Last year I added a glossary entry “coercive engineered migration” about a phenomenon described in Kelly Greenhill’s book, Weapons of Mass Migration, in which she uses as her best example Qaddafi threatening Europe with uncontrolled migration from Africa if they didn’t comply with his demands.
The theory behind coercive engineered migration is that relatively weak foreign rulers can effect policy change in democratic Western countries by forcing politicians to make a choice: either capitulate to their demands or be faced with a choice to either accept a flood of migrants or to refuse migrants and expose your country and its citizens as hypocrites. It was a very effective tactic and now, having bombed Libya into the stone age and set up Qaddafi to be killed, the West is using his tactic against its own people.
From charging European countries exorbitant fines upward of $300,000 per migrant refused, to threatening uncontrolled African migration if Libya is not taken in hand, the ruling elite of the EU and the US are, by hook or by crook, getting Europe to consent to participating in the military conquest of the Middle East.
Here is today’s propaganda from The Wall Street Journal: Arm our version of a government in Libya or be overrun…
U.S. and Others Open to Arming Libyan Government
Secretary of State John Kerry and top diplomats meet in Vienna to discuss anti-Islamic State measures
The Vienna meeting was co-chaired by Italy, Libya’s former colonial ruler, which is concerned about the country’s stability because of the threat of uncontrolled migration. Libya’s Mediterranean coast is a main departure point for migrants to southern Europe.
My distinction between recognizing the free exercise of the rights to work and travel and calling out coercive engineered migration has drawn some fire from libertarians, and I understand why, but one of my arguments for resisting this tactic is that the more effective it is the more it gives the powers that be–and even the powers that wanna-be–an incentive to continue to use it by destabilizing regimes from within through radical Islamic fifth columns and economic destabilization and without through mercenaries and military action.
To me, it is an inescapable conclusion that radical Islam and the migrant crisis are tools being used by the global military industrial complex for the subjugation of the Middle East. What else would explain the West’s policy of toppling secular Arab strongmen who kept radical Islam in check? The pattern is undeniable, from Qaddafi to Hussein to Assad in recent memory, to the mid-Twentieth century regime changes of the secular governments of Iran and Afghanistan. (Am I missing any? Oh yeah–using the Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser in Egypt and against Assad père in Homs, though those attempts at regime change were unsuccessful.)