Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1497523
society - as the actual events have shown. On one hand, the argument related to defending of own territory and sovereignty emerges, with the border being sacred, on the other - the humanitarian argument emerges here. People crossing the border often come from areas suffering from wars and crises. One should also take into consideration the fact that the international conventions, and domestic regulations in force were written with the assumption that refugees seek protection from war or persecution. They are not viewed as an asset of another nation willing to impose pressure, on another state. Another problem is the situation caused by the migrants entering the territory of Poland. As it turned out, various stances could have been recorded, concerning the migrating persons. Apart from the online activists dealing with support for illegal economic migration, two other stances could have been observed. In the early stages of the crisis, persons declaring their willingness to counter the illegal migration became active, providing self-proclaimed support for the state authorities. These declarations quickly went silent - luckily. At the same time, a broad range of activities was undertaken by organizations, persons, and informal networks willing to help the migrants for humanitarian reasons - providing medical aid, or legal help, based on the aforesaid domestic and international law regulations. A situation as such can indeed be easily resolved. It is worth noting that Poland adopted a hard stance, directing the Armed Forces, the Police, and the Border Guard to the border, announcing a state of emergency, and then introducing specific purpose legal regulations on border protection, and finally, building a physical barrier. At the same time, these activities made it more challenging for the humanitarian workers, and journalists to get engaged. Of course, the worry that pro-Kremlin media would appear at the border was justified - with possible provocations. But action as such comes at a price. It turned out that hard power also limits the range of the available soft power options. When rules were imposed limiting access for the journalists, one could use an argument that no materials that would negatively portray the situation would be published. It also meant that there is less room to move for the government, to push its own narrative. No pro journalist would use official sources. Other channels will be employed here, remaining completely uncontrolled, with any debate being limited. At the same time, one should remember that a unilateral ban on media access is unilateral, granting the other side more freedom in the shaping of its information policy, or even in granting access to the area for foreign correspondents - who would be forced to notice the different sets of rules on both sides. That paved the way for the „Polish government is hiding something" narrative. It is a fact that these rules were changed later on. Also legally, reaching out for hard power may be problematic. The legal regulations created in a rush, and the interpretations of those, may be later on questioned. Some claims may be made, over the conduct, or other legal action may be taken, influencing the efficiency of the actions, and legal safety of the officers and soldiers involved. A question may emerge, whether the situation as such could be resolved differently... Paradoxically, when the influx of Ukrainian refugees appeared on the border (but with an entirely different set of surrounding circumstances), the actions undertaken by the state, and the society, were entirely different. One could conclude that if, for example, as the first symptoms of the crisis on the Polish-Belorussian border emerge, a more consensual approach would be adopted, we would experience less polarization. As the crisis was growing gradually, and the migration pressure was targeting Lithuania first, while the Usnarz Górny incident and escalation happened later, there was some time available to reach a different set of solutions. For instance, a consulting event could be organized, for persons representing NGOs, including ones handling humanitarian matters and human rights - different than the state administration, or the uniformed services. It shall not be assumed that talks as such would result in a different outcome, but if a state of emergency is declared in such circumstances, it would be legitimized beyond the realm of formalities, and the particular conditions for the zone covered by that state could also be different. This, on the other hand, would make it possible to control the narrative more efficiently in Poland. The adversary, meanwhile, would not be able to do anything in the information domain. Another example is a hypothetical scenario in which Polish harbors and shipping routes are endangered. One of the possible scenarios involves UUVs and surface unmanned vessels attacking ships - carrying LNG, crude oil, or military equipment - headed to our ports. Securing those shipping routes, and reacting to such scenarios also reveals ANALYSIS