Narratives about “radicalization” and “security threats” are instrumentalized by European states and the European Union (EU) as a powerful rhetorical tool to justify the externalization of security policies and intervention in foreign countries, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and the Sahel.

This framing serves to transform complex political, economic, and social issues into immediate, existential dangers, thereby legitimizing a security-first approach in foreign policy, migration, and development aid.

The Securitization of Foreign Policy and Migration

The primary mechanism for this justification is securitization, a political process where an issue is framed as an existential threat to a cherished object, allowing leaders to call for extraordinary measures and bypass normal political procedures.

1. Connecting Domestic and Foreign Threats

The narrative successfully connects instability abroad directly to insecurity at home, thereby creating a political imperative for intervention.

• "Homegrown" Terror: Following attacks carried out by European citizens who were radicalized or had connections to foreign groups (like ISIS or Al-Qaeda), the narrative was solidified: "radicalization" is not just an external phenomenon but one that begins in European society and is cultivated in unstable foreign environments. This directly links domestic policing and counter-extremism policies to foreign interventions aimed at destroying the source.

• The Nexus of Migration and Terrorism: The 2015-2016 refugee crisis and the Paris/Brussels attacks were conflated in public and political discourse. The narrative suggested that terrorists were "smuggled" into Europe among genuine refugees, creating the "migration-security nexus." This framed irregular migration not as a humanitarian issue, but as a Trojan horse for security threats, thus justifying policies to externalize border control to third countries like Turkey, Libya, Tunisia, and Morocco. These interventions are officially termed "migration management" or "border security cooperation," but their real function is to act as Europe's external border wall.

• Preventing the Spillover: The narrative portrays instability in the neighborhood (e.g., failed states, civil wars) as a direct cause of "spillover" threats—namely, irregular migration, organized crime, and terrorist recruitment. To stop the threat from reaching European shores, the EU argues it must intervene to stabilize the source. This is the rationale for military and training missions, as well as security sector reform initiatives in regions like the Sahel, framed as "root cause prevention."

The Impact on Aid and Development

The security narrative fundamentally reshapes Europe's approach to foreign assistance, subtly transforming traditional development aid into a tool of counter-terrorism and migration deterrence.

2. The Weaponization of Development Aid

The concept of "radicalization" is used to justify channeling development funds toward non-traditional recipients and security-focused projects.

• Shifting Priorities: Traditional development aid focused on poverty, health, and education; today, EU and member state funding is increasingly directed toward "Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (P/CVE)" programs. These programs, which are often poorly understood or measured, aim to build local resilience against extremist ideologies. Critics argue this represents a securitization of aid, prioritizing Europe's short-term security needs over the long-term, self-defined development goals of partner nations.

• The "Root Causes" Loophole: The EU's financial instruments often link assistance to cooperation on migration and security. By stating that the root causes of irregular migration include a lack of security and susceptibility to radicalization, the EU can redirect funds that were previously designated for poverty reduction toward border surveillance, training of foreign police/military forces, and intelligence sharing. This is seen as a way to "buy" border control from transit states, prioritizing the immediate security of European borders over genuine structural reform in the host countries.

Justification for Extra-Legal and Undemocratic Measures

The framing of "radicalization" and "security threats" as existential allows European actors to invoke a state of exception, justifying policies that would otherwise be politically or legally untenable.

3. Circumventing Human Rights and Democracy Promotion

The urgency of the "security threat" is frequently used to downgrade human rights and democracy promotion as policy priorities.

• The Authoritarian Bargain: To secure the cooperation needed to contain migrants and suppress terrorist groups, the EU often makes deals with authoritarian regimes (e.g., in North Africa or Central Asia). The security narrative provides the public justification for this pragmatic bargain: these regimes are deemed the "only reliable partners" capable of effectively acting as gatekeepers. This enables Europe to overlook or minimize the regimes' human rights abuses, democratic deficits, and repressive practices against their own populations. Critics argue this undermines Europe's own stated values and, ironically, contributes to the very conditions (repression, lack of political space) that fuel long-term instability and, potentially, radicalization.

• Lack of Accountability and Transparency: Because these interventions are framed under the umbrella of security, they often involve intelligence sharing, military training, and opaque contracts that lack the transparency and parliamentary oversight typical of traditional development or foreign policy. The nebulous and contested concept of "radicalization" becomes a catch-all term that allows for broad, potentially discriminatory surveillance and intervention programs, both at home and abroad, without a clear, evidence-based legal framework.

In conclusion, the narratives of "radicalization" and "security threats" are indispensable to Europe's current foreign policy and migration strategy. They function as a powerful rhetorical shield that legitimizes the externalization of European security concerns and the implementation of transactional, security-driven interventions. While presented as necessary measures to ensure safety and stability, these narratives often subordinate humanitarian concerns and long-term development goals to the immediate political priority of keeping threats and migrants away from European borders.