# taz.de -- History of european migration policy: From carrots to sticks
> To fight migratory movements the EU is using african states – thereby
> ignoring international treaties and european values.
(IMG) Bild: Internally displaced persons in Maiduguri, Nigeria
The EU has finally lost patience with a decade-long approach based on
dialogue with countries in Africa calling for the return and readmission of
refugees. Under plans adopted by the European Commission on 7 June 2106 the
EU is now explicitly seeking to exploit Member States’ historical
neo-colonial links to try to contain the movement of migrants and refugees:
“The special relationships that Member States may have with third
countries, reflecting political, historic and cultural ties fostered
through decades of contacts, should also be exploited to the full for the
benefit of the EU. At present, the opposite is often the case. Trust needs
to be built up.“
This might be better phrased as asking EU Member States to use their
histories of imperialism and exploitation to ask African states to sort out
an EU problem.
## The future foretold – from Trevi to GAMM
EU attempts to try to stop the arrival of refugee and migrants dates back
to the pre-Maastricht times. The Trevi Group, the intergovernmental fora
set up in1976, made immigration one of its priorities – the Dublin
Convention (first country of entry) was agreed on 15 June 1990, the same
year as the Schengen agreement entered into force and the gradual
construction of 'Fortress Europe’ began.
In December 2005, an Informal Summit at Hampton Court palace saw the
adoption of a “Global approach to migration: Priority actions focussing on
Africa and the Mediterranean“. This ‘Global Approach to Migration and
Mobility’ (GAMM) saw migration as a prominent effect of globalisation and
called for dialogue, cooperation and tackling the “root causes of
migration“, for example, by the “eradication of poverty in regions of
origin.“
A plethora of regional processes followed: the Africa-EU Migration and
Mobility Dialogue, bilateral dialogues with Turkey, Southern Mediterranean
countries (Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon) and African
countries (Cape Verde, Nigeria, Senegal, Ethiopia, South Africa). Ten years
later these noble aims were running into reality.
## On the EU doorstep
By the time of the “Khartoum Process“, involving African states from the
Horn of Africa, on 28 November 2014 the writing was already on the wall
with 270,000 refugees arriving in the EU through the Med – nearly double
the previous record of 141,000 registered refugees in 2011. The main
countries of entry were Greece and Italy where most refugees simply passed
through and moved north – back then there was little attempt by both
countries to record those arriving under the Dublin “first country of entry
rule“.
On 11-12 November 2015 there was another belated attempt to get African
states onside at the Valetta Conference in Malta. On the eve of the Valetta
Summit African reservations came into the open:
“Still wary of Europe's colonial past, some Africans believe the EU is
desperately trying to outsource its refugee challenges rather than accept
that people will still try to come to the continent.“
The EU’s fundamental concern was to stop refugees or migrants from moving
up the continent of Africa until they reach the shores of the Mediterranean
– where they become the EU’s problem.
It was not until autumn 2015 that plans were put in place to create
“hotspots“ (closed detention centres, registration, “security screening“
and the fingerprinting of refugees). These “hotspots“ did not start
functioning until February 2016 when patience inside the EU had already
run-out.
By the end of 2015 1,000,573 people had reached Europe across the
Mediterranean, mainly to Greece and Italy. In effect refugees simply
relocated themselves throughout the EU
The “Visegard“ countries(Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) in
eastern Europe had started to set their own rules building walls/fences at
their borders and using tear gas and rubber bullets to turn back refugees.
And other countries – Austria, Croatia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Norway and
Sweden – closed their doors too. Germany, having boldly welcomed over one
million asylum seekers in 2015, tightened the rules to make life harder and
deportation easier.
In these and other EU countries racist and sometimes fascists groups
intervened and played to a populist tune. The EU power elite became openly
worried about their power-bases and were openly falling out with each
other.
## Time for the first “dodgy deal“
With all the doors out of Italy and Greece closed the EU reached the first
“dodgy deal“ deal with Turkey on 18 March 2016 and declared that Turkey was
a “safe country“ to send refugees back to. This agreement came in the form
of two Letters and a “Statement“. The EU cast aside the rule of law and EU
and international treaty obligations – in the view of many NGOs the EU was
tearing up its legal obligations and relying on “messaging“ (in its own
words) stating that all who arrived after this date would be sent back to
Turkey.
This was the start of a complete turnaround in EU policy: enough was
enough, the “carrot and stick“ approach of the GAMM experiment was to
become one simply of the “stick“ – agree now to returns and readmission,
with or without a formal agreement or suffer the “consequences“ by losing
aid and trade.
## A new era of neo-colonialism
On 7 June 2016 the Commission issued a new, quite different, strategy
called “Partnership Frameworks“ with the emphasis explicitly on return and
readmission and a direct threat that states that djid not cooperate would
suffer the “consequences“ through the loss of aid and trade. The Commission
said it was:“Standing ready to provide greater support to those partner
countries which make the greatest efforts, but without shying away from
negative incentives.“
The Commission argued:
“To make change happen, the full range of policies and EU external
relations instruments have to be brought to bear. This means a change in
approach and fresh thinking with a mix of positive and negative incentives
and the use of all leverages and tools…“
Feeding into “High Level Dialogues“ there are “country packages“for 16
“priority countries: Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal,
Somalia, Sudan, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Afghanistan,
Bangladesh and Pakistan.
EU development policy would be abused by prioritising returns:
“Increasing coherence between migration and development policy is important
to ensure that development assistance helps partner countries manage
migration more effectively, and also incentivises them to effectively
cooperate on readmission of irregular migrants. Positive and negative
incentives should be integrated in the EU's development policy.“, rewarding
those countries that fulfil their international obligation to readmit their
own nationals, and those that cooperate in managing the flows of irregular
migrants from third countries, as well as those taking action to adequately
host persons fleeing conflict and persecution. Equally, there must be
consequences for those who do not cooperate on readmission and return.…“
No policy areas were to be exempt from this approach:
“All EU policies including education, research, climate change, energy,
environment, agriculture, should in principle be part of a package,
bringing maximum leverage to the discussion.“
The plans also require:
“The facilitation of the identification of irregular migrants in view of
their readmission by strengthening third countries' capacity to ensure
functioning civil registries and fingerprint or biometrics digitalisation..
Many of the targeted African states do not even have a record of births –
now whole populations have to be placed on a national biometric database to
meet EU demands.
As Patrick Kingsley observed in The Guardian:
“EU migration policy suggests Europe prefers strongmen over reality… The
EU’s new migration policy is laced with the progressive language of
“migration management“, of accepting that migration flows cannot be
stopped, only better managed.
But the policy’s content suggests that Europe still has not accepted this
reality. Once we get past the cuddly but vague nods towards resettlement
and development, the main takeaway is that palling up to dictators and
strongmen remains Europe’s preferred method for dealing with migration.
Even though they are usually the main causes of migration in the first
place.“
## Another “dodgy deal“ with Afghanistan
On 30 September 2016 another deal was agreed with Afghanistan to start
immediate refugee „return“ flights. It planned the quick return of 80,000
refugees – „effectively implement readmission commitments“ and by-passing
EU parliamentary scrutiny. Yet again the question is asked: Is Afghanistan
a „safe country“?
## The endgame
We are seeing the construction of a neo-colonial project through the
externalisation of Europe's asylum responsibilitiesby whatever means.
Long-standing commitments to help those living in poverty is to be
subverted by the EU’s own crisis – a failure to live to live up to its
fundamental values when confronted by a populism based on racism that in
turn threatens the EU elites’ hold on power.
15 Dec 2016
## AUTOREN
(DIR) Tony Bunyan
## TAGS
(DIR) migControl
## ARTIKEL ZUM THEMA