FEATURES

Here be dragons

Western governments are looking at the various Diasporas domiciled on their territories with increasing concern from a security perspective, and the advice of a leading US strategic think tank endorses this approach, writes Sutha Nadarajah.

Over the second half of the last century, the movement of people across national borders to both neighbouring and remote countries increased dramatically. Conflict, persecution and adverse economic conditions motivated large-scale migrations.

Inevitably, the politically stable and relatively prosperous conditions in Western countries attracted a large proportion of people from countries beset by strife of varying degrees and difficult economic conditions.

The phenomenon of the Diaspora in the West thus become commonplace. The definition of when a community constitutes a Diaspora or not continues to be a topic of academic discussion, but broadly speaking, it can be considered a people originating from a country or homeland distinct from the host, but with strong links to people of the same community in the former.

The timing and intensity of the racial backlash to immigration from the Western populations and their governments varied, but a cursory look today at most of the countries concerned will reveal tough anti-immigrant sentiment reflected in both legislation and official and media rhetoric.

In such a scenario, the host government's concerns regarding the various Diaspora does not receive as much attention - at least publicly - as the alleged hordes clamouring to get in. Till now that is.

The de-classified reports from the RAND corporation, a key US think tank tasked with advising the American government and military in policy matters, make distinctly unsettling reading for members of any Diasporas domiciled in the US - or indeed in any other western nation, as it is not unreasonable to assume strategic security considerations are common amongst Western powers.

Simply put, RAND suggests, under the title "New Strategic Instruments of Conflict" that the presence of Diasporas poses a security risk to their host countries: on the one hand, people from countries inimical to the host can prove a fifth column at times of war, and on the other hand, Diasporas engaged in conflict in their host countries might 'export' their conflict to the host country's territories.

"Scholars working within the dynamic paradigm of demographics and national security are pointing to [Diasporas] as potential sources of leverage in military campaigns throughout the world," says a report published last year by RAND, a declaration that has to be viewed in the light of the organisation's assertion that its work now "assists all branches of the U.S. military community."

"Advances in transportation and communications over the last 20-30 years have increased [Diasporas'] size, visibility, and impact within the international system," it says. "Specifically, improvements in the accessibility and speed of long-range transportation have permitted larger migratory flows into developed regions such as Western Europe, thus increasing the size of Diasporas abroad."

Some of the more significant of today's ethnic diasporas, according to RAND, are the Armenians in France and the United States; the "overseas Chinese" in Southeast Asia; the Indians in Western Europe, North America, Fiji, and East Africa; the Tamils in Canada and Western Europe; the Iranians in Western Europe and the United States; the Russians in Central Asia, Ukraine, and the Baltic states; and the Jewish diaspora in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Latin America.

And the threat they could pose is real and present, RAND - a non-profit, US-government funded organisation that seeks to "improve [US] policy and decision making through research and analysis" - says: "Today, within ethnic Diasporas there are activist groups that could become a strategic asset their home countries and territories can draw upon to help them achieve regional politico-military objectives."

"The ongoing communications and information technology revolution now allows the more activist elements within these larger immigrant communities, if they can mobilize themselves, to have more rapid and visible means of calling attention to issues of interest in their home countries than ever before," says RAND.

More specifically, "The growing web of information, communications, and mass media links, including the Internet, international TV news networks, and global banking nets, increases opportunities for globally distributed ethnic diasporas to play a key role in military campaigns involving their home state or territory," it argues.

Bearing in mind that the category of Diasporas being considered in this instance are working in support of their home country against a local - state or non-state - adversary, RAND suggests the support can include: "extensive fundraising for the purchase and transfer of arms, an international public relations campaign to demonize opponents of the home state, or the exertion of pressure upon governments in host countries to turn against the enemies of their home state or territory."

RAND's examples are drawn from relatively recent or ongoing migrations and conflicts. The organisation claims that the Croatian diaspora was "quite effective in helping swing the international community" behind the Croats in their conflict with the Croatian Serbs in the mid-1990s, that "the sudden upsurge in strength" of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) during the summer of 1998 "at the expense of more compromise-oriented Kosovo elites" may have been at least partially due to fundraising efforts by the Albanian diaspora in the West.

The Armenian migrants attempting, through political lobbying, to block US support for Azerbaijan, is also cited. The last group highlighted in that report by RAND, and of interest to readers of this publication, is "the Tamil diaspora in Canada and Western Europe [which] has been active in funnelling financial support to the Tamil insurgents fighting Sinhalese government forces in Sri Lanka."

The influence of these communities in the conflicts involving their home countries or territories will increase, RAND says. "As time goes on, some key Diasporas will acquire even more influence upon the military balance in their home regions."

Rather incredulously, RAND - which has about 1,100 fulltime employees including about 700 researchers, of whom 80 percent have advanced degrees, most commonly a PhD - goes on to argue: "One could even imagine cases where rival diasporas themselves engage in violent conflict in their host countries in order to advance the causes of their respective home states."

Irrespective of how remote the Tamil and Sinhala Diasporas in Western countries might consider this possibility, it is the perception of the US and other Western security apparatus that matters in a practical sense.

In this context, RAND has a blunt warning for the US government: "At any rate, American diplomatic, intelligence, and defense policymakers will have to consider ever more carefully the impact of ethnic diasporas upon regional wars in the next 10-20 years as they become more involved in supporting the military postures and campaigns of their home states.

"The implications of this outlook by Western governments for members of the Diasporas, particularly those who are citizens of the host country, will be considered in a forthcoming article on this issue.

Democracy gone mad?

The Swiss vote on everything. Local Swiss people have the final say on which foreigners can become Swiss nationals. Democracy may have gone too far, says Imogen Foulkes in Emmen, Switzerland for the BBC.

Milunka Milovanovic has had a hectic social calendar recently. She and her family are busy trying to persuade their local community of Emmen, near Lucerne, that they deserve Swiss nationality.

In Switzerland, 20% of the population is foreign, but you can only vote if you are Swiss. Switzerland has the strictest nationality rules in Europe - you have to have lived in the country at least 12 years,

Emmen is a small industrial town and, like many similar Swiss communities, it recruited foreign workers in the 1970s and 80s. Among them were the young Milovanovics: 21 years ago they arrived from Yugoslavia.

Now they and their three children, who were all born here, would like to be citizens of their adopted homeland.

The Milovanovics have met all the legal requirements for citizenship: They have paid 1,000 francs for their application to be considered, they have been interviewed by the local council, they have passed German tests, and demonstrated their understanding of the Swiss way of life.

But now they have to convince Emmen's 10,000 voters. In order to help people make up their minds, Emmen town council has sent a brochure to every home: In it the hopeful faces of the applicants stare out. Beneath the photographs their jobs, hobbies and reasons for wanting to be Swiss are listed.

Milunka Milovanovic, we are told, works in an old people's home, and in her free time likes to walk in the country. She wants to be Swiss, she says, because she has lived in Switzerland more than half her life.

But all this is not enough: The local political parties in Emmen have been holding meetings so that voters can ask the applicants questions.

The meeting organised by the right-wing Swiss people's party becomes a shameful spectacle. The five Milovanovics are placed on a stage. Rows of upright Swiss voters stare up at them. The questions come thick and fast.

Who would you cheer for at a football match - Switzerland or Yugoslavia?

What language do you dream in?

Why do you really want a Swiss passport - isn't it just because you think you can get a better life here?

The Milovanovics answer everything patiently, meekly, with great courtesy. But why submit to such a humiliating public examination? After all, the meetings are supposed to be voluntary.

Milunka smiles wearily before hurrying off to the next meeting.

"Well, if it has to be, it has to be,'" she says. "We'll just put up with it."

There is good reason for her stoicism; last year when Emmen voted on applications for nationality, 48 out of a total of 56 were rejected. Not a single person from the Balkans was accepted.

Ethnic origin is not supposed to influence citizenship decisions. But Switzerland has accepted a lot of asylum seekers from former Yugoslavia, and, human nature being what it is, many people now think there are too many people from the Balkans in their country, and are expressing their concern at the ballot box.

But the victims are not asylum seekers at all, who cannot apply for citizenship, but families like the Milovanovics, who live here permanently.

After watching the goings on in Emmen with increasing unease, I asked a Swiss friend whether it would not be better to take the whole nationality issue away from the local communities and make the decision anonymously at federal level. He too is repelled by the prejudices expressed in Emmen, but he looks at me in surprise.

"That could never happen in Switzerland. The people always have the final say," he said.

Another Swiss acquaintance related with approval that she regularly rejected applications.

"We had one woman who applied," she explained. "She'd been here for 20 years, but you know she never said hello to me on the street, and she didn't join any of our lady's clubs -so I voted against her."

Is this really what Swiss democracy is supposed to be? Neighbour judging neighbour, over real or imagined slights?

Switzerland has been my home for almost 11 years now, and it is in so many ways a very civilised, friendly and cultured country.

But the example of Emmen depresses me, because it is democracy gone sour, a way to express prejudice, and punish innocent people. But because in theory it is democracy, no one, it seems, wants to challenge it.

"People would vote the same way in your country if they could," said one Swiss friend.

I am sure many would, but they do not have the right to, and quite frankly after watching the ordeal of the Milovanovics I think I prefer a more limited democracy.

The irony of the whole miserable Emmen episode is that if the Milovanovic family's application for citizenship is rejected, they will still live permanently in Switzerland, doing the same jobs, going to the same schools and visiting the same shops.

But they will be doing it all in the knowledge that for some reason their neighbours did not think they were good enough to be Swiss, and worthy enough to vote alongside them.