which FRONTEX ought to operate. Following from this, it is important to have a look at how FRONTEX evaluates the expected risks that come with irregular migration. To understand this, it is important to look at the core of the organization, which is laid out in Regulation 2016/1624 (FRONTEX). This legal

document establishes the European Border and Coast Guard Agency as we know it today, by increasing the responsibilities of the organization.

“This Regulation establishes a European Border and Coast Guard to ensure European integrated border management at the external borders with a view to managing the crossing of the external borders efficiently. This includes addressing migratory challenges and potential future threats at those borders, thereby contributing to addressing serious crime with a cross-border dimension, to ensure a high level of internal security within the Union in full respect for fundamental rights, while

safeguarding the free movement of persons within it.” (Journal of the European Union 2016: 10).

An integrated border management on crossings of external borders is highlighted first. Second, FRONTEX is directly linked to addressing all possible problems and risks that come with migration. Whereas this might seem rather broad or vague, the document underlines several concrete issues which FRONTEX emphasizes when addressing the ‘migratory challenges’. Examples of such threats, put forward in the document, are “cross-border crime including facilitation of unauthorised border crossings, trafficking in human beings, terrorism and threats of a hybrid nature” (Journal of the European Union 2016: 3). Furthermore, in the most recent Risk Analysis document, FRONTEX stresses that “the Eastern Mediterranean routes saw an increase in the detections of illegal crossings last year” (FRONTEX 2019b: 6). The Eastern Mediterranean route and the detected illegal border crossings are depicted in Figure 2. Whereas one could argue that not all 56 561 detected illegal border crossings from this route happened at Bulgarian borders, for this research it is still crucial to pay attention to

(28)

28 this route because this is the only path that irregular migrants take when they transit through Bulgaria.

Figure 2: Detections of illegal border crossings at the EU’s external borders in 2018. (Source: FRONTEX 2019b: 16).

Moreover, the Risk Analysis document speaks of concrete threats when indicating the problematics of irregular migration. According to this document, the high-risk issues related to irregular migration that should receive the most attention are cross-border crimes, criminal smuggling networks and people with potential links to terrorism (FRONTEX 2019b: 6-7). However, this is a more general description of the ideas that FRONTEX holds towards migration. Focusing more on how FRONTEX evaluates irregular migration in the context of the borders that are important for this research, a more concrete idea can be acquired with regards to the Bulgarian-Serbian border on which FRONTEX is particularly active. The latest available evaluation reports from multiple FRONTEX operations in 2017 on the Bulgarian-Serbian border reveal that there has been a notable decrease in number of migrant

apprehension compared to the same operations of FRONTEX in 2016 (FRONTEX 2017a: 4; FRONTEX 2017b: 3). However, the evaluation report on the ‘Joint Operation Flexible Operational Activities 2017 Land on Border Surveillance’ points out that a total of 1491

(29)

29 irregular migrant apprehensions have taken place at the Bulgarian-Serbian border, which makes this the border with the second highest number of irregular migrant apprehensions after the Greek-Turkish one in the region of the ‘South Eastern land border’ (FRONTEX 2017b: 3). This suggests that despite the decrease compared to previous years, there are still a big

number of cases of irregular migration along the Bulgarian- Serbian border, which makes FRONTEX attentive and active on this border. This is translated more concretely in the responsibilities, task and objectives of FRONTEX on the Bulgarian-Serbian issue, which include the implementation of “coordinated operational activities at the EU external land borders in order to control irregular migration flows towards the territory of the MS of the European Union (EU), to tackle cross-border crime and to enhance European cooperation” (idem: 4).

Overall, despite FRONTEX not having an official statement on its view towards irregular migration, the organization links the issue of irregular migration to vital security threats such as unauthorised border crossings, trafficking in human beings and potential terrorism. In this way, it can be understood that FRONTEX perceives irregular migration as an issues that comes with and supplements the outlined threats. Hence, it is not to say that FRONTEX views every irregular migrant as a threat or a criminal. Rather, the documents from the organization suggest that irregular migration increases pressure on EU Member States by potentially increasing the risks of cross-border crimes, criminal smuggling networks, potential terrorist threats or threats of a hybrid nature. Furthermore, FRONTEX acknowledges a relative decrease in irregular migration at the Bulgarian-Serbian border, but still deems this border prominent due to the noteworthy absolute number of irregular migrant apprehensions that have taken place in their latest operations.

Europol’s perspective

Another important player that engages actively on the issue of irregular migration, is the European Police Office, better known as Europol. Whereas FRONTEX is (physically) present at the EU (external) borders, Europol is said to focus more on bringing about ‘better police cooperation’ in Europe (Mounier 2009: 582). Thus, Europol does not so often send employees at borders, but has instead built up a network via liaison officers in the capitals of all countries with which the organization cooperates (Europol 2011: 10). In this way, Europol facilitates the exchange of information and provides support for ongoing investigations of issues such as “illicit drug trafficking, illicit immigration networks and trafficking in human beings,

(30)

30 terrorism, money laundering and counterfeiting of the Euro, financial crime, crime against persons, child pornography and cybercrime” (Mounier 2009: 584). Although this quote shows that Europol has been active in irregular migration for a long time, it is vital to pay attention to the changes Europol has undertaken due to the new circumstances shaped by the ‘refugee crisis’.

Similar to the process which enriched the responsibilities of FRONTEX, the European Agenda on Migration also had an impactful influence on Europol’s responsibilities regarding irregular migration (European Commission 2015b: 3-4). According to Dimitris

Avramopoulos, EU Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, “the fight against migrant smuggling is a key priority for the European Union in addressing the ‘refugee crisis’. In order to step up and coordinate efforts across Member States, the European

Commission announced the creation of a European Migrant Smuggling Centre with Europol in its European Agenda on Migration” (European Commission 2016). In this way, the European Commission –via its Agenda on Migration- launched the European Migrant Smuggling Centre (EMSC) in 2016 and directed Europol’s focus more towards the issue of irregular migration. In doing so, the European Commission once again framed irregular migration as a security issue to which more attention should be paid, by adding Europol’s EMSC centre as an important actor which was supposed to operate on the issue. Following from this, the publications and documents of this particular centre showcase best how Europol views and deals with migration and crime.

Even before launching the EMSC, Europol had noted that almost all travels, border crossings and journeys of migrants were facilitated by criminal networks which engaged in migrant smuggling (Europol). Hence, Robert Crepinko, head of the EMSC, stressed that “migrant smuggling to and within the EU is likely to remain a key criminal threat” (Europol 2018a). As such, Europol named the ‘facilitation of illegal migration’ as a key strategic priority in its policy cycle (Europol 2012: 2). This was Europol’s starting point to tackle the problems of irregular migration. More concretely, Europol addressed specifically ‘the online trade in illicit services, document fraud and money laundery’, as these were seen as issues directly linked to illegal migration (Europol 2018b: 4). However, Europol has not only limited itself to illegal migration and these ‘direct’ crimes linked to it. Rather, documents show that irregular migration and migrant smuggling often hold links with other criminal acts, such as human trafficking and drugs crimes (Europol 2017: 18). Furthermore, the most recent annual activity report of the EMSC asserts that attention is also payed to problems indirectly linked to irregular migration and migrant smuggling, such as money laundering, forced begging and

The daily border security practices performed by FRONTEX, Europol and Bulgarian border officials in their interaction in the issue of irregular migrants transiting through Bulgaria