On Awad and Natarajan’s, “Migration Myths and the Global South.”

Incorporating the analysis of the “mismatch” into the dominant discourses of international migration may help address the concerns raised by Ibrahim Awad and Usha Natarajan in their essay, “Migration Myths and the Global South.”

One of the concerns the authors have (Awad and Natarajan) is that our discourse makes it difficult to talk about migration in a useful way, especially because of our “fixation on artificial, irrational and unsubstantiated distinctions between forced and voluntary migration”.

For example, political persecution or religious ones are seen as intolerable yet droughts and famines are not so much.

A mismatch analysis can help show how extra-territorial membership can assist in certain circumstances. For instance, how the diasporic community can come together to support such communities, in rebuilding, in economic injection and ideas for innovation, or even in international legal rule-making that will be supportive of global south challenges.

This mismatch analysis could also help with other concerns.

International Responsibility

They talk of how international responsibility renounces responsibility for internally displaced people and those without means to cross a border.

With a mismatch analysis, agents of change can assist in reforming international law to take more effective steps to support those unable to seek refuge internationally, by advocating for resources and support in their local regions.

Global South Responsibility vs The Global Norths

Considering that causes of migration are rarely the responsibility of the global south, yet as they posit, the global south takes the responsibility for the majority of the migration flows.

The global north through the mismatch analysis can take more responsibility for the consequences of their actions, for flows of migrants and refugees. Just think of the Global War on Terror led by the US in Afghanistan.

Even climate-wise, the global north is responsible for around half of all emissions. In 2019, the top 10% of global emitters (771 million individuals) were responsible for about 48% of global CO2 emissions, while the bottom 50% (3.8 billion individuals) were responsible for almost 12% of all emissions.

Addressing issues such as the causes of climate change effects and economic inequality necessitates a comprehensive approach that involves assessment across various fields. It’s crucial to understand how countries in the global north may contribute to harm in the global south, as well as identify areas where assistance is needed.

Global South Left Out

Ibrahim Awad and Usha Natarajan argue that predominant discourse shapes public debate as it reflects the productive power of those who articulate it. The global north's ability to legitimate their subjects of debates, and their ideas and make them acceptable — the global south is left out and ignored, almost as if they are without agency.

But with the mismatch analysis, the analysis in itself is debunking the dominant idea of fixed borders by showcasing how extraterritorial membership does exist, and therefore, dominant discourses can be challenged too.

Through the mismatch analysis, an alternative lens and approach can be submitted that will challenge the dominant discourse.

Hierarchies & Fixed Borders

Finally, the authors state that “Our modern-day discourse arbitrarily creates hierarchies of suffering as a means of legitimating international protection in certain areas and abdicating responsibility in others.”

This is the idea of fixed borders in general, where countries take up the moral and legal responsibility of their citizens in some circumstances and not others (as aforementioned).

Through a mismatch analysis, it becomes apparent that while fixed borders may hold true in certain contexts, the concept of extraterritorial membership challenges this notion. Within the right frameworks and with adequate checks and balances, actors capable of contributing to migration across borders could potentially become a normalized aspect of global dynamics.

Sharing the Burden

Through a mismatch analysis, change agents can contribute to international legal norms, and the analysis can challenge dominant discourses and views by offering an alternative. Therefore, help and assistance can cross borders and the burden of responsibility for migration can be shared between the global north and south.

In our hyper-globalized world, the 2019 Pandemic has shown us that the disease of one country can quickly spread globally and induce a world into a pandemic. As such, no country stands alone nor can you limit the consequences without collaboration.

Through a mismatch analysis we can begin to understand that due to the extra-territorial membership, we should all carry a burden to support each other, especially in migration.

Finally, through the analysis we also see that the idea of fixed borders, of individual countries and inward-looking ones is being eroded in different circumstances, depending on the political actor in charge and the cultural changes — ultimately, there is hope that Awad’s and Natarajan’s concerns can be met through this approach.

(As I write, however, in 2024, it appears many larger countries (GDP/Influence wise) are turning inwards and somewhat ‘de-globalizing’. Both China and America are being more protectionist, and Canada intends to cap its international students.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -

Ayelet Shachar, Shifting Borders, pg 8

Ibrahim Awad and Usha Natarajan, “Migration Myth and the Global South,”,2018, pg 54