The securitization of the “boat people” in Australia: The case of Tampa

The securitization of the “boat people” in Australia

The case of Tampa

Phivos Adonis Björn Deliyannis

International Relations

Dept. of Global Political Studies Bachelor programme – IR103L (IR61-90) 15 credits thesis

[Spring / 2020]

Supervisor: [Erika Svedberg] Submission Date: 13/08/2020

Abstract:

The thesis will examine how the Australian government through its Prime Minister John Howard presented the asylum seekers on “MV Tampa” ship as a threat jeopardizing Australian security. Using the theory of securitization as a methodological framework and Critical Discourse Analysis as utilized by Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Framework transcripts of interviews by John Howard will be analyzed in order to expose the securitization process that framed the asylum seekers as an existential threat that needed extraordinary measures.

Keywords: International Relations, Australia, Immigration, Tampa, Discourse Word count: 13.622

Table of Contents

1

Introduction

2.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1 The concept of security and the debate about security studies ………...4

2.2 Earlier Research on the securitization of migration ………6

2.3 The Securitization Framework ………..8

2.4 Critique ………..11

3.

Methods

3.1. Data Selection and Source Criticism ………...12

3.2. Case Study ………15

3.3. Critical Discourse Analysis ………15

3.4. Methodological Framework: Fairclough’s Three-dimensional framework …….17

4.

Analysis

4.1. Background of the “Tampa affair” ……….…22

4.2. Data Analysis ………..24

4.3 The Tampa affair – a case of successful securitization……….…. 30

5.

Conclusion

1

1. Introduction

A lot is being said and written about asylum seekers who have to endure great obstacles as they are trying to immigrate from their country of origin due to their non-privileged socioeconomic status, to escape from war or from environmental disasters, or simply in an attempt to avoid prosecution because of their political beliefs, religious faith, ethnicity or sexual orientation. However, several Western governments are using a discourse that portrays asylum seekers as a threat to their national security resulting in the adoption of anti-immigration policies and the implementation of strict border controls. Asylum seekers in their desperate attempt to have a better future and acquire the longed-for refugee status are increasingly choosing irregular and unsafe paths to reach Western countries (Hirsch, 2017, p. 48). All Western countries claim that they respect and protect human rights with no exceptions but some of them at the same time regard and treat asylum seekers as a national threat even though according to international law and the 1951 Refugee Convention asylum seekers have a right to apply for asylum and cannot be denied entry in a country (UN General Assembly, 1951).

But this was not always the case with Australia since through the 20th _{century it was a}

country of destination for many immigrants who went there to work and live under better conditions and a safe haven for asylum seekers who fled from their home countries trying to escape from misery or death. After all, Australia was a country founded by immigrants that after big catastrophes and major wars like the Second World War, the Vietnam War, and the Yugoslav Wars welcomed without hesitation large flows of migrants offering them a refuge and a place to settle in and start a new life. Unfortunately, this humane and warm-hearted approach by Australia was about to end a few months before the 2001 elections by John Howard administration. It was the first time that an Australian government framed the asylum seekers who were entering Australia by boat, or the “boat people” as they called them, as an existential threat to Australian security. Howard administration adopted a strict approach to this issue, changing the Australian immigration legal framework and even using elite military units in an attempt to stop asylum seekers from entering Australian territorial waters. But this would not be done without the public support from Australian people. But how Australia justified the implementation of strict measures that deny asylum seekers their right to apply for asylum? How people who left their home countries for a better future are

2 regarded as threats? What process led the people of a country that was founded by immigrants to endorse this kind of approach by the Australian authorities? And most importantly I aim to answer my main research question, how Australia framed the “boat people” as a threat to its national security? This thesis will try to answer these questions and provide a well-supported answer. In order to gain public support for this hardline approach towards the boat people the Howard administration adopted new rhetoric and incorporated a discourse that framed the boat people as a threat to Australian national security. The goal of the Australian government was to utilize this strong anti-immigration discourse to create fear and a feeling of uncertainty among the population for the boat people. By presenting boat people as “illegitimate”, “illegal”, incompatible with Australian values, “queue jumpers” that deny “genuine refugees” the chance for asylum they could frame them as a security threat to Australia, an existential threat that requires emergency action. By framing them as a security threat they justified their decision to use extraordinary measures against them measures that could not be used otherwise because Australian people would protest, so they used strong discourse to “numb” the people so to say. This process in which a powerful actor is using securitizing discourse to frame a certain issue as a security threat to justify extraordinary measures is called “securitization”. There is no definition that states in a crystal-clear way if a measure can be categorized as “extraordinary” or not. Tromble (2014, p. 528) defines extraordinary measures as measures that depart from the rules of normal politics, such as allowing additional executive powers and activities that would otherwise be illegal”. Other scholars regard stricter border controls as an “extraordinary measure” (Ceccorulli, 2018; Ronney, 2013). According to the Copenhagen school, extraordinary measures are nothing more that special measures, so in that sense even the sudden implementation of stricter border controls can be categorized as extraordinary measures (Buzan et al, 1998, p. 27). In this paper I adopt the definition by Tromble.

In order to answer my research question, I will examine the case of “MV Tampa”. The “MV Tampa” was Norwegian ship that in August of 2001 rescued 433 asylum seekers outside Australian territorial waters and then requested permission to reach Australia but was denied entry to Australian territory. I will draw from the “Securitization Theory” of the Copenhagen school and I will examine transcripts of interviews from the Australian prime minister John Howard and by using the method of Critical Discourse Analysis and by utilizing Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Framework I will be able to trace securitizing elements in John Howard’s discourse. This paper does not seek to answer if the asylum seekers posed a

3 threat to Australian national security, it rather seeks to examine the process through which these people were framed as a security threat and how extraordinary measures were used and justified against them. In recent times, when the anti-immigration discourse is gaining ground and strict measures deny the opportunity from people to apply for asylum the subject of the securitization of immigration becomes more relevant than ever. The “Tampa affair” is an interesting topic because it offers the opportunity to the researcher to explore the way in which asylum seekers become securitized and presented as a threat in order for a political actor to benefit from this process. Another motivational factor of choosing this topic is the current state of research since not many studies about the Tampa affair and the securitization of immigration in Australia can be found. The subject examined in this thesis is IR relevant because it uses the “Securitization Theory”, which is a theory of IR and because it examines issues of security. The notion of security lies in the core of International Relations according to traditionalist approaches of IR since the survival of the state is the priority. This thesis seeks to contribute to International Relations literature by examining securitization, the notion of security, and more specifically it contributes to the IR literature regarding securitization in the context of Australia.

This thesis consists of 3 main parts. In the first main part (2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework) I will explore the theoretical considerations that are relevant to the research such as the concept of security and I will present the existing research about the securitization of immigration. Then I will describe the theoretical framework, “Securitization theory” that will guide me and will help me interpret concepts. A brief critique of the “Securitization theory” will follow. The second main part (3. Methods) will introduce the methodological framework that will help me analyze the Australian Prime Minister’s discourse. In particular, I will utilize Fairclough’s three-dimensional Framework in order to expose traces of securitizing discourse in interviews given by John Howard. In the third main part of this thesis (4. Analysis), an extensive discussion and assessment of the data will be made in order to answer my research question. The assumption that will be supported is that the Australian government successfully securitized the boat people on Tampa in order to gain public support and justify extreme measures against them. The securitization process was deemed successful since the majority of the audience agreed with Howard’s hardline stance and his strict approach was an important factor in winning the next elections. A brief conclusion summarizing the findings will be stated.

4

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

In order to answer my research question there is a need for a theoretical framework. The theoretical framework that will be used in order to carry out my research is the securitization theory of the “Copenhagen School”. The theory of securitization is an important research field within the construction of threats and provides an insightful way to analyze how threats and security issues appear and defined but also how extraordinary measures can be employed by political actors in order to deal with these security issues. In this part of the paper, I will provide the basic framework and concepts of the securitization theory and I will state the origins of the debate about the concept of security. This section will also examine earlier research on the securitization of immigration and will end with a brief critique of the theory of securitization.

2.1 The concept of security and the debate about security studies

It can be said that security studies belong to the core of International Relations since they are predominately dealing with matters of war and peace. After the Second World War security studies focused only on the military sector following a rather realist narrative (Sulovic, 2010, p. 1). But the agenda of international relations was becoming wider and more complex since there was a rise of new economic and environmental challenges, and emergence of new security challenges and threats, and new actors in the global system came in the spotlight, which leads the concept of security, as defined by the traditional view, to become somewhat narrow and exclusive (Sulovic, 2010, p. 1).

At this point, I would like to explain what I mean by the concept of security, a concept that is highly relevant to this research. According to Buzan “security is the pursuit of freedom from threats” (1991, p. 18). This rather vague definition of the concept of security illustrates the ambiguity with regard to this topic. There is no generally accepted definition within academia of the concept of security and according to Baldwin it remains an “essentially contested concept” (1997, p. 4), and a concept that is “dangerously ambiguous”. Here, the series of questions

5 formulated by Baldwin come to provide a better insight into the topic. The questions that need to be asked in order to narrow down the concept as much as possible are: “security for whom?”, “security for which values?”, “how much security?”, “from what threats, by what means?”, “at what cost, in what time period?” (Baldwin, 1997, pp. 9-19). With that being said, one can understand that a simple definition is not enough in order to appropriately explain the concept, but a certain procedure should be followed to operationalize the term in a sufficient manner. The ambiguity of the concept of security can be seen in the emergence of the debate about this topic. The debate between the “traditionalists” or “narrowers” and the “wideners” became more intense after the end of the Cold War. The first was following the “traditional” realist school of thought and defined security as a freedom of the state from any strictly military threat in an anarchic international system. The definition of security studies by Walt summarizes this approach: “the studies of the threat, use, and control of military force” (1991, p. 251). Drawing from Walt’s definition, this school of thought is basing its ontology in the assumption that social truth is based on material factors and that security threats are based on strictly material factors and are existing objectively (Ehdus, 2007, p. 8). In terms of epistemology, this definition suggests that a certain method should be followed when one is conducting research about security. “Narrowers” tend to use positivist methods arguing that social facts should be regarded as things and that the relations and of social phenomena should be discovered by a description of perceptible facts (Sulovic, 2010, p. 2).

On the other hand, the second school of thought, the “wideners”, with the leading figure of Barry Buzan, challenged the “traditionalist’ narrow assumptions of security and tried to wide the security agenda by emphasizing and including in their analysis different types of non- military threats to security which affected people rather than states. This new approach expanded the notion of security by including concepts such as human security and regional security and made relevant to the debate ideas of culture and identity (Eroukhmanoff, 2017, p. 104). To be more specific, “wideners” expanded the concept of security in two dimensions. The first dimension is that now except for the military sector, security includes the political, economic, environmental, and societal sectors. In each sector a specific threat is defined as threatening to a referent object that means that in the societal sector the referent object that could be threatened is the identity of a specific society, in the environmental sector the referent object is the ecosystem or the endangered species, in the economic sector the referent object is the state’s economy and economic prosperity, in the political sector the referent object is the state’s political stability or

6 the state’s political system/ regime and lastly the referent object in the military sector remains the state itself as an entity (Eroukhmanoff, 2017, p. 99).

The other dimension is in relation to the referent object since “wideners” include individual and social groups in their analysis, not only states. According to their perception about the truth, there are many interpretations of social reality, since the “truth” about reality is a socially constructed interpretation and there is no perfect or complete knowledge. This assumption about reality is of course reflected in their methodological considerations, and post-positivism is used as a framework arguing that facts are relative and highly dependent from the observer’s point of view (Sulovic, 2010, p. 2). “The theory does not take place after the fact. Theories, instead, play a large part in constructing and defining what the facts are” (Enloe and Zalewski, 1995, p. 299). Having said that, one can see that the “wideners’” epistemological consideration is that in order to understand social phenomena, the interpretation given to these phenomena by the social actors is necessary (Sulovic, 2010, p. 3).

2.2 Earlier Research on the securitization of migration

After summarizing the debate about security and presenting the two main approaches to this issue, in this section of the paper I will explore the earlier research on the securitization of migration and asylum seekers.

The issue of the securitization of migrants and asylum seekers has been widely studied by academics and there is a substantial amount of literature about this topic, but most academics have focused in the European context, which leaves space for further research in a non-European context. Tsoukala (2005) enriched the literature by researching about Italy and Greece, concluding that the threat of migrants in these countries is a socially constructed threat by political elites. Ellinas (2010) has studied the narrative and argumentation that was used by the political elites in Europe and the United States in order to legitimize the categorization of immigration as a security threat concluding that this was a result of social, historical and political construction.

Bigo (2001) has examined the process of securitization in Europe with a focus on the concept of security after the treaty of Schengen. In the same context Huysmans (2005) looked how immigration became a political issue of high importance, moving into the realm of security, and by studying the discourse of political elites, showcased how it was used in order to securitize the

7 migrants and how this securitization was presented as an inevitable result of the abolition of internal border controls in the post-Schengen era. Leonard (2010) researched how the European Union border control agency together with FRONTEX, securitized immigrants, and asylum seekers through the implementation of strict border controls.

As regards to the discourse, a valuable contribution by Mitsilegas et al (2005) broadened our understanding on how the concept of culture and national identity is linked by political elites with national security. Malloch and Stanley (2015) successfully argued that immigrants and asylum seekers in the United Kingdom are heavily affected by the securitization process after 9/11 and how media represent asylum seekers as a potential threat to British society.

In the Australian context, most researchers have studied whether the response of the Australian government towards the “boat people” is legitimate or not and whether Australian state sovereignty was prioritized before international human rights. Relevant articles include Peter Fox’s study regarding the Tampa affair (2010). In this article the researcher is examining the Australian response towards the boat people from a judicial perspective, comparing various international law conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) among others in order to argue that Australian perception of state sovereignty is going against these conventions, thus the writer is adopting a critical stance towards the Australian Government which disregarded international law and norms. Peter Fox’s article puts forward strong arguments that have not been refuted by John Howard’s administration and this study constitutes a useful tool when examining securitization of immigration in almost any given context, thus remaining highly relevant in our times.

Don McMaster (2002) researched on the securitization of immigration in the Australian context criticizing the Australian state but also the public majority for adopting an aggressive and hostile stance towards the asylum seekers who reached Australian shores by boat. He is not dealing with the securitizing discourse of the politicians or the media, but he is focusing on the securitizing policies adopted by the Australian state that force asylum seekers into detention centers. He is also stating that the fact that asylum seekers are considered illegal immigrants is highly problematic since according to Australian law illegal immigrants are treated as people who break the law, as criminals. Concluding he is claiming that the policies that are implemented by the Australian state are racist in their essence, resulting in discrimination and violation of human rights. In this study, the emphasis is on securitizing policies, judicial perspective and moral

8 obligations but the writer does not examine the method through which these policies implemented by the Australian government are becoming the norm in the given context.

A different perspective is adopted by Frank Brennan (2007). He is not interested in the procedure through which immigration is becoming securitized. On the contrary he is claiming that unauthorized movement of people is not acceptable and he is using the context of Australia to endorse his theory which states that a sovereign state should be able to control its borders, even from unarmed asylum seekers, for Brennan this is an issue of a state’s sovereignty not an issue that is becoming securitized.

Even though the aforementioned studies provide useful insights about the topic and enrich our understanding about the securitization of immigration, they do not focus on the discourse used by the Australian political elites in order to affect the audience, making the securitization successful. The goal of this thesis is to fill that gap, focusing on the discourse, the “speech act” that makes the securitization possible in the context of Australia.

2.3 The Securitization Framework

In this part of the paper, the theoretical framework will be presented that enables me to explore the research problem, interpret the data, and eventually answer my research question. There are many theories within the International Relations that cannot be used to explain the behavior of a state. This study will use the securitization theory of the Copenhagen school by Buzan, Wæver, and Wilde (1998) in order to analyze the securitization of the “boat people” in Australia during the “Tampa incident”. Securitization is very suitable for this research because it focuses on the process of the construction of a threat while allowing to not take the state as a referent object to security. This theory will help me analyze how the Australian government securitized the “boat people” and presented them as a threat to the Australian people and therefore extraordinary measures were used to tackle them.

An enormous contribution to the contemporary concept of security was made by the Copenhagen school and by scholars Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Japp de Wilde as their theory broadened the concept of security to include non-military nature of threats and introduced an analytical tool to examine the construction of perceived threats. Securitization theory is a very useful framework in International Relations because it sees beyond “traditional” approaches to security which focus merely on the security of the state and neglect other referent objects. The framework of securitization challenges hegemonic ideas about the universality and objectivity of security and highlights that there is no objective truth within the concept of security, but it is driven by

9 interest (Eroukhmanoff, 2008, p. 110). The Copenhagen School perceives security as a process of the social construction of threats which includes a securitizing actor, in most cases is the political elite, which frames a certain issue as urgent and as a posing threat for the survival of the referent object, and once the audience accepts this narrative, it legitimizes the use of extraordinary measures to neutralize the threat. Then, the issue becomes successfully securitized and is removed outside the normal bounds of the democratic political procedure and put on the “panic politics” agenda (Buzan et al, 1998, p. 34). “Security is the move that takes politics beyond the established rules of the game and frames the issue either as a special kind of politics or as above politics” (Buzan et al, 1998, p. 19). This theory helps us to identify and examine a process in which an existential threat is identified and utilized to justify extreme and extraordinary measures or as the Copenhagen school puts it “the designation of an existential threat requiring emergency action or special measures and the acceptance of that designation by a significant audience” (Buzan et al, 1998, p. 27). In this definition of the securitization process, it is clear that in order for the securitization to be successful a significant audience should accept the credibility of the threat and also accept the need for implementation of extraordinary measures in response to the perceived threat, in order for the threat to be tackled.

This understanding of security draws from the social constructivist assumption that security threats do not exist independently from the discourse which marks them as such and that language and its expression form a reality thus, the language exists before security (Sulovic, 2010, p. 4). A key concept in securitization theory is as mentioned before is “speech act”. Scholars Peoples and Vaughan-Williams describe speech act as certain words and phrases that are equivalent to actions. By using the discourse in certain ways also implies certain social actions thus causing various social effects (2010, p. 68). According to Ole Waever “In this usage, security is not of interest as a sign that refers to something more real; the utterance itself is the act. By saying the word, something is done” (1995, p. 55). That means that security is not a subjective perception which refers to something more real, that exists independently and outside of this perception, speech act refers only to itself (Sulovic, 2010, p. 4). When someone verbally frames something as a security threat, it automatically becomes one. Waever argues that treating an issue as a potential threat is always a matter of choice and that choice is a political one (1995, p. 67). That choice becomes relevant with the discursive practice that frames an issue as a security threat but the capability of framing an issue as a security threat through discourse or speech act is not something a single person can do otherwise there would not be a distinction between speech act and subjective perception and interpretation of the security threat. It is rather

10 a “negotiating process” between the securitizing actor, that frames an issue as a security threat, and the audience who can either accept or reject that framing. The use of extreme measures for the removal of the perceived threat can only be justified and legitimized with the consent of the audience. Securitization cannot be imposed (Sulovic, 2010, p. 4). “Thus, security (as well all politics) ultimately rests neither with objects nor with subjects but among the subjects” (Buzan et al, 1998, p. 29).

Securitization theorists argue that in order for the audience to accept the framing of an issue as a threat, and the securitization to be successful there are some conditions that need to be fulfilled. These conditions fall into two different categories, the external and the internal. In terms with the internal conditions, the linguistic and grammatical pronouncements of the speech act must be in agreement to the social actions they imply, which mean that the existential threats must be clearly defined, arguing that if the existential threat is not contested social reality will change inevitably and lastly offering potential solutions to the existential threat (Buzan et al, 1998, p. 32). The external conditions are two. The first one is that the actor making the securitizing move should hold a position that the audience sees as relevant in order to make a securitizing move. That means that the securitizing actor must be in a position of authority, not merely an official authority but in any way an actor that is relevant to the security field and context. The second factor of the external condition is that the issue presented as an existential threat should be something that can be perceived as threatening in the sense of militarily threatening, environmentally threatening, or threatening by alien identity (Buzan et al, 1998, p. 33).

This understanding of the securitization process and the trilogy of speech act, securitizing actor and audience can be supplemented by what the Copenhagen school calls “facilitating conditions” which offers a useful framework that can be used for examining the conditions that are necessary for the securitization to be successful. The Copenhagen school’s “three facilitating conditions” are inspired by John Austin’s concept of “felicity conditions” (1962, pp. 14-15), namely:

1. “The security grammar” which refers to the internal demand of the speech act or to put it otherwise, the structure of the discourse, which entails the identification of an existential threat and the possible solution to this threat. This includes all the linguistic tricks used by the securitizing actor to persuade the audience in order for the securitization to be successful (Buzan et al, 1998, p. 32).

2. The social capital of the securitizing actor, the authority position the securitizing actor holds which affects the likelihood of the audience accepting the claims by the actor

11 3. The features of the perceived threat. These features can either facilitate or hinder the

securitization. An issue can be easier labeled as a threat if the discourse of the securitizing actor claims it has certain features that can be perceived as threatening by the audience. In our case these features could be a foreign culture (which threatens traditional values), inclination to violence or crime and so on. This will be further discussed in the Analysis part of the paper.

2.4 Critique

The framework of securitization emphasizes the importance of the acceptance of the securitization narrative by the audience. If the audience does not accept the securitizing move by the securitizing actor extraordinary measures cannot be justified and legitimized. Even though the theory explains why some securitizing moves are more likely to be accepted by the audience than the other, it fails to explain sufficiently when the audience accepts the securitizing move (Sulovic, 2010, p. 5). This can be ambiguous and contested in certain cases, whether the audience has accepted or not the securitizing move. In any case, utilizing the Copenhagen School’s three felicity conditions one can minimize the chances of misjudging if the securitization was successful or not. Furthermore, in this case study, as I will showcase in the Analysis part of the paper, it is evident that the securitization was successful since the overwhelming majority of the public agreed with the handling of the issue by the Howard Administration, thus, in this particular case, there is no room for ambiguity.

This critique gave ground to other theorists who wished to enrich the securitization theory, so the “Second Generation” of securitization theorists emerged. Their main contribution to the theory is that securitization cannot be appropriately understood outside the historical and cultural context in which security discourse takes place and that these parameters cannot be neglected (Sulovic, 2010, p. 5). But even if these parameters are taken into consideration certain scholars claim that the theory has geographical and cultural limitations. Wilkinson (2007) for example, argues that the theory cannot be utilized sufficiently outside of Western liberal democracies. As Hayes suggests, autocracies and other authoritative regimes have a different relationship with their audience and use unique discourse and different securitizing vocabulary (2012, p. 69). Vuori (2011) challenged this accusation with his research that deals with the securitization and discourse in the People’s Republic of China, a nation that does not fit in the category of Western

12 liberal democracies. He claims that the discourse of securitization follows a “universal grammar” and the flexibility of securitization theory can be manifested in the wide range of topics that the theory addresses and can be described as non-traditional security threats (2011, p.139). Even if that critique is valid in certain cases, Australia is a Western liberal democracy and not an authoritative regime in which securitization theory might have application problems.

3. Methods

In the third part of the paper, the chosen method will be presented that will be used in order to conduct my research, providing an appropriate explanation on the choice of a single case study of securitization through Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). This study conducts a Critical Discourse Analysis to test the hypothesis “securitization of the ‘boat people’ in Australia” using the single case study of “MV Tampa incident”. This hypothesis defines the essence of the case study that will be examined, so a comparison is not the proper methodological framework for this study. The aim is to test the hypothesis using the framework of securitization to the process of the “speech act”. In order for the hypothesis to be tested a careful Critical Discourse Analysis will be conducted an Fairclough’s Three Dimensional Framework will be applied which offers the tools to investigate the “speech act” used by the Australian Prime Minister John Howard during the “MV Tampa incident” adding further depth to the analysis and providing useful insights. Furthermore, I will justify the chosen data and state why the chosen method and data are appropriate to answer the research question. This part of the paper will be followed by the fourth part in which the presentation of the practical collection process of the empirical evidence as well as the application of critical discourse analysis will be made.

3.1. Data Selection and Source Criticism

The data that will be used in the Analysis part of this paper is secondary material such as interviews and speeches of the Australian prime minister John Howard and speeches by other members of the Australian government. By utilizing Critical Discourse Analysis and Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Framework I will examine how Howard administration

13 securitized the asylum seekers on the freighter MV Tampa, and how they presented them as an existential threat to Australian people in order to justify emergency actions and extraordinary measures against them. In order to conduct a study about securitization, the researcher should examine the discourse of powerful actors in the given context. The securitizing actor under study is the Australian administration which was active when the Tampa affair occurred in 2001, which is Howard administration. That means that I should examine the discourse of the Howard administration in order to analyze it and highlight traces of securitizing discourse. Since I have to study Howard administration’s discourse, I am restricted in selecting a certain type of data that deals with discourse. Such data may include transcripts of speeches from members of the government and transcript from interviews, governmental reports, and legislative acts that have some connection with the Tampa affair in 2001. I dismissed from my study legislation acts and types of official governmental reports since the language used in this type of document are more “official” so to say, more carefully selected and often bound within certain limits. Transcripts from interviews, on the other hand, represent a more fruitful type of data with a more direct and “populistic” language which is very useful when the researcher wants to trace in the discourse securitizing elements and processes. Though this type of data I will be able to examine how the “boat people” are presented from the Australian government, how their identities are constructed, in what way Australia is portrayed, what words are selected and what is the underlying reason of this word selection, the strategies used to frame the essence of the message, I will be able to expose the possible ideology in the discourse and what kind of relationship exists between the act government and the audience, which is the Australian people. Furthermore, I will be able to examine the definition of rules, socially accepted behaviors and norms. All these aspects are entailed in Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Framework which will be discussed in the following sections of the paper and provide a guidance on how to analyze such data in order to showcase the process of securitization.

To analyze such transcripts of interviews/ speeches involves interpretations from the researcher which are critical for the results of the enquiry. In order to not let my own judgements affect the results of the study, the interpretations that will be formed in the Analysis part will be argued constantly in accordance with Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Framework. This is essential in order to connect the theory with the analytical units and to accomplish reliability and validity (Bergstrom and Boreus, 2012, p.50). In this study in which I examine the discourse of Howard administration using Critical Discourse Analysis as a method and Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Framework as an analytical approach I will demonstrate a careful reading of the

14 text and I will provide an interpretation that is visibly connected to the textual evidence, furthermore I will present an analysis which aims to be credible, reasonable, coherent, and fruitful since the researcher should be open and transparent both about the textual evidence that one is using for his/hers review and about the basis of the claims made about it (Rapley, 2008). According to Scott (1990), four criteria should be fulfilled in order for the data to be objective and without any distortion. First is “authenticity”, that means the data should be genuine and the source of the data should be stated clearly (Scott, 1990, p. 6). In order to meet this condition I have carefully selected my data from an undoubtedly credible online source which is the official webpage of the Australian Government, Department of the Prime Minister, and Cabinet, and all the details concerning the data are clearly stated in the Bibliography part of this thesis. The second criterion is “credibility” which translates as if the data do not have errors or distortions (Scott, 1990, p. 6). The argumentation of why my data are credible is the same as the argumentation about the first criterion. Furthermore, since I am using Critical Discourse Analysis as a method of inquiry, my aim is to describe exactly what that discourse represents in its own right so I will present the data without any distortion or error. The third criterion is “representativeness”, that criterion is about the typicality of the data and if data represent the subjects in the given context (Scott, 1990, p. 7). Since I am using transcripts of interviews and speeches from the Australian prime minister John Howard and ministers of the government that talk about the issue of Tampa I will use the public interviews made by the prime minister on the public radio which were dealt almost completely about the Tampa affair. It was his way of communicating his interpretation and policy concerning that issue, so the data used are representative of his discourse, interpretation and attitude towards the boat people on freighter MV Tampa. All data used are from August 2001 and from the time that the Tampa affair was occurring. The last criterion about the quality of the data deals with the “meaning” and if the selected data are comprehensible that they do not contain any ambiguity (Scott, 1990, p. 7). I argue that the discourses examined are not ambiguous but have a clear meaning as they serve a political goal so there is no room for misinterpretations, something that will be further discussed in the Analysis part of the thesis. With that being said I claim that the selected data fulfill all four criteria by Scott (1990) and my research is transparent.

15

3.2. Case Study

As was stated in the introduction part this paper will examine the securitization of the boat people in Australia using as a case study the Tampa affair. A case study is “a detailed and intensive analysis of a single case” (Bryman, 2012, p. 66) and is very suitable and useful when one wants to study complex issues. The subject of criticism against the case study as a method of research is the same that is raised by researchers who prefer quantitative research designs against qualitative research methods and that is that it is not appropriate for a researcher to make generalizations based on his/ hers findings (Stark and Torrance, 2005, p. 6). According to Halperin and Heath a good case study has two characteristics, first, it says something interesting and meaningful about the case it examines, in other words it sheds light in the chosen case and contributes to the academic literature that has been written on the subject so in that sense, it is internally valid. Second, a good case study should say something more general and should have the ability to enter wider academic debates that could be applied to other cases or other contexts (Halperin and Heath, 2012, p. 205).

However other scholars disagree arguing that this is a great misunderstanding and that the importance of external validity in case studies is something debatable. Flyvbjerg argues that the extent to which the findings of a case study can be generalized in order to apply in other cases and other contexts depends on how the research is made, claiming that the choice between case study and other methods must be connected and reliant on the research puzzle and its possible unique circumstances (2012, p. 193). Adding to this understanding of knowledge production within the case studies Flyvbjerg claims that this generalization as the only way of scientific progress is “overrated” and that one can contribute within a given field of study without producing generalizable findings, thus without the need to conform to external validity (2012, p. 195- 196).

3.3. Critical Discourse Analysis

The chosen method of data analysis in this paper is the qualitative method of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Unlike a quantitative method, the qualitative method examines social and cultural phenomena based on questions such as how, why, and what (Keegan, 2009, p. 9). This method is suitable when studying the application of political economic and social power through a text or a speech and its aim is to analyze how language is used by powerful actors not only to describe things but rather to “do” the things (Brown and Yule, 1983, p. 7) Critical discourse

16 analysis is a subcategory of Discourse Analysis and it differentiates from discourse analysis since it focuses in pre-existing social structures and power relations and does not treat reality only as something constituted in and through discourse (Halperin and Heath, 2012, p. 312). For Fairclough (1993) CDA is a type of discourse analysis that mainly highlights the “strange” relationships between various social and cultural groups. Critical discourse analysis is “critical” since it tried to expose connections between language, ideology, and power (Fairclough, 2001, p. 4) and its main concern is the role of discourse in producing, reproducing and resisting social power abuse, control and inequality (Van Dijk, 2001, p.299). Fairclough argues that the selection of language in discourse has an important impact on society as it fosters the formation first, and then the application of a specific ideology, belief, strategy or a “narrative” as I refer it in this paper, which is used in order for the political elite, in this case, the Australian government under Howard administration to gain more power and dominate in politics (Fairclough, 1993, p. 54). Furthermore, political actors such as government officials develop their narrative and present is as common sense, as the one and only truth and through discourse they try to communicate it with the audience and “persuade” common people to accept their narrative, in this case, the narrative that “boat people” present an existential threat to the security of Australia and extraordinary measures should be adopted to tackle this threat. How language is used as a part of the discourse not only names certain things but also promotes a certain ideology. Critical discourse analysis provides the researcher with a framework that can be used to understand how and in which context the language has been used and how the discourse impacts society. Critical discourse analysis is an appropriate method for research securitization since discourse is indeed a container of underlying power structures and a carrier of possible change and that is acknowledged by the Copenhagen school arguing that discourse is a form of power structure (Buzan et al, 1998). Drawing from that understanding securitization theory’s key concept is that discourse between subjects produces, reproduce, and shapes security issues (Buzan et al, 1998, p. 29). Furthermore, when security is discussed in discourse aims to the prioritization of a certain issue over anything else. The practice that shapes the content of the discourse is a power indicator and a political stance, so discourse is not a neutral practice but a social process.

That is why critical discourse analysis is a method that helps one reveal hypotheses linking discourse to power and can expose how powerful actors (such as members of the Australian government in this case) control public discourse, and how this discourse controls and shapes the minds, perceptions and actions of less powerful groups (the audience, the Australian people in this case), and the social consequences of such control (Van Dijk, 2001, p. 355). The control

17 over discourse reveals social power and is a major means of reproducing dominance and hegemony (Halperin and Heath, 2012, p. 313). That is why critical discourse analysis the appropriate method that will help me expose Australian government officials’ inner meaning of discourse while highlighting structures of power and the process in which through discourse aim to control audience perception about “boat people” thus successfully securitizing them for their own interest, something that will be further discussed in the fourth part of the thesis. Critical discourse analysis touches the essence of securitization theory, a theory that is based on discourse and its use.

In the following section of the paper, I will discuss my methodological framework, Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Framework, and how it will be used, which will help me examine in depth the process of securitization and its traces in the discourse of Australian government officials’

3.4. Methodological Framework: Fairclough’s Three-dimensional framework

As stated before, discourse is not something neutral, but it is rather a reflection of a social process and a political act. Fairclough added to this understanding of the Copenhagen School with his insightful work which utilized critical discourse analysis developing a Three-dimensional framework as a methodological framework arguing that there is an “internal and dialectical relationship between language and society” (1989, p. 37). As a methodological framework, I will utilize Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Framework that will provide better insight and a complete understanding of the process of securitization

Buzan et al (1998) claim that the technique for analyzing a text for traces of securitization is simple. The researcher should read the selected texts “looking for arguments that take the rhetorical and logical form defined here as security (Buzan et al, 1998, p. 177). This rather “loose” conceptual framework will be complemented with the more complete and helpful, for the purpose of this research, methodological framework of Three-dimensional Framework by Norman Fairclough that will enable me to research in-depth the securitization process made by the Australian administration under Howard in the Tampa affair. According to Fairclough any text plays its own part in shaping the society and culture. “The structure of CDA is that language in the sense of social and institutional relationships and identities are established by the language

18 practice and the selection of structure while the constitution of language is constructed by social and personal needs” (Fairclough, 1995, p. 11). By using the Three-dimensional framework on radio interviews made by John Howard I will be able to uncover the functioning of power relations in the Australian society. When analyzing the order of the discourse in a social institution (here represented by the Australian Prime minister) and applying the notions of representation, identity and relation in the analysis the result is the ideology the Australian government carries in the given context and the identity of the asylum seekers according to that ideology. The changing relationship of power is in this manner, one aspect of controlling the order of discourse and enforcing this ideology resulting in producing norms (Fairclough, 1989, p. 30).

Norman Fairclough’s developed a methodological framework that is very useful when one wants to research about securitization. It is called Three-dimensional framework because it is an analysis of the relationships between three dimensions, the “text”, the “discursive practice” and the “sociocultural practice” (Fairclough, 1995).

The first dimension is referred to as “text” or “description” as the actual text itself is the focus of the analysis. Here the researcher examines the semantic features of the given text or speech. "Description is the stage which is concerned with formal properties of text” (Fairclough, 1989, p. 19). For a text to be analyzed a careful examination of the linguistic and textual selection must be conducted which entails an examination of vocabulary, construction of words (wording), grammar (passivization and transitivity) and the way of how sentences are constructed and presented but also the overall structure of the text/ speech (thematic choice and turn-taking system). These speech acts or statements contribute to the interpretation of a specific message. (Cots, 2004, p. 3). Furthermore, the aim of the text is to communicate a message and presents certain beliefs, the construction of identities of the participants discussed in the discourse (the “boat people”, asylum seekers who try to reach Australia by the sea in this context but also the Australian people and their values something that will be further discussed in the Analysis part), and strategies to frame the essence of the message (McGregor, 2003). When the researcher is examining the given text, he/she must look at how representations, identities, and relations are presented and framed as they are used as functions. By examining these functions, the researcher is able to uncover and highlight the possible underlying factors behind the text (Fairclough, 1995, p. 29). By doing that one can expose the possible ideology the given text carries or what kind of relationship is between the actor presenting that text/ speech to the audience and what identities the discourse entails (Fairclough, 1995, p. 30).

19 The second dimension of the framework is called “discursive practice”. Discursive practice or “interpretation” deals with text consumption and the process of text production. "Interpretation is concerned with the relationship between text and interaction with seeing the text as the product of a process of production, and as a recourse in the process of interpretation" Fairclough, 1989, p. 31). Here the discourse is being examined from an institutional aspect. As the discourse examined is a product of powerful actors within the given context, in this case, the Australian government, the discourse acts as a definition of rules, socially accepted behaviors, norms and certain roles that are used in order for the message to be produced, reproduced, received and interpreted. In other words, it tells the audience how to think and behave what is socially acceptable in the given context and what is not (McGregor, 2003). It acts as a reminder of how people should act within the community and in the context of the Tampa affair, argues how people who do not belong in the community behave. Lastly, the dimension of discursive practice acts as the liaison linking the dimension of text and the dimension of sociocultural practice (Fairclough, 1995, p. 59).

The third dimension of Fairclough’s framework is called “sociocultural practice” or “explanation” and is dependent on the given context. "Explanation is concerned with the relationship between interaction and social context with the social determination of the process of production and interpretation, and their social effects" (Fairclough, 1989, p.19). As mentioned before, this thesis will use Australia as a context and the stance of the Howard administration against the boat people. In this dimension aspects such as ideology and power are taken into account in order to explain the relationship between sociocultural context and the production and consumption of the given text.

20 Figure 1: Adaptation of “Fairclough’s three-dimensional model for critical discourse analysis” (1992, p.73)

The three- dimensional model that was developed by Norman Fairclough provides a useful framework on how to conduct research using critical discourse analysis. The dimension of “text” in Fairclough’s model will examine the use of language, identity, and representations in the interviews and speeches made by the Australian prime minister John Howard and other members of the government. The dimension of “discursive practice” will examine the production and consumption of the speeches, meaning that the thought behind the production of the speech will be explained and its effect on Australian society. Lastly, the dimension of “sociocultural practice” will examine the speeches in the given context which is, the norms of attitude towards the “boat people”.

Fairclough states that it is not required to use all three dimensions of his model and the researcher can choose which one should be used according to the purpose and aim of his/her research (1995, p. 49). This thesis, however, will use all three dimensions of the model since each one of them play a unique role in highlighting the securitization process and will enable me to get a concrete

SOCIOCULTURAL PRACTICE

DISCURSIVE PRACTICE

TEXT

21 understanding of the process of framing the boat people in the case of Tampa as an existential threat to Australia by the Howard administration.

4. Analysis

In this part of my thesis, a brief background of the Tampa incident will be discussed and the chosen method of inquiry and methodological framework will be applied in order for the data to be analyzed and then I will connect my findings with the chosen theory, the theory of Securitization. Through this application of the methodological framework and through the utilization of the Securitization Theory I will be able to showcase how the Howard administration in Australia portrayed the asylum seekers on freighter MV Tampa as a security threat, an existential threat to Australian people in order to gain public support and thus legitimizing extraordinary measures and extreme actions against them. In order to trace this securitization process and the securitizing discourse, I will analyze transcripts of interviews by the Australian Prime Minister John Howard. The emphasis will not be on the securitizing actor nor the historical background in general, but only to the discourse of the securitizing actor (Prime Minister and other members of the government) and its content’s role in the securitization of the asylum seekers on MV Tampa and the “boat people” in general. The politicians who are members of the government, have of course high political credibility, thus having a strong influence on political discourse and the audience (Australian people) and can easily frame and portray certain less important issues, such as the boat people, as security threats or even existential security threats, in that way moving the issue from the realm of “low politics” to a security issue that needs swift, bold, extreme and emergency actions and extraordinary measures in order for that threat to be “neutralized”, thus restoring the “state of safety” as defined by the securitizing actor which in turn leads to the restoration of the feeling of safety to the audience, the Australian people.

Before continuing to the analysis of the data in relation to the methodological framework and their interpretation through it and through the Securitization Theory, there is a need to provide a short background of the events that constitute the “Tampa affair”. This summary of the events is essential in order to understand the context, something that is necessary for examining the data and the securitization process. This summary will be presented in the following chapter:

22

4.1. Background of the “Tampa affair”

On Sunday, 26th _{August 2001, the Norwegian containership MS Tampa had been in a route from}

Fremantle, Australia to Singapore when the Captain Arne Rinnan received a MAYDAY signal from Rescue Control Centre Australia. The signal stated that there is a boat with approximately 80 people on board that is sinking, and its passengers are in danger. All ships within 10 hours of sailing time of the sinking boat were requested to report back to the Rescue Control Centre Australia if they could sail to the area that the boat is sinking and if they were able to assist (Sjobrend, 2004, p. 3).

The captain of MV Tampa changed its route and sailed to the location where the boat was sinking. There, the crew of the ship rescued 433 persons from drowning. After the successful rescue, the captain tried to contact Australian authorities and asked where he should take the rescued people but all he got was vague and unhelpful answers, so the captain sailed to Merak, Indonesia (Mathew, 2002, p. 661). During the trip, several passengers threatened to harm him and threatened to commit suicide if he did not change course for the Australian territory of Christmas Islands. When the captain informed the Australian authorities for this change, of course, they responded that he is not allowed to enter Australian territorial waters. Since the passengers wanted to disembark in Australian territory and not in Indonesia the ship remained stranded. The following day the captain informed Australian authorities that there is a shortage of food and water on board and that several passengers are injured and need medical attention while some women are pregnant (Mathew, 2002, p. 661). He requested to be supplied with food, water, and medical assistance but he did not receive any clear answer. The shipping company that owed MV Tampa “Wallenius Wilhelmsen Lines” after a consultation from its Emergency Response Team decided that they should inform Norwegian authorities and let them deal with the political aspect of the issue (Sjobrend, 2004, p. 4). The Norwegian government strongly opposed and condemned the decision of Australian authorities to not let MV Tampa sail through Australian territorial waters. While Norwegian government focused on the humanitarian aspect of the issue and defended the right of the Asian asylum seekers who were rescued at sea to be delivered to a place of safety, the Australian government and its prime minister John Howard claimed that Australian authorities have every right to decide who is entering their country and under what conditions while raising concerns about Australian border security and national sovereignty (Sjobrend, 2004, p. 4).

23 On Wednesday, 29th _{August the captain of MV Tampa sent up a distress signal and then headed}

to Australian territorial waters with direction to Christmas Islands. When the Australian government was informed that MV Tampa has entered Australian territorial waters a commando unit, the Special Armed Forces (SAS), was employed and ordered to invade MV Tampa. The SAS commando unit took control of the ship and transported all asylum seekers in third countries such as New Zealand, Nauru, and Papua New Guinea (Sjobrend, 2004, p. 4- 5). After the successful military operation on the ship, the Australian government introduced a legislation to the parliament named “Border Protection Act 2001”. This legislation was not officially framed for the Tampa incident, but it was retrospective, so it could be applied in the case of Tampa as well (Mathew, 2002, p. 663). The “Border Protection Act 2001” enabled the Australian authorities to remove any ships or vessels from the Australian territorial waters and the use of “reasonable force” was justified to that end (Mathew, 2002, p. 663). Furthermore, the legislation stated that courts were not authorized to interfere with incidents with ships, such as MV Tampa, and that all applications made by people on board the MV Tampa in order to acquire refuge status in Australia would be considered as invalid (Border Protection Act, 2001). Moreover, islands near Australian territorial waters which were the first point for entry for the “boat people” such as Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Ashmore Reef, and the Keeling where removed from the Australian migrating zone which meant that people who arrived in these territories without a visa could not apply for asylum in Australia (Devetak, 2007, p. 99).

The Tampa affair provides an illustration of how a subject that is not associated with national security and does not pose a threat to Australia can be framed as one by the political elites, and how through securitizing discourse the audience can accept this narrative and provide strong support in the employment of extraordinary measures against that manufactured threat. The process that the securitizing actor is using is not simple, and its discourse and actions are carefully selected in order to influence the audience, thus justifying the extreme measures against the threat. This process, the process of securitization in regards to the securitizing actor, the referent object, and the audience will be discussed in the following section with the utilization of Fairclough’s Three-dimensional framework which provides an extremely useful context that helps the researcher to examine the securitization process.

24

4.2. Data Analysis

This section of the paper aims to look at evidence of the securitization of the “boat people” in Australia in the context of the Tampa affair by examining the discourse of the Australian Prime Minister John Howard and analyzing various interviews he gave regarding the “Tampa affair”. In this way, I will essentially examine the discourse of the securitizing actor in regards to the referent object (Australian state security, societal security) and uncover how that discourse was constructed to influence the audience (Australian people) in order for the government (securitizing actor) to gain public support and justify the use of extraordinary measures against the issue framed as security threat a constructed existential threat to Australia, the “boat people”. The interpretation of the discourse will be made in accordance with Fairclough’s Three-dimensional framework a useful tool that will help be uncover various aspects and levels of that discourse and highlight traces of securitization by finding assumptions about identity, representations, the thought behind the text and its effect in society but also norms of attitude towards the boat people and the ideology of institutions represented in this context by the Australian Prime Minister. After examining the securitizing elements in the discourse of the members of the government and I will argue in a simple yet reliable way if the securitization was successful or if the securitization failed by utilizing Copenhagen School’s evolvement of the three felicity conditions.

The way Howard administration used language in relation with the Tampa affair and the way how the ruling party chose to frame security have strong implications with the way Howard administration dealt with the issue and how this particular issue moved from the realm of “low politics” and became a “hot topic” that concerned Australian people. As my analysis suggests and as it will become evident in the following paragraphs, the way Howard administration dealt with the Tampa affair is a typical example of securitization.

As stated in the previous section of the paper “Background of the Tampa affair” (4.1) when the captain of MV Tampa rescued the asylum seekers and set sail to Australian territory, Australian authorities denied him access. On the 30th _{of August after Australian government rejected the}

request of the captain, the Australian Prime Minister stated in a radio interview: “ Our position remains that we do not have a legal obligation to take these people (…) the ship does not have our permission to enter Australian waters (…) Every country has the right to refuse entry to the vessel of another country of course. It is fundamental to a nation's sovereignty, a nation's control of its borders” (Howard, 2001). In relation to the first dimension of analysis from Fairclough’s

25 Three-dimension framework which is referred to as “text” and examines the vocabulary and the construction of words, I argue that there are some important words, keywords that are used in order to produce, reproduce and communicate a social reality by framing the identity of the boat people and their representations. The concept of “legal obligation” in this interview is a key concept since the Prime Minister here communicates the message that Australia is not obliged in legal terms to accept the asylum seekers on MV Tampa, so the Australian government acts in accordance with international law. The word “permission” here is used in order to communicate that the MV Tampa did not have the permission to enter Australian territorial waters, thus by doing so, it committed an illegal act. The words “sovereignty” and the concept of “national border control” are selected to declare that not only Australian authorities did act in accordance with international law but also they have a “moral” obligation, responsibility or duty to protect Australia’s fundamental rights such as the right of sovereignty. Examining the interview in accordance with the second dimension of the framework, the “discursive practice” which correlates with the production and consumption of the discourse, the thought behind the text and its effects in society one can see that Howard’s goal is to communicate the message that the boat people present a threat to Australia’s sovereignty thus presenting a direct threat to the state. John Howard is framing the stance of the Australian government as a socially, legally and morally accepted one, while he is framing the decision of MV Tampa’s captain to enter Australian territorial waters without permission an unacceptable one, in both legal and moral terms. These statements come from a powerful actor, with institutional power so are considered of high importance since they can shape social reality and produce “social truth”.

In a different radio interview later that day Australian Prime Minister stated: “We are not closing our doors to genuine refugees, but we are saying we are unwilling to take people who are queue jumping. We are unwilling to have the integrity of our border controls compromised. (…) We are arguing for the right that any country has to decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they will come” (Howard, 2001). Examining the vocabulary and the word phrasing in the discourse of this interview we can see strong concepts such as “genuine refugees” and people who are “queue jumping”. Here John Howard is trying to establish a dichotomy between the “genuine refugees” and the illegal ones, the ones that “queue jump” in order to be granted asylum. Even though scholars suggest that there is no “queue” for the asylum seekers that they can “jump” or bypass (Clyne, 2005; Gelber, 2003) Howard uses that metaphor to suggest that these people are trying to bypass the asylum process that is framed by Australian laws. The dichotomy between “genuine refugees” and “queue jumpers” translates into a dichotomy

26 between “legitimacy” versus “illegitimacy”. By framing all asylum seekers on MV Tampa as “queue jumpers” John Howard correlates them with people who are using illegitimate and illegal methods in order to enter Australia. While “genuine refugees” patiently wait and follow asylum regulations and procedures, the “queue jumpers” are invited, unwelcome and illegitimate thus making them unworthy of help or compassion. Furthermore, “queue jumpers” are incompatible with Australian values since they do not care about the other “genuine refugees” and are trying by unethical means to bypass them for their own personal benefit. Here John Howard uses a very strong securitizing discourse. He is indirectly framing the asylum seekers on MV Tampa as a threat to Australian values. Unethical people like them who are framed as “bad” are not welcome in Australia and are unworthy of asylum and can even corrupt Australian cultural values as well since Australia is depicted as a country that does not close its doors for “genuine refugees” but only for the “bad” ones, claiming that the stance of Australia is morally and ethically right, making “fair” decisions contrasting this behavior with the illegitimacy of the boat people that were previously described. Moreover, when Howard (2001) is stating that “we are arguing for the right that any country has to decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they will come” is communicating the message to the audience that it is Australia’s duty to decide which people are entering its territory since many of them, as discussed previously are illegitimate, unethical and “bad”. This is an undoubtedly securitizing discourse that claims that if a country does not have control over its borders then it is basically unprotected by all these “bad” people, thus these people present an existential threat to Australian security and its national sovereignty. The institutional power of the Prime Minister here defines the rules, norms, and socially accepted behaviors and presents the boat people to violate these rules in an effort to shape social reality according to his securitizing narrative and produce social truth.

During the time that the Tampa incident occurred Australian Prime Minister John Howard was constantly giving interviews, one after another sometimes giving many interviews the same day. As he was following the issue, every time something new occurred he made comments that kept up with the events. This was done to highlight the issue, to frame it as something really crucial that needs close attention and constant examination, moving it from the realm of “low politics” and presenting it as a highly important issue and as something critical to Australia. Furthermore, with his constant interviews, he was trying to build up his arguments and utilize his securitizing discourse. He had to constantly remind the audience that this is an issue of security an issue that threatened Australian national security and its well-being. On the 31st of August in a short radio interview, he stated that Australia should: “draw a line on what is increasingly becoming an