Arne F. Wackenhut | 10 December 2024
Globalization, in its many forms, has resulted in an increase mobilities. Now, as some have argued, we live in a global age of migration where more than 270 million people live outside the country they were born in. Migrants’ motivations to leave their country of birth are manifold. In some cases, economic opportunities or love may be the cause, while others may have been forced to flee persecution, violence and war.
However, such an “exit” from the country of origin no longer comes at the expense of using one’s “voice” – to draw upon Albert Hirschman’s (1970) conceptualization of individual responses to decline and deterioration in firms, organizations and states. With the advent of, for instance, the Internet and social media platforms, emigrants can and continue to be engaged in the social, political and economic developments of their countries of origin. Scholars like Orjuela (2008) or Koinova (2018) have conceptualized such forms of transnational political engagement in terms of diaspora activism.
Diaspora activism, in its various forms, creates new challenges and dilemmas for non- or less-democratic regimes. How does one control a potentially unruly population that no longer resides within the officially recognized borders of the state?
Transnational Engagement and Repression
Glasius (2018) argued that homeland regimes often try to selectively include or exclude parts of their diaspora populations. Selective inclusion may take on the form of state-driven diaspora engagement; Encapsulating a broad range of measures designed to keep non-resident populations and their descendants more closely connected to their ancestral homelands. Commonly used practices include extending the franchise by allowing emigrants to vote in homeland elections, organizing diaspora conferences, or arranging organized visits to the country of origin.
At the same time, homeland regimes are – to an ever-greater extent – trying to selectively exclude if not actively repress those parts of their non-resident populations that they may perceive as a potential threat to their security or survival. Not least since the brutal killing of Saudi journalist and regime critic Jamal Khashoggi, or the attempt on the life of former Soviet double-agent Sergej Skripal with a deadly nerve agent has “transnational repression” become a topic discussed not only in security and policy circles, but also among scholars (Adamson, 2020; Moss, 2016; Tsourapas, 2021) and human rights activists.
In recent reports, the international NGO Freedom House documented 1034 different acts of transnational repression between 2014 and 2023 that were perpetrated by 44 countries across 100 different host countries. According to Freedom House, China, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Egypt and Rwanda are among the ten most active perpetrators in this space – seeking to silence dissenting voices thousands of miles away from home.
Transnational repression is not strictly limited to acts of (deadly) direct violence against dissidents abroad but may include a variety a whole range of practices such as surveillance, direct or indirect threats, and other forms of harassment. For instance, in 2008, the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen – SÄPO) uncovered an espionage case in which the small but vocal Uyghur community in Sweden had become the target of intelligence collection efforts. More recently, a number of reports posited the existence of multiple Chinese secret “police stations” in various countries around the world– including Sweden – used to surveil and harass members of the Chinese diaspora.
In past years, homeland regimes have exploited procedures such as the Interpol system of “red notices” to harass dissidents who had found refuge abroad. The consistent abuse of this system recently sparked a review of Interpol processes and procedures.
Unruly diasporas can even in some cases become subject of (and actors in) the bilateral relations between home and host countries. Here, one of the most recent examples may be the Swedish decision to abandon its long-standing policy of non-alignment and to seek membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In the wake of the official application for NATO membership, the Turkish government demanded from Sweden a harder stance on Turkish-origin Kurds in the country – invoking national security concerns (Aggestam, Schierenbeck, & Wackenhut, 2023).
Countering transnational Repression
Sweden is often considered a role model in countering transnational repression. Swedish authorities commonly use the term “refugee espionage” to describe practices that one would consider as part of authoritarian homeland regimes’ proverbial toolboxes of transnational repression (Wackenhut, 2024). Even the United States seem to be taking a notably more forward-leaning approach in countering such repressive practices – with the Federal Bureau of Investigation representing the tip of the spear.
Considering that transnational repression not only represents a potentially severe violation of individuals’ human rights, but also a significant infringement on host countries’ sovereignty, there can be little doubt that a holistic approach is needed to counter this threat. While law enforcement and intelligence community need to do their part in countering such threats, scholars ought to pay ever closer attention to the phenomenon and its underlying operating logics.
References
Adamson, F. (2020). Non-State Authoritarianism and Diaspora Politics. Global Networks, 20(1), 150-169.
Aggestam, L., Schierenbeck, I., & Wackenhut, A. F. (2023). Diasporas and Foreign Policy: The Case of NATO and Swedish-Turkish relations. International Affairs, 99(6), 2367-2385.
Glasius, M. (2018). Extraterritorial Authoritarian Practices: A Framework. Globalizations 15(2), 179-197.
Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Koinova, M. (2018). Diaspora mobilisation for conflict and post-conflict reconstruction: contextual and comparative dimensions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(8), 1251-1269. doi:10.1080/1369183x.2017.1354152
Moss, D. (2016). Transnational Repression, Diaspora Mobilization, and the Case of the Arab Spring. Social Problems, 63(480-498).
Orjuela, C. (2008). Distant Warriors, Distant Peace Workers? Multiple Diaspora Roles in Sri Lanka’s Violent Conflict. Global Networks, 8(4), 436-452.
Tsourapas, G. (2021). Global Autocracies: Strategies of Transnational Repression, Legitimation, and Co-Optation in World Politics. International Studies Review, 23(3), 616-644.
Keywords: #TransnationalRepression; #Authoritarianism #Diasporas; #Migration; #Sweden; #Interpol; #HumanRights
Arne F. Wackenhut is a Senior Lecturer in Global Studies at the School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. His work focuses on collective grassroots efforts to effect socio-political change. Currently, he is engaged in two projects financed by the Swedish Research Council on (1) the ways in which diaspora youths engage with their parents’ country of origin, and (2) diaspora groups as transnational civil society actors.
Comments