Migration Policies and Threat-based Extraversion. Analysing the Impact of European Externalisation Policies on African Polities
- By Ferruccio Pastore
- and Emanuela Roman
Pages 133 to 152
Cite this article
- PASTORE, Ferruccio
- and ROMAN, Emanuela,
- Pastore, Ferruccio.
- et al.
- Pastore, F.
- and Roman, E.
https://doi.org/10.4000/remi.14591
Cite this article
- Pastore, F.
- and Roman, E.
- Pastore, Ferruccio.
- et al.
- PASTORE, Ferruccio
- and ROMAN, Emanuela,
https://doi.org/10.4000/remi.14591
Notes
-
[1]
Source: International Organisation for Migration (IOM), https://migration.iom.int/europe?type=arrivals (accessed on 17 June 2020).
-
[2]
On the growing trend towards informalisation of international agreements in the migration sector, see Cassarino (2007 and 2018).
-
[3]
https://ec.europa.eu/trustfundforafrica/content/homepage_en (accessed on 17 June 2020).
-
[4]
A critical milestone, from this point of view, was the adoption of the Protocols against smuggling and trafficking attached to the 2000 Palermo Convention against transnational organised crime. EU member states were a decisive force behind this important development, which paved the way for a global criminalisation of behaviours that until that moment had been treated as harmless (and were often very popular) almost everywhere, except in a few immigration states in Western Europe and North America.
-
[5]
For an analysis of the plurality of strategic approaches (and of the associated rhetorics) used by European governments and institutions in this field, see Carling and Hernández-Carretero (2011).
-
[6]
This section builds upon the research carried out in the framework of the MEDRESET Project (http://www.medreset.eu/) funded under the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 Programme for Research and Innovation (Grant Agreement No. 693055). See in particular Roman et al. (2017).
-
[7]
A sharp criticism of the Western-centric bias of most academic literature and of dominant theories on migration policies is the one levelled by Natter (2017). Among the few exceptions she highlights, most are sectorally focused on emigration and diaspora policies (de Haas and Vezzoli, 2011; FitzGerald, 2006; Gamlen, 2008; Miller and Peters, 2014) or on specific cases of bilateral or multilateral cooperation (Adepoju et al., 2010; Fine, 2015; Lavenex and Uçarer, 2002). A few other studies of migration policies in non-Western contexts are identified (Garcés-Mascareñas, 2012; González-Murphy and Koslowski, 2011; Poutignat and Streiff-Fénart, 2010), but they are also criticised as partial or superficial, as “often limited to historical or descriptive accounts of policy developments, [or because they] treat states as single, coherent entities without paying attention to their fragmentations, do not grant them autonomy of their decision making in front of international actors, or ignore the dynamics between civil societies and administrations within those countries” (Natter, 2017: 4). These arguments are developed further in Natter (2018).
-
[8]
Migration, in particular, is not absent from Bayart’s conceptual framework. On the contrary, “flight”, i.e. the more or less forced migration of refugees and displaced persons, is singled out as one of the six major “formalities of action” that constitute the basic “grammar” of the relations between Africa and the rest of the world. However, migration is not considered as a strategic diplomatic resource for African states, as it is increasingly becoming, but merely as an individual option for African people and one of several forms of bottom-up connection between Africa and its richer neighbours.
-
[9]
Non-EU countries, and especially EU neighbouring states can use different approaches and try to deploy different degrees of coercion in their attempts to capitalise on their position as refugee host countries and/or potential transit corridors. In theorising “refugee rentier states”, for instance, Tsourapas (2019) makes an important distinction between Jordan’s and Lebanon’s “back-scratching strategy” based on bargains, and Turkey’s more aggressive (and allegedly more rentable) “blackmailing strategy” based on threats (Tsourapas, 2019: 1).
-
[10]
For a similar argument, see Keen and Andersson (2018).
-
[11]
For projections on the demographic future of Africa, see the 2019 Revision of the World Population Prospects regularly updated by the United Nations’ Population Division, whose dataset can be accessed here: https://population.un.org/wpp/ (accessed on 17 June 2020). On the instrumental uses of demography to sustain alarmist narratives aimed at boosting populist consensus, see Héran (2018).
-
[12]
For a compelling analytical reconstruction of these self-destructing mechanisms, see Bates (2008).
-
[13]
Speech given on 20 June 2017, full text available here: http://oxfameu.blogactiv.eu/2017/06/20/africa-to-eu-live-up-to-responsibility-on-migration/?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=e32a813b96-Bmail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-e32a813b96-245335561 (accessed on 14 December 2018).
-
[14]
There seems to be a growing awareness also among African governing elites of the potentially disruptive local impact of repressive migration policies induced by exogenous conditionality. A striking sign comes from a very explicit passage — a sort of general “safety clause” — of the “Memorandum of understanding on cooperation in the development sector, to combat illegal immigration, human trafficking and contraband and on reinforcing the border security” signed by the Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni and the Head of the Libyan National Reconciliation Government Fayez al-Serraj on 2 February 2017. The passage reads: “Recognizing that measures and initiatives undertaken to solve the irregular migrants’ situation in accordance with this Memorandum don’t have to damage in any way the Libyan social fabric or threaten the demographic equilibrium of the Country or the economic situation and the security conditions of Libyan citizens” (unofficial English version available at: http://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ITALY-LIBYA-MEMORANDUM-02.02.2017.pdf. The official Italian version is available at: http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2017/02/02/news/migranti_accordo_italia-libia_ecco_cosa_contiene_in_memorandum-157464439/; both accessed on 14 December 2018).
-
[15]
See, for instance, Flynn (2015) and Raineri (2017). The redirection of irregular migration flows along alternative routes is now officially acknowledged also by the European Commission: “[…] the decrease registered [along traditional routes] does not necessarily translate into a one on one reduction of the overall flow reaching Libya, as new routes by-passing the reinforced border controls are being exploited. These new routes are more difficult to use and riskier, leading to higher prices demanded by the smugglers for transport, and higher risks for the migrants” (European Commission, 2017c: 4).
Following the crisis of 2015-2016, the European Union and its member states have increasingly prioritised the external dimension of their migration policies. The impact of such key policy development on non-European polities, especially African ones, has so far been neglected by research. Building upon the work of Jean François Bayart, the authors analyse this emerging configuration through the concept of “extraversion”, by expanding its original focus on the intermediation role of post-colonial African leaderships in the exploitation of natural resources by foreign actors. In what the authors call “threat-based extraversion”, governments of non-European migration-sending (and/or transit) states capitalise on securitised international perceptions of migration by positioning themselves as proxy implementers of restrictive migration policies dictated by potential destination states in Europe. The article identifies some potential perverse effects of threat-based extraversion and sketches an agenda for future research.
- migration policy
- European Union
- Sub-Saharan Africa
- external dimension
Publisher keywords: European Union, external dimension, migration policy, Sub-Saharan Africa
Politiques migratoires et extraversion. Comment analyser l’impact de l’externalisation sur les systèmes politiques africains
À la suite de la crise de 2015-2016, l’Union européenne et ses états membres ont attribué un degré de priorité croissant à la dimension extérieure de leurs politiques migratoires. L’impact de cette évolution sur les sociétés et les systèmes politiques des pays non européens concernés, spécialement en Afrique sub-saharienne, a été jusqu’à présent négligé par la recherche. Les auteurs abordent le thème à partir du concept d’« extraversion », développé par Jean-François Bayart pour analyser les stratégies d’intermédiation des dirigeants politiques post-coloniaux finalisées à l’exploitation des ressources naturelles. À travers le concept d’extraversion basée sur les menaces (threat-based extraversion), les auteurs analysent la façon dont les gouvernants des états d’origine et de transit capitalisent sur des perceptions fortement sécuritisées des migrations africaines, en se posant comme exécuteurs délégués des politiques restrictives inspirées par les pays européens de destination. L’article identifie les effets pervers potentiels de cette nouvelle forme d’extraversion et esquisse un agenda de recherche future.
- politique migratoire
- Union européenne
- externalisation
- Afrique sub-saharienne
Publisher keywords: Afrique sub-saharienne, externalisation, politique migratoire, Union européenne
Políticas migratorias y extraversión. Cómo analizar el impacto de la externalización en los sistemas políticos africanos
Tras crisis de 2015-2016, la Unión Europea y sus estados miembros han priorizado cada vez más la dimensión externa de sus políticas migratorias. Hasta ahora, el impacto de este crucial desarrollo político sobre las sociedades y los sistemas políticos de los países no europeos, sobre todo del África subsahariana, ha sido descuidado por los investigadores. Les autores analizan este tema a partir del concepto de «extraversión», desarrollado por Jean François Bayart para analizar las estrategias políticas de los dirigentes post-coloniales, basadas en la mediación para la explotación de los recursos naturales por parte de actores extranjeros. Teniendo en cuenta lo que los autores llaman «extraversión basada en la amenaza» (threat-based extraversion), analizan cómo los gobiernos de estados no europeos emisores de migrantes (y/o de tránsito) sacan provecho de percepciones «securitizadas» de las migraciones africanas, posicionándose como ejecutores delegados de políticas migratorias restrictivas inspiradas por potenciales estados de destino en Europa. El artículo identifica algunos posibles efectos negativos de la extraversión basada en la amenaza y dibuja una agenda para investigaciones futuras.
- África subsahariana
- Unión Europea
- política migratoria
- dimensión externa
This article is available in open access under our model Subscribe To Open.
Uploaded: 11/10/2020
https://doi.org/10.4000/remi.14591