Securer borders?
At the turn of the 21st century, globalization—technological, commercial, and cultural—has made the world smaller, but we now have evidence that it has not made it freer or more open to diversity. In fact, the increase in physical mobility and digital connectivity has, in recent years, led to closed borders and a rise in defensive and aggressive nationalisms. In a short time, we have gone from what was heralded as the triumph of liberalism and democracy—the proclaimed end of history—to the current trade war, xenophobic rejection of immigration, and the return of wars and imperialism. This culminated in the second term of US President Donald Trump, who directly and abruptly shattered the balances and consensus of international law and diplomatic multilateralism that emerged after World War II. The result is that today the world is more insecure: the dialectic of confrontation has taken hold, whether directly military—Ukraine, Gaza—or commercial. It has also become ideological and cultural.
All of this is having a direct impact on border control policies, with increasingly sophisticated and invasive controls that infringe upon people's privacy. These controls are no longer limited to border entry points; they are now being outsourced to the territories of the countries that send migrants. Furthermore, the privatization of many of these controls raises serious questions about who manages the data of travelers, both foreign and national. It also raises concerns about the transparency of the business that has emerged in this new sector of global security.
The Spanish case, as analyzed in the report we published, is no exception to this trend: the implementation of new, invasive, advanced technology systems of military origin—thermal cameras, drones with artificial intelligence, laser illuminators, biometric tools, and large databases. Securer borders, all well and good, but how and in whose hands?
Without being naive or relinquishing security guarantees in a decidedly more unstable world, it seems clear that, in this matter, we must demand respect for the fundamental rights of both our own citizens and migrants. Even if migrants arrive irregularly—often in inhumane conditions—they should not, for example, be prevented from boarding boats. Nor is it acceptable for advanced, outsourced technologies to fall into the hands of paramilitary groups in dictatorial countries. These are just two examples.
Situations like these delegitimize not only the right to conduct border controls, but also the rule of law itself in our democratic society, while weakening the values upon which it is supposedly founded. Finally, the fact that many companies specializing in border security have, directly or indirectly, Israeli ties and have tested their border control devices on the population of Gaza is another dark point. The business is worth millions, and the lack of transparency surrounding the awarding of public funds is far too great.
