NATO’s Role in Countering Weaponized Migration in Europe
The ongoing crisis at the Poland-Belarus border is not only a humanitarian disaster, but a grim indication of the current and future nature of conflict in Europe. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and his government have spent months engineering a migrant buildup on the borders of Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania. The Lukashenko regime has accomplished this by arranging for transportation for the migrants from their origin countries, granting visas, and escorting them to the border, all while encouraging the migrants to cross into the European Union. It appears that the ultimate goal is to weaponize these migrants as a means to destabilize the target countries following a steep deterioration in diplomatic relations between the European Union and Belarus. This weaponization of migrants is a form of hybrid warfare, and it is time the international community, particularly NATO, address it as hybrid warfare.
The threat of hybrid methods of warfare being used against European states has been a prominent issue in European strategic debate since the mid-2010s, when the Russian use of hybrid methods increased dramatically during the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Hybrid warfare can take many forms, ranging from conventional operations, irregular warfare, disinformation campaigns, cyber-attacks, and of course the exploitation of migrant populations to pressure adversaries. It is unclear what precisely Belarus aims to accomplish through this particular use of hybrid warfare, since the government officially denies that their intention is to pressure the European Union. On the other hand, European officials have accused Minsk of engineering the crisis as retaliation for a sweeping set of sanctions that were directed at Belarus in 2020, following a questionable election victory by Lukashenko and the brutal suppression of pro-democracy protests.
The situation at the border between Poland and Belarus has serious humanitarian implications, with thousands of people being subjected to mistreatment by the military and guards on both sides of the border, as well as plunging temperatures and a lack of necessary supplies. This has led the EU to plan on broadening sanctions against Belarus in the hopes of preventing further mistreatment of migrants for political purposes. If it works, this is undoubtedly a good starting point to resolve the issue and minimize human suffering, but more needs to be done to address the security implications of the exploitation of migrants as a form of hybrid warfare. In this regard, the burden of action should not fall solely on the EU, but NATO as well, with the United States being conspicuously present in the dialogue going forward.
NATO has a vested interest in countering and deterring hybrid threats in Europe as well as a commitment to the security and well-being of NATO allies. NATO has recently formally condemned the hybrid action against Poland, and called on Belarus to “cease these actions, respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, and abide by international law.” Poland has also requested that NATO take a more active role in countering the hybrid threats the country is experiencing on its border. This is a reasonable request and would benefit Poland as well as NATO more broadly, not to mention the migrants who have been caught up in the crisis. By taking a more tangible approach to ending the border crisis, NATO achieves two beneficial outcomes. First, and most importantly, NATO involvement, however limited it may be, has the potential to hasten the end of a situation that is causing significant human suffering as well as decrease the risk of unnecessary confrontation between Poland and Belarus. Simply put, combining the weight of NATO with the pressure the EU is already applying increases the potential cost of continuing aggressive action, ideally forcing Lukashenko to abandon this endeavor. Additionally, the acknowledgment by the alliance that hybrid methods of warfare do indeed warrant a tangible response from NATO members, including the United States, sets a valuable precedent that these methods will not be tolerated in the future. In sending this message, NATO can deter and hopefully completely prevent future actions like migrant weaponization, whether it be by Russia, Belarus, or some other adversary.
There are a couple of actions that NATO allies can and should take in order to actually pursue tangible action in this crisis. First, the United States should consider levying additional sanctions on Belarus, particularly individuals who are directly connected to the scheme to engineer the migrant crisis. While the U.S. sanctions regime does take place outside of formal NATO structures, it indicates to adversaries that the United States will not tolerate hybrid action against its allies, and signals to the European members of NATO that the United States is committed to their security as well as the protection of human rights. NATO also has the formal avenue of invoking Article 4 of its founding treaty. This can be used to counter instances of hybrid methods of warfare being used against allies that fall well below the threshold that might warrant an invocation of Article 5, which is the section that outlines collective defense. Article 4 allows allies to bring a security issue to the attention of the whole alliance and request consultation. Consultation could include a mere sharing of information, a formal consultation on potential actions the ally can take, and even a consensus-based decision to take common action as an alliance. The Polish Prime Minister has expressed interest in invoking Article 4, and in that case, it would be wise for NATO allies, especially the United States, to actively cooperate and help Poland solve the migrant crisis in a way that averts unnecessary escalation without compromising the security of the EU.
Overall, the weaponization of migrants on the Belarus-Poland border represents an egregious violation of human rights and a clear example of Belarus employing hybrid methods of warfare against a European state. In order to confront this issue, the United States and NATO as a whole should take tangible steps to resolve this crisis, both to avert short-term escalation and suffering, and to provide a valuable example to adversaries that hybrid warfare is not tolerable in the EU or NATO.
