Weaponisation of Migration: Russia, Middle East, and Gaza

Abstract

Migration has been a fundamental part of human history. Depending on the circumstances of the move, International Law defines them as voluntary, involuntary, and internally or externally displaced. As a result of the world’s alteration, a new understanding of migration evolved. Following the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11, the Arab Spring, the overthrow of regimes, the civil war in Syria, the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS), and the resulting European Refugee Crisis, the explicit purpose of this chaos became evident. International society has accepted these conflicts as a consequence of politics; other voices are ignored as conspiracies. Western countries have become home to more migrants, while migrant-producing countries have seen their populations decline. Aside from the military and humanitarian pressure that Europe and its allies are facing following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the countries of the former Soviet Union are also experiencing migration issues. Russia, “Big Brother,” remains active in these countries’ policies despite their independence after the USSR collapse. The Middle East has not yet restored its former designation as the “Cradle of Civilisation.” In light of the weaponisation of migration, this chapter analyses patterns and approaches to ongoing conflicts.

1. Introduction

Mass Migration is a weapon with the world changing capacity by using millions of humans instead of bullets. Its danger changes with the hands on the trigger.

Dr. Agil Aliyev (PhD)

People have been on the move since the first human beings were born. Humanity and its history would not have evolved without relocations. The reasons for such moves have been associated with different factors as well as fear since the early days of homo sapiens. Due to natural disasters and attacks by wild animals, they altered their places of residence. Following the settlement of the first human groups, human origin fear became the primary cause of replacement. Human civilisations were eventually formed as a result of the movement of humans across a vast area of land. By then, the reasons behind the migration had been developed simultaneously with the advancements in culture and technology. The reasons for migration are often diverse and depend on a wide range of factors, both in the place of origin and the place of destination, but also fear of socio-economic instability and oppression of different political views remains at the core of migration. It is possible to define people from the point of fear to gain an understanding of their susceptibility to exile. I would argue that in recent years, one of the significant types of migration has been accompanied by fear; however, the scale of fear is the most essential characteristic of each type of move. Voluntary migration refers to one’s free choice to move to another country regardless of any concerns of persecution or the need for economic improvement. This type of migration is still affected by the fear of losing property, employment, or finances due to personal reasons, although the degree of fear is less than that caused by other types of migration. Involuntary migration or forced displacement is of different types. Internal displacement or internal forced migration occurs within a country of origin where internally displaced people are persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalised violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognised state border [1]. However, moving to safer places within a country mitigates the problems. In contrast, externally forced displaced persons or refugees cannot relocate to a safer location within a country. Because of their fear levels, these migrants are among the most vulnerable. Understanding human security is crucial in today’s definition of refugees or external forced migration. It is not always the case that displaced people are at risk of losing their lives if they do not flee their country of birth to another country to escape the turmoil there. Even amid conflict, people can live with a minimum standard of living through the aid of international, non-governmental organisations. There are exceptions to natural disasters such as the rising ocean level, which threatens the lives of inhabitants of small islands, Arakan Muslims in Myanmar, Palestinians in Gazza, who are in a limbo of life or death, and countries with inhumane policies towards particular religions, ethnicities, and political ideologies. International Law, however, recognises humanitarianism as a fundamental value and protects the rights of externally displaced people or refugees through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), [2] Geneva Conventions [3] 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, [4] and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. Furthermore, a number of international organisations and countries have enacted refugee protection legislation.

A refugee is a person owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. Refuge or refugium, defined as “shelter and asylum,” was the name given to Protestants who had left France following the abolition of the Nant Decree in the seventeenth century. In 1685, nearly 400,000 French Protestants crossed the English border due to religious considerations [5]. As a result, refugees were treated like immigrants from neighbouring states, whose religious and political judges outraged them.

The improved transportation and travel routes have enabled refugees to migrate to further countries rather than just to their neighbouring states. Besides legal migrations, illegal moves have also been developed. Unlawful activities of clandestine groups trap refugees and offer multiple routes, including deadly journeys such as crossing the Mediterranean Sea on plastic boats, to those who do not have access to safer countries. In light of the increasing number of refugees, the death toll has reached a disturbing level. Between 2014 and January 2024, approximately 37,000 migrants including refugees were drowned in the sea whilst attempting to reach Europe [6]. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 2024 Global Planning estimate, the number of forcibly displaced or stateless is more than 130 million globally. Among them, 62,960,690 (48%) are internally displaced persons (IDPs), and 32,574,812 (25%) are refugees [7].

Different factors contribute to external forced migration. Theories characterise movements with the “Push and Pull” element [8]. Everett Lee stated that migration is determined by attracting pull factors at the destination and repelling push factors at the origin [9]. Push factors include humanitarian crises, armed conflicts, environmental catastrophes, poverty, social exclusion, or unemployment, whereas pull factors assure safety and human treatment. Consequently, current refugee movements aim to reach the final destination with maximum opportunities rather than sheltering in areas with limited economic prospects. Because, besides the promising standards of Europe and the United States or Global North, the circumstances of the displaced people’s region do not give hope for the future. Those states with similar political systems and war zones lead migrants to the Global North. Various factors also contribute to the attraction of migrants to the Western world. The different ideologies influence the socio-economic and political situations as important components for indicating the difference between the West and the East. Under the shadow of capitalism and socialism, refugees fleeing from the Soviet Union were used as a tool to target socialism as a violator of its citizens’ human rights during the Cold War. In response, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s, the communist bloc regarded the UNHCR as an illegitimate tool of Western imperialism and rarely cooperated with it [10]. The migrants were eventually referred to as “refugees fleeing Communism,” but in reality, people fled from the political oppression of Iron Fist.

One of the strongest factors that attract migrants is economic and political globalisation, which spreads as one of the components of Western values, and no nation has been spared from this phenomenon. Today, globalisation is unquestionably dominant with Western characteristics. It is impossible for even conservative nations to avoid adapting to the globalised culture. Westernisation or liberalism is not limited to the way of life but has also significantly reshaped international law and understanding, protecting human rights. This is one of the main reasons why the Liberal World is regarded as a fortress of human freedom. Meanwhile, the ongoing situation in world politics exhibits that globalisation, with its Western approach to human rights, is rapidly giving way to a non-liberal worldview, where the liberal values are undermined and controlled by the governments, as in the Soviets. Soviet-like systems filter the flow of liberal ideologies and dictate or decide good and bad for society. It is true that some elements of modern Western liberal ideology are incompatible with the East’s conservative values, from individual self-determination to one’s decision of choosing gender to rulings of governments. Since International Law is based on classical liberalism principles, the threat to its modern version is aimed at all liberal ideologies and their universal rights. In addition to soft power, the West is unafraid of using hard power to impose liberalism. In North Africa, the Middle East, and Afghanistan, for example, destruction led to mistruths, which in turn caused resistance. A lack of adequate comprehension of regions’ cultures, history, and society led to the Global South becoming an opposing force. The result of disabling the regions with conflicts has been a source of mass migration, the transformative power of the globe. The issue of mass migration is an issue of individual, national, and international security. Managing the masses and implementing migration policies pose challenges to international organisations such as UNHCR and international organisation for migration (IOM). Due to deficiencies in migration policy-making and control, unilateralism gained popularity, and migration was utilised as a weapon in geopolitics and global affairs. Currently, the use of traditional weapons of destruction can be dangerous and a violation of International Law; therefore, mass migrations of forcibly displaced people are a more effective and alternative approach than conventional weapons. World politics has already demonstrated the consequences of war through migration. Brexit, Europe’s vulnerability to migration, anti-migration policies in the Netherlands, India’s escalation of exile through political and social discrimination on the Muslim population as a means of maintaining a monoethnic Hindu nation, change in Türkiye’s demographics, and Russian involvement in the Ukraine conflict are some examples. The dynamic nature of world politics creates a new ownership interest in hybrid weapons. More migrants equate to more powerful weapons in the non-classical military war. Although migration studies have been conducted for many years, the use of mass migration by non-governmental and criminal organisations has not been explored well. The world’s society will be unable to take protective measures if it does not understand the aggressor’s mindset and purpose behind this weapon. The significance of the investigation is based on finding the pawns in the game of directing migration, particularly in post-Soviet States after the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war, the current situation of the Middle East and refugees from the region, and Israel’s aggressive warfare against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Thus, this chapter provides an illuminating analysis of the intentions of the actors who play with the fates of millions of forced migrants and examines the types of weaponisation of migration in the three most important locations.

The research was conducted using qualitative methods and historical analyses of the events that impacted migration. Applying Kelly Greenhill’s definitions of “weaponisation of migration” on the three regions is the main method of investigating the issue. Although the understanding of migration is derived from International Law, the primary sources are based on the statistics of UNHCR, articles and other sources such as news agencies.

2. Background

As a result of the emergence of new conflicts in the twenty-first century, new weapons and tactics have also been developed to destabilise opponents and gain more power. Although mass migration is associated with political disorder, the root causes for creating such turmoil have been increasing under different actors for the new frontiers. Using migration as a tool of “those cross-border population movements deliberately created or manipulated to induce political, military and economic concessions from a target state or states” for the first time contributed by Kelly Greenhill [11]. Historically, many different states have used this type of new war tactics. However, the concept of strategically weaponising mass migration is new in migration studies and has not been theorised in these fields. Generally, before Greenhill, scholars like Michael Teitelbaum [12], Myron Weiner [13], Robert Mandel [14], and Charles Keely [15] identified the root causes and purposes of migration by different states [16]. Despite this, if migration or forced displacement is examined from a weaponisation standpoint (use of migration flow as a weapon to destabilise and gain power over the target or enemy state), it would clearly demonstrate the targets of the masterminds, as well as provide insight into the reasons for modern warlike conditions. According to Greenhill, “Coercive engineered migrations” (or coercion-driven migrations) are exercised by generators, provocateurs, and opportunists, and can be characterised by success or failure for various reasons [17] and the outcomes depend on the policies and power of the target states. Additionally, she views the states as mere engineers of migration. As a result, new players have emerged, in addition to countries, through mass migration, such as terrorist groups, human smugglers, and traffickers, whose actions are prolonging wars and threatening the safety of citizens worldwide. It also leads to an increasing number of users of this hybrid weapon in various regions and actors, making the development of alternative solutions more challenging. Also, it is essential to note that the weaponisation of migration can be classified into seven types: coercive (forcing policy), dispossessive (ethnic cleansing, appropriation territory), exportive (expel dissidents, destabilisation of an enemy), economic (exploitation of migrants for cheap labour, importation and exportation of forced labour), fifth-column (gain of political power on target states through sympathisers), militarised (infiltration, disruption enemy of support), and political (passportisation, propaganda)l [18]. In Kelly Greenhill’s view, users of these types can consequently lead to resistors and restrictionists (anti-migrant) and protectors and promoters (pro-migrant) in target countries. By means, wars and conflicts are not coincidental occurrences but are deliberately orchestrated by actors and changes in tactics to facilitate the flow of people. Examples of the weaponisation of migration become available for the exercisers to achieve their agendas. The strategy can be utilised by minor actors such as distinct groups in migrant producer and receiver countries with varying political beliefs to unseen forces beyond the states that aim to alter the established global order. Nevertheless, the chapter aims to identify the origin and consequences of the migration flow that occurred both in the West and in the post-Soviet states following Russia’s war with Ukraine. Western countries, mainly Europe, have become vulnerable after the World Refugee Crisis, which scholars have extensively studied, yet the Russian displaced people in post-Soviets have not been investigated. The research aims to identify Russia’s interests in Russian-forced migrants in the post-USSR world by using different types of migration weaponisation. Another sensitive geography is the Middle East, where diversity empowers weaponisation actors. Türkiye’s problems with migration as a crossroads country for mass migration and the large number of refugees are being incorporated into the Middle East as an essential factor. The chapter also examines the current stage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the violence in Gaza, the reasons for such violence, and future purposes with the application of weaponisation variants.

3. Weaponisation of migration

3.1 Russia

The history of the twentieth century has significantly altered the course of politics. Early in the twentieth century, the world witnessed the resurrection of the Russian Empire in the form of the USSR, but with more ambitious and forceful ideologies. The world was divided into two fronts, democracy and capitalism, which were challenged by opposing principles. After the collapse of the Russian empire, newly independent countries were once again invaded by communist-socialist rebels. As a result of the union of 15 heterogeneous nations, the USSR was formed. Until Khrushchev’s rule, massive movements of people, persecution of scholars and poets, transfer to gulags, and prohibition of cultural and religious identity were characteristics of the Soviet Union. Consequently, the violently imposed “cultural reform” born a Soviet Man. In the last year of its existence, the Soviet Union occupied nearly one-sixth of the Earth’s land area, covering 8,650,000 square miles (22,400,000 square kilometres). Approximately 290 million people lived within its borders, representing 100 nationalities [19]. Following the collapse of the USSR, world politics experienced a slight shift from bipolarity to polarity. The former 15 Soviet states could regain independence, and Russia was considered a successor of the former USSR, though, the international society saw this desendancy as they accepted other post-Soviet states. Facing economic and social issues, the newly formed Russian Federation had no choice but to adopt democracy and a market economy. Indeed, a similar situation devastated all former Soviet states, and the only solution was to versatile the policies of the developed countries of the West.

The struggle of post-Soviet states was not solely economic but also a search for a new identity for the former “Soviet Man.” Religious and national inheritance played a vital role in this process. Despite all the difficulties, Russian society had to refrain from the depression of a weak state and find a solution to become stronger again. The time-lapse brought to the fore different nationalist movements with the principles of Russianism, a return from atheism to Orthodoxy as in imperial Russia. It was one of the ways to counter the result of the demise of the USSR. In contrast, they did not want to live under the “tsar’s rule” because the 1990s Russians’ formulation as a nation was influenced by Soviet nostalgia. Although other nations secretly preserved the traditions and faith during the Atheist dictatorship, the post-Soviet characteristics had been constructed from Moscow in the one language, Russian, and the goal of making Slavs superior to non-slavs under the USSR. Because of this, Russians found it more difficult to identify themselves than their counterparts in other former states. During this time of limbo, a search for Russianism between imperial Russia and the USSR, the saviour of the Russians, was required to acquire both values. In the following years, Vladimir Putin, a former lieutenant colonel of the KGB, ascended to power. The person who demonstrates his faith by visiting churches, celebrating religious festivals with the patriarch of Orthodoxy, seeing the Soviets as a destructor of historical Russia, the reason for the loss of 1000 years of culture, and at the same time criticising Stalin’s policies, yet who still thinks downfall of the Soviets as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” and the Russian population in the post-Soviet countries as a “major humanitarian tragedy” of the twentieth century [20]. Thus, Russian society evolved from both imperial and Soviet elements. Interestingly, post-Soviet states possessed similar methods of defining their identities, restoring religious beliefs, establishing a tradition based on history, and longing for a Soviet style of government. In the eyes of the older generations, the Soviet Union was a place of flowing “honey and milk,” they opposed democracy and capitalism due to the policies of the newly independent governments. Post-Soviet states adhered to democracy; however, their heads of government ignored democracy in favour of one man’s rule or that of particular groups. The other 13 states, including Russia, except for Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, are governed in a Soviet-style manner with a few differences. Two factors contributed to the Soviet presence in independent states: the leaders who were once members of the Soviet Union’s ruling elite and the geographical proximity to Russia. Therefore, authorities of these states, directly and indirectly, have ties with Russia, and it opens entities to Russia in geopolitics. Further, the post-Soviet states’ population is another key factor that prevents them from escaping the Russian “eye.”

By area, the Russian Federation remains the largest country in the world. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the population of Russia has undergone a dramatic change. According to the most recent statistics, 14,395,779 people live in Russia [21]. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, mass migration occurred within former Soviet states, which impacted the Russian population. Many nationalities migrated to their ethnic countries and other countries from the former union republics. The fall of the “Iron Curtain” left some 30 million Russians outside the borders of the Russian Federation. While ethnic Russians made up the majority of the populations in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and the Baltic countries [22], yet ethnic Russians were a minority in other post-USSR republics. Although these states were free, the Russian-speaking population was enough to create a Russian-speaking world. Besides, there were universities and theatres, and to some extent, Russian was the language of education in academia due to a lack of resources translated from English, which contributed to Russia’s soft approach towards newly independent post-Soviet states.

The fall of the Soviet Union brought not only freedom but also conflicts in Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. These issues provided an opportunity for Russia to leverage its interests in the region and take advantage of its interests. It is noteworthy that Russia’s appointment of a “loyal man” in Chechnya after the Chechen War is one of the manifestations of its dominance in the former republics. When Georgia decided to remove the Russian political circle and institute democratic reforms, it lost 20% of its internationally recognised territory. Russian government added another conflict, Ukraine, when Ukrainians took a course of democratisation, yet Ukrainians’ expectations fell and lived the fate of Georgia. Despite Russian dictation, the Ukrainians refused to accept the invasion, and by moving further along, they retaliated with a full-scale invasion by Russia. The Russian-Ukrainian war is not considered a conflict between two countries but rather a clash between democracy and dictatorship. It also gave hope to the post-Soviet population of full freedom from Russia. Conversely, if the war results in the triumph of democratic allies, the influence of modern liberal values will concern these societies because of religious and cultural diversity from the West.

3.1.1 Weponisation of migration in post-Soviet countries

Russia has been using and possibly threatening to use different variants of weaponisation of migration in post-Soviet countries. One of the most practised weapons is coercive, and it occurs when a challenger uses human migration or threats to use it to change certain behaviours of the targeted subject or extort certain concessions (mostly political) from them [23]. The actors of this variant disobey International and Humanitarian Laws and forcibly use migration. Through time, Russian authorities did not allow the Russian population of the Donbas region, Crimea, South Ossetia, and Abkhasia to immigrate into its borders massively. They intentionally remained within states for the further advancement of Russia, as seen in the ongoing conflict. Instead of accepting migration from these regions into its lands, Russia started the passportisation of South Ossetia and Abkhasia in 2002 and increased the policy after the revolution in Georgia. By 2006, 90% of the population of Abkhasia and South Ossetia already had Russian passports. The Georgian refusal to allow the Abkhasian population to use a neutral UN laissez-passer contributed to the demand for Russian passports. Moreover, both Abkhasia (since 2005) and South Ossetia (since 2006) allow for dual citizenship only with Russia [24]. A similar strategy happened in Ukraine by providing Russian passports in Crimea and Donbas, which neglects International Law. In addition to the coercive type of weaponisation of migration, Russia used a dispossesive variant of weaponisation in Crimea and Donbas. In this type, the actor uses migration to capture territories and destabilise the target country [25]. Passportisation can also be considered a political and propaganda type of engineering migration. Indeed, Russia often uses this method of campaign to increase the power of Russians abroad and consider the federation as a protector of all ethnic Russians in the world. The interesting fact is that Russia legitimises such action within its Federal Law in Article 14, “Admission to citizenship of the Russian Federation under a simplified procedure,” 15 “Support for compatriots in the field of fundamental human and civil rights and freedoms” [26]. This law has been used as a legal tool in the invasion of Georgie and Ukraine and was in the rhetoric of Russian authority. In 2020, one of the longest conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan ended after 44 days of military escalation; however, as a director of the issue, the peace agreement was also signed in Russia. It was the indirect message of Russia’s control over the post-Soviet to the West. The multinational environment in Russia provides an opportunity to use the economic version of the weaponisation of migration. Ethnic Russians make up the majority of the Russian population, yet the consistency of other nationalities is from the post-USSR for various reasons, mainly economic/financial. The data (in thousands, 1000) of 2022 demonstrates that migrants from Tajikistan are the leading country of immigrants’ origin with 186.56, while immigrants from Ukraine 121.82, Kazakhstan 64.38, Kyrgyzstan 62.36, Armenia 59.53, Uzbekistan 54.03, Azerbaijan 31.77, Moldova 23.54, Belarus 18.82 and Turkmenistan 12.13 people [27]. However, the number of illegal immigrants is predictably higher. Thus, the size of immigrants from the former Soviets gives another powerful opportunity to use the economic version of the weaponisation of migration. The category aims to pull and push migrants for economic profit [28]. Additionally, to benefit, the form can put economic pressure on the targeted country. Russia’s vast area, convenient business climate, and easy work documentation attract economic migrants from the post-Soviet countries. The condition is a win-win for both Russia and immigrant-origin states. However, it turns into a disaster when Russia decides to deport or impose harsh policies on migrants, which ends by returning. Consequently, the condition increases unemployment in the immigrant-origin country and creates Russian sympathisers abroad. For instance, in 2017, Kazakhstan was challenged by the inflow of millions of immigrants from the neighbouring countries, mainly Kyrgyz migrants from Russia who have been expelled due to a strengthening of the Russian immigration legislation [29]. Another way to exploit economic migrants is by using them as an actor of demographic changes to advance the enemy. It has been reported that Russia sent more than 100,000 migrants, mainly from Central Asia, to change the social structure of the occupied Ukrainian territories [30]. Furthermore, these migrants may be granted Russian citizenship and used in the military.

Since the war started in 2022, approximately 1 million Russians left the country [31]. The exodus from Russia happened due to military mobilisation, the rule of a repressive government, and the war in Ukraine. The more tolerant environment of Russians in Europe forced many Russians to flee the Soviet zone. Among them are highly talented people in IT and other sectors who could find employment in these countries. Although it eases the problems of migrants, it also creates job shortages in arrival countries, which can escalate anti-Russian sentiment. On the other hand, those who do not have a chance to flee Russia have been sent to the frontline of the war, mainly ethnic minorities of the country from the poorest regions of Russia. Before the war, Russia had already used exportive types of migration weaponisation. The category is labelled as “opposition” to the ruling [32]. The migrants from Russia in the post-Soviet, to some extent, could be defined as opposers to the war and regime. However, among them are possibly the people who use the war as an excuse and remain to return as an option. From this point, the fifth column (overseas sympathisers and supporters) [33] of migration engineering appears in the post-Soviet countries by Russian migrants and certain groups of Russia’s supporters. They can create anti-migrant sentiment, which is inevitable in the present economic downturn of the world. Such a strategy can end up with hatred or intolerance through igniting nationalistic movements, as was seen after the collapse of the USSR. Results can allow Russia to implement similar tactics in Georgia and Ukraine. Also, Russia’s present stand in the social sphere allows immigration from the post-Soviet countries. By the propaganda and fifth-column strategy, former USSR men, particularly the generations before the 90s and the conservative part, judge democracy and human rights from the gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights perspective. By means, for this generation the comprehension of democratic values and human rights are limited and these are equal to disrespect to order and flow of movement such as LGBT. In addition, Europe and the West have always been places that have breached the power of conservativism. Time by time, TV programmes use protests and any form of opposing the regime as a breakdown of the West or insufficiency of democracy.

The prolonging of the war jeopardises the future of the post-Soviet nations. The result of the war is significant for these countries. If the conflict changes in favour of Russia, the post-Soviet will face of new Soviet away from democracy. Russia’s weaponisation of migration will have a huge impact on the policies of the Post Soviets and create a new communist-socialist front.

3.2 Middle East

Once the cradle of civilisation, the Middle East was a dominant power, with important contributions to humanity from architecture to medicine, philosophy, and various types of science. Additionally, the region was distinctive because of its cultural diversity and the birthplace of all the prophets of the Bible and the Quran. However, in modern times, the Middle East is associated with terrorism, war, and mass migration. Unless the region were at the centre of conflicts, the present state of the world would not be as chaotic. According to UNHCR reports, the number of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is estimated to be 15.8 million by the end of 2024 [34] Among the Middle East countries with the highest refugee outflow is Syria (6.5 million), while Türkiye and the Islamic Republic of Iran host the majority of refugees (3.4 million), and Germany (2.5 million) [34]. In the past, forcibly displaced people from the Middle East were attempting to find refuge in Europe prior to the war in Ukraine, which caused 5.9 million refugees. However, the more hospitable treatment towards Ukrainian refugees made Middle Easterners an old guest. Changing the world order began in the Middle East, an important place for the process. Diverse cultures in the region are the first seeds of problems to germinate. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, these issues were exacerbated by British and French colonisation. There were even maps of the Middle East drawn by colonisers, such as British Mark Sykes and French Francois Picot [35]. In contrast, Arab nationalism has gained popularity. In order to ensure their security, Arab nation-states took allies as a guarantee of security, as pan-Arabism was one of the forces that contributed to the breakup of the Arab nation-states by ignoring reunited factors such as Islam and Arab identity. In 2003, most Iraqis believed they would be accepted in the West, but these expectations were not realised, leading to the endless tragedies of today. Adversity can be traced back to the governing regimes of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphate after the death of Prophet Muhammad. The two dynasties regarded themselves as the successors of the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings of Islam; however, Islam was merely used to stay in power.

Throughout the history of Middle Eastern wars, the coercive weaponisation of migration has been employed. After attacks in Iraq and followed by the Arab Spring, the majority of the displaced people took a route to neighbouring countries and Europe. Türkiye was one of the targets. To prevent criminals and smugglers from crossing the Turkish-Syrian border, Türkiye laid 615,419 anti-personnel mines in a 350–400 m wide band in 1954 [36]. An area of approximately 22000 hectares (220,000 km²) was minefield. The idea of clearing the mined land and opening it to agriculture came to the fore after removing the PKK (Turkish abbreviation of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) terrorist organisation from Syria. On the other hand, Türkiye joined the Ottawa Convention or Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty on 25 September 2003, and the agreement became effective on 1 March 2004. Thus, Türkiye obliged to clear all mines by 1 March 2014. For 7 years, mines were gradually cleared along the Turkish-Syrian border [36]. As a result, actors were able to use force to allow migrants to reach Türkiye easily. The consequences of coercive weaponisation can be seen in the changing demographic situation of the country and the number of Arab-origin residents living in the Turkish cities that border Syria. The coercive engineering of migration in Jordan and Lebanon had resulted in economic difficulties. With the start of the war, the economy collapses along with the country’s other organs. Then, economic migrations of weaponisation take place. The Turkish government has been experiencing unemployment and economic difficulties as a result of the refugee population living within its borders, although some groups may also benefit by exploiting refugees as illegal labourers. At the same time, Turkish society views refugees as burdens, and the idea of deporting them has become a political agenda of opposition parties. Türkiye has suffered both economically and socially as a result of some refugees’ illegal actions, for example, sexual harassment, sexual abuse of children, theft, injury, murder, and immigrant smuggling [37]. Alongside coercive and economic, exportive weaponisation has been used in the conflict. Assad’s government has persecuted opposition leaders and forced them to exile those who oppose his ideas. As a result of such persecution, migration is accelerated, and more refugees are produced. The weaponisation of migration in Syria and Türkiye serves the purpose of establishing an independent Kurdistan, according to Ümit Özdağ [38]. The country that will be the buffer zone between Türkiye and the Arab world will also play a crucial role in reducing Iran’s influence. Another category of the weaponisation of migration is militarised, when people who plan to engage in terrorist activities infiltrate the target territory via migration or asylum, legally or illegally, or recruitment of dislocated civilians, generally by force, to increase the military workforce [39]. For instance, this type was the primary tactic of the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Sham) to force people by using killings as a threat. Similarly, in December 2015, after Türkiye shot down a Russian Su-24M aircraft on the Turkish-Syrian border, Russia began bombing the area, displacing thousands of internally displaced Syrians. As a result, a new migration flow was created towards Türkiye [39]. The Arab Spring has also led to a massive exodus from the region as a response to the regimes’ oppression. Demonstrators demanded that democratically elected leaders replace dictators. Millions of people have been dispersed through the use of political or propaganda methods of weaponising migration, yet democracy has not yet arrived in the region; instead, it is struggling with economic problems and a new form of dictatorship similar to that which exists in Egypt.

Like the Middle East, refugee-hosting countries in Europe also faced challenges. The refugee crisis in Europe was indeed a result of the weaponisation of migration by several actors. Refugee issues indicate the weak sides of Europe or liberal democracies. A refugee is not simply a flow of people but also a force of foreign customs, beliefs, and lifestyles. In balancing humanitarian concerns and legal obligations with potential strains on social fabric, financial resources, and political stability, there are no good answers, only vulnerabilities [40]. Migration also divides the power of pro- and anti-refugee parties in Europe. Even though Europe has external borders, it is more fragile than other liberal democracies due to its location on the accessible routes. The discrepancies and anti-refugee environment in some countries threaten not only policies but also the fundamental principles of human rights. Europe is also subjected to a military version of migration engineering where certain groups engage in terrorist attacks to disrupt the region, as has happened several times in Europe, as in terrorist attacks in Paris 2015, Brussels 2016, and Nice 2016. ISIS also gained sympathisers through propaganda and fifth-column weaponisation of migration by seducing the youth of Europe. Only in 2015, more than 5000 fighters from European countries joined ISIS, and four Western European countries produced 3700 fighters: France (1700), Germany (760), the United Kingdom (760), and Belgium (470) [41]. In following the footsteps of refugees, lone-wolf terrorists also enter Western and other countries to destabilise the region, force people out of this area, weaken neighbours’ peace, especially Türkiye, disrupt Europe or liberalism (democracy, human rights, International Law), and bring religious fanaticism.

Although it may sound contradictory, two types of the New World Order are competing for supremacy. One has already been clarified with liberalistic approaches. This front requires the destruction of old traditions and the liberalisation of religions and faith to spread its ideas. Migrants are also influenced by Western thoughts and traditions, subscribing to this version of the New World. By following the steps of migrants, Middle Easterners reach the West, where even Christianity is losing its influence in society today. While Middle Easterners are not being forced to convert to Christianity, their religious standards are being altered by Western social forms. It is important to note that the functioning of the mosques or the demands of some groups of people for the implementation of the Sharia law amount could result in the growth of islamophobia, which could also be a way of losing adherence to the religion among some youngsters. The second version of the New World Order contradicts the first. This versus of the new world promises human freedom within a limited definition and constitutes massive surveillance and authoritarianism and also opposing religions. However, individual’ control does not occur in an Orwellian manner. Instead, people are influenced through manipulation and the Internet. Faith or beliefs are not eliminated or forbidden but are retained within ordered frames using religious leaders, popes, pastors, imams, monks, etc., instead of a fundamental approach. It is the same treatment for all religions in both orders. Many countries have established special religious administrations to manipulate or guarantee their policies to the general public. Mobile applications track people at every step, from walking to purchasing goods, instead of classic spying. The USSR has already practised some elements of the second type of order and will be spread around the globe under Russia and China if the current wars glorify Russia.

3.3 Gaza

The conflict between Palestine and Israel is an integral part of both past and present history. Until the Ottoman Empire fell, Jews and Arabs lived together in the same area known as Palestine. From Morocco to Yemen, from Iraq to the Caucasus, Jews have historically lived in almost every corner of the Middle East. Therefore, the concept of a Jewish homeland created by the Zionist movement itself was contradictory to the Jewish people of the Middle East. Under the Zionism umbrella of Rotchild’s sponsorship, “aliyah” or Jewish migration to the region, began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Following the Jewish genocide, the Holocaust, Zionists used the consequences as a basis of propaganda promoting the survival of the Jewish state. In the twentieth century, other massacred nations, such as native Americans or indigenous Canadians, Arabs exiled from the Iberian Peninsula, Mongols that conquered nearly half of Eurasia, or Iranians that succeeded the Sassanid empire, were considered insane if they claimed to return to the lands of their ancestors. Jews, however, enjoyed exceptional privileges due to the British presence in the Middle East. In addition to Jewish nationalism being at the root of the Palestine-Israel conflict, Arabs must also be held responsible. Over the years, Arabs have been shackled by policies that have been implemented. The Arabs refused to agree to the creation of two states, Arab and Jewish, and so the conflict began. In the years following the creation of the state of Israel, the conflict has escalated to a new level. Currently, the siege of Gaza and the genocide of Palestinians represent the last stages of Palestinian death or loss of their homeland. Despite Israel’s repeated attacks on Gaza and the limited lives of Palestinians in the West Bank, the current conflict is the most horrifying and profoundly affecting war in human history. As a consequence of the Jewish lobby in the world, the conflict name has already been changed from Palestine-Israeli to Hamas-Israel. This is particularly the case in non-Arab Muslim-majority and some Arab countries, where all necessary actions must be taken, including creating sympathisers, financing schools, igniting nationalism in non-Arab countries through Arab migrant hatred, and implementing normalisation. Indeed, the war was never a religious conflict. In spite of the Christian-Jewish conflict, Islam as a religion does not declare holy war either on the Jews or Christians. As it is written in the Quran, the holy book or constitution of Islam:

“But they are not all alike. There are some among the People of the Book, who are upright, who recite God’s revelations during the night, who bow down in worship, ^[114]who believe in God and the Last Day, who order what is right and forbid what is wrong, who are quick to do good deeds. These people are among the righteous ^[115], and they will not be denied [the reward] for whatever good deeds they do: God knows exactly who is conscious of Him” [42].

As evidence, historically, Jews have lived in Muslim-majority countries such as the Ottoman Empire, Yemen, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Algeria, Iraq, and Iran, and a small minority of Mountain Jews are still present in Azerbaijan. Despite the Quran’s clear articulation, some Muslim-majority nations and movements in the past and recent history have targeted Jewish identity and resulted in a decreasing number of Jewish population. It is also important to note that the massacre of Israelis on Palestinians is not seen as part of a war between Judaic Jews and Muslims but rather as part of Zionism’s war on International Law through Palestinians.

The current siege of Gaza continues to threaten the health and lives of millions of Palestinians. Since 7 October, Israel has killed more than 29,000 Palestinians in Gaza, marking another grim milestone in one of the deadliest and most destructive military campaigns in recent history [43]. As a result of the attack of Harakat Al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (HAMAS) on 7 October 2023, the ongoing conflict has entered its most disastrous phase since 1948. Nevertheless, the reason behind the attacks is Israel’s attack on the Al Aqsa compound, undermining International Law and self-determination of Palestinians, and the military attack on the Gaza Strip, making it the biggest open prison in the world. However, it is vital to indicate that Hamas’s sudden attack on civilians is similar to immorality and violation of the law. As Newton’s third law defines, “For every action (force) in nature, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” In contrast, the primary cause is also the deserting population of the Middle East, which began after the wars started and resulted in millions being displaced. The rulers of these countries always neglect to apply the principles of human rights, which is another undeniable fact. As a result, the Middle East places little importance on the individual lives of its citizens, and as a result, it loses its population to societies that place more value on human life.

However, Israel has been engaged in a variety of activities related to the weaponisation of migration. Throughout the history of the conflict, Israel has not hesitated to use coercion as a weapon of war. According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, there were approximately 14.3 million Palestinians around the globe in mid-2022, of whom only 5.35 million resided in the State of Palestine (estimated population of the West Bank was 3.19 million, and the Gaza Strip was 2.17 million) [44]). As a result of Israel’s yearly coercive policies, more than half of the Palestinian population lives in exile. Economic issues are another consequence of forced migration. There is no alternative to migration when schools, hospitals, and infrastructure are deliberately targeted [45]. In addition, the report indicated that over one-fourth of the participants in the labour force were unemployed in 2021, with the percentage reaching 26% (15% in the West Bank and 47% in the Gaza Strip) [46]. As well as coercion, another variant of weaponisation of migration, dispossession, has been used by the Israeli government with the support and financing of settlers’ migration since 1967 [32]. At the same time, settlers are being used as a force mechanism to drive Palestinians from the West Bank and other historical residential areas. In front of the eye of international society, Israel is using a dispossesive version of the weaponisation of the migration in the Gaza Strip. Due to the heavy military bombardment of North Gaza, Gaza, the Middle Area, and Khan Younis, approximately two million Palestinians are currently stranded in Rafah. Additionally, the Israeli government does not only use the military to carry out its operations, but it also blocks aid from international organisations from reaching Gaza, which is another example of coercive and dispossessive methods of weaponising migration.

4. Conclusion

Both governmental and non-governmental entities persistently employ the utilisation of migration as a tool for political leverage in the contemporary era. Challengers are causing significant displacement and restructuring the global order to align with their aspirations. The current International Order is on the verge of collapse due to tensions between the Global South and North. Russia intentionally employs various forms of weaponising migration to rationalise its actions in Ukraine. Russia’s objective extends beyond Ukraine, as seen by its ability to prolong the conflict over time with the support of China and countries in the Global South. The participants in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine extend beyond the two nations involved, encompassing entities that reject the established International Order. Russia’s engagement in conflict with Ukraine serves to intimidate former Soviet Republics, effectively maintaining control over them through the weaponisation of migration. The Middle East has experienced diverse forms of orchestrated migration that have heightened the region’s instabilities. The area has already witnessed the loss of millions of lives, prompting those who remain to view migration as an opportunity. The Middle East also implemented alterations in policies towards the Western nations and Israel through coercive means. Having applied normalisation to their political situation, the Middle East’s subjugation by the West has been finalised. The sole opposition to the occupation originates from Gaza—the location where around 29,000 individuals, including women and children, were slain by the Israeli military. The conflict in Gaza represents the culmination of destabilisation in the region. Israel’s unequivocal utilisation of force is severely eroding International Law and compromising the principles of global governance. Therefore, conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza prompt a reevaluation and establishment of new parameters for the international legal framework within the current global system. As the time of the chapter is written, more than a million Gazans are displaced and confined to Rafah, facing shortages of food, medical aid, and basic security.

Acknowledgments

The research is finalised in a time of horror and tragedy both in Gaza and Ukraine. If my parents did not teach me to find justice, I would also be silent and mind other things. Therefore, I am profoundly grateful to my parents for making me a fair and brave man. I am also thankful to Dr. Samson Maekele Tsegay for his truth and acceptance for sharing my analysis.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.