Une article de tony bunyan autour du sommet
Articulo sobre la cumbre de tony bunyan
Articolo sul summit di tony bunyan
An article by tony bunyan on the summit
Analysis
EU-AFRICA
Fortress Europe’s neo-colonial project
[
1
]
Tony Bunyan
(November 2015)
A clear picture has emerged on the EU demands the African states will and will not accept
and the possible “compromises” at the Valletta Summit on Migration on 11-12 November
2015 in Malta.
A “Senior Officials Meeting” (SOM) in Rabat in the second week of October discussed the
EU’s Working Draft Three [
2
].After the meeting the Council Presidency issued a highly
revealing “state of play” summary document on these discussions with their African
counterparts.The Council’s officials’ assessment after initial meetings with African officials in
October concluded that negotiations were at a “decisive point” and that there were five
issues which required “compromise”:
“The points of departure of the partners are, however, quite different and that is also
obvious in the discussions held so far. While EU Member States have mainly emphasised
the need for clear progress in the area of return and readmission as part of a strategy to
curb illegal migration and reduce pull-factors, African partners insist on framing the
Summit deliverables as elements of a wider, long-term effort to regulate migration flows and
mobility between the two continents and hence their insistence on further exploring legal
channels into Europe. The issue of conditionality, or the "more-for-more" principle,
namely as regards the link between visa facilitation and readmission, has also proved
to be controversial.” [
3
]
Five substantial issues needed to be resolved in order to have a “credible text, over which
both sides can claim ownership.”
1
Neo-colonialism: the use of economic, political, cultural, or other pressures to control or influence other
countries, especially former dependencies and colonies
2
Valletta Summit Action Plan - Working Draft Three:
EU-AFRICA: Fortress Europe’s neo-colonial project | 1
First, the so-called, by EU Council and JHA Council, for “more for more” approach repeated
ad nauseam in Council documents, termed in EU jargon as “conditionality” and in plain
English a “carrot and stick” approach. If the African states agreed to the return of refugees
under readmission agreements, then the EU will give Africa help and aid – but if there was
no agreement then new help or aid cannot be guaranteed.
The SOM document observes that this position:
“in its current form, [is] a highly contentious aspect for most African countries”
The approach of Council officials was to ask the:
“Question: How explicitly should conditionality appear in the text? What alternative
formulations could we explore to accommodate Africa concerns while sticking to our
objectives and retaining for instance non-voluntary return as an option?”
This can be read as how can we get around this without being spotted?
The second question concerns legal migration: the African states want more explicit
commitments or ambition, for example, “setting 2022 as the date for doubling the
number of scholarships for students” is laughable and was later changed to 2016.
The crucial, core demand by the EU comes under the third point at issue:
“Establishment of centres for potential asylum seekers: this is perhaps the most
controversial action in the text, to a great extent because the purpose of such centres is
not clear enough in its present formulation. It would therefore be useful for Member States
who have expressed their wish to see this concept in the text to provide further explanations
on what they see as the main tasks of such centres. The main criticism from African
partners (and also from UNHCR) is that the centres would lead to an externalisation of
Europe's asylum responsibilities and, while running the risk of becoming permanent
camps, would represent an extra burden for their own asylum systems which are
already fragile and overburdened. Furthermore, it does not present a clear commitment
from Member States to new resettlement programmes, something crucial for UNHCR.”
As we shall see the EU side has had to drop this demand or did they?
The fourth point calls for “some actions of quick impact, “flagship actions”, quick wins
etc” so that the Council can claim the great achievements at the Valletta Summit.
Fifth, “fighting criminal networks” of smugglers and traffickers finally brought consensus
between the EU and Africa. However the African side insisted on:
“the need for a genuine exchange/sharing of intelligence. The current state of play in this
field seems indeed to indicate a shortage of information which is undermining mutual efforts
to tackle the trafficking phenomenon.”
The Council negotiators put the following question to Member States: “Are Member States
ready to upgrade their cooperation in the intelligence sector?”
There is little chance of that happening unless it is in the interests of EU.
EU-AFRICA: Fortress Europe’s neo-colonial project | 2
What are the key objections by the African states?
First, Permanent camps to hold refugees who are moving up the African continent
towards the EU: Building centres to externalise the EU’s asylum responsibilities: The
third draft text said:
“Establish centres for potential asylum seekers where, after pre-screening, they could
benefit from safe and legal ways to the EU for further asylum procedure or adequate
information and assistance for their return to their respective countries of origin in
compliance with relevant national legislation, international refugee and human rights law.” [
4
]
This is appears to have been be dropped in the latest Working Draft Four.
But built into Working Draft Four is a clear attempt to retain the notion of permanent
holding camps by other means by increasing “protection capacities”:
“Reinforce the protection of refugees and other displaced persons…. support the
integration of long term refugees and displaced persons in host communities and strengthen
capacities of countries of first asylum, transit and destination … Enhance the
protection capacities of countries which are hosting large numbers of refugees and internally
displaced persons, including security in refugee camps, support local development for
host communities and forcibly displaced persons, and enable better management of forced
displacement..” [
5
]
The long-term logic is spelt out is an initiative to be completed “by mid-2016 at the latest”:
“Regional Development and Protection Programmes in the Horn of Africa and North
Africa should be up and running by mid-2016. Their aim is to address the protection
and developmental needs of people suffering long-term displacement and their host
communities. The programmes will focus on durable solutions, enhancing protection
capacities of hosting countries, and creating development and livelihood
opportunities for displaced populations and host communities, including in areas
such as income-generation, jobs, and education.” [emphasis in original][
6
]
“Protection” meets a humanitarian need but can also be a euphemism for creating holding
camps throughout the continent.
RETURNS AND READMISSION
On the second contentious issue of automatic returns and readmission agreement in
the third draft read:
“Making progress on return arrangements and readmission agreements”
Strengthening cooperation with key countries of origin and transit in order to facilitate
the return and sustainable reintegration of irregular migrants, bearing in mind the
obligation of each state under international law to readmit its own nationals in full respect of
4
Section 3.1, para 2: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/oct/eu-council-valletta-action-plan-third-draft-12560-rev-2-15.pdf5
Working Draft Four:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/nov/eu-Valletta-Summit-Action-Plan-Draft-ver-4-12560-re-3-15.pdf
6 Working Draft Four, p9:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/nov/eu-Valletta-Summit-Action-Plan-Draft-ver-4-12560-re-3-15.pdf
EU-AFRICA: Fortress Europe’s neo-colonial project |3
Human dignity and under art. 13 of Cotonou Agreement, as well as the principle of non refoulement.
- Develop practical cooperation arrangements and bilateral dialogues on implementation of
returns with regard, in particular, to identification and issuance of travel documents
- Strengthen the capacity of countries of origin to respond in a timely manner to readmission
applications, including through missions to identify persons to be returned and support to the
elaboration of updated civil registry databases.
- Conclusion of ongoing negotiations and launching of new readmission agreements” [Bold
emphasis in original, Underlining added,[
7
]
This, in Working Draft Four, hardly changes and adds a twist:
“Making progress on return arrangements and readmission agreements
Strengthen cooperation in order to facilitate the return and sustainable reintegration of
irregular migrants, both from EU Member States and associated countries and from African
countries of transit and destination, bearing in mind the obligation of each state under
international law and under Article 13 of the Cotonou Agreement for its signatory parties
to readmit its own nationals in full respect of human dignity and of the principle of non refoulement
- Strengthen the capacity of authorities of countries of origin to respond in a timely
manner to readmission applications, including through support to modernise civil
registry systems and fingerprints digitalisation
- Develop practical cooperation arrangements and bilateral dialogues on implementation of
returns with regard, in particular, to identification and issuance of travel documents. In this
context, enhance recognition of the EU laissez passer for return purposes once the
identification has been established.
“
First, no African country has a readmission agreement with the EU in force, so a
returns regime cannot be enforced – there is a reference to Article 13 of the Cotonou
Agreement but this is not in force. None of the African states are the EU list of safe countries
of origin and only a few are on EU member states national lists [8
]
Second, the EU wants the modernisation of “civil registry systems and fingerprints
digitalisation” thus requiring the existing populations of African states to be fingerprinted
and registered – and no doubt EU and its multinationals can supply and profit from the new
technology needed.
Third, the EU calls for the enhanced “recognition of the EU laissez passer for return
purposes”.
7 Working Draft Three: Section 5:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/nov/eu-council-valletta-action-plan-third-draft-12560-rev-2-15.pdf8
. www.statewatch.org/news/2015/sep/eu-ms-safe-countries.pdf
The UK leads the way with 10 African countries but 6 of these are only safe for “males”.
EU-AFRICA: Fortress Europe’s neo-colonial project | 4
The EU’s legal basis is the so-called laissez passer for return purposes is a
Recommendation adopted in 1994 [
9
]. This was adopted when there were 15 EU Member
States under the Maastricht Treaty when the European and national parliaments had no say
at all and is what is known as “soft law” (no binding but enabling if Member States choose to
use it).
The Permanent Representative of the African Union to the EU, Ajay Bramdeo, told Afronline:
“how many EU Member States have the capacity to process these people? Isn’t processing
them all one by one going to clog up the judicial system? This is why the Member States are
pushing on the EU laissez passer. They want to fast track the returns of people”.[
10]
The section on returns and readmission is summarised Working Draft Four in a box in bold
type to be implemented by the end of 2016:
“Strengthen the logistical and operational capacity of authorities in countries of origin
to respond in a timely manner to readmission applications, including through
missions by immigration officials from African countries to European countries in
order to verify and identify nationalities of irregular migrants who are not in need of
international protection with a view to being returned. Such identification missions
will take place in the first quarter of 2016 with at least 10 African countries” [underling
is added]
So officials from African state are to be sent to the EU to join the “hotspot” interrogations of
refugees from their continent.
These two themes indicate the real intent of the EU’s agenda: “protection” in “camps”
(with the help of “private enterprise”) and the control of movement through “border
management” (which in turn requires the construction of citizens registers with
fingerprinting in every African state)
The term the “protection of refugees” always sounds good and here is it said to mean:
“the integration of long term refugees and displaced persons in host communities and
strengthen capacities of countries of first asylum, transit and destination…. Enhance
the protection capacities of countries which are hosting large numbers of refugees and
internally displaced persons, including security in refugee camps, support local development
for host communities and forcibly displaced persons, and enable better management of
forced displacement.
“
This initiative concerns “long-term refugees” in the first country of asylum or transit in
Africa or in the country of destination.)
This is emphasised by setting a deadline of “by end of 2106” to:
“The programmes will focus on durable solutions, enhancing protection capacities of
hosting countries, and creating development and livelihood opportunities for
displaced populations and host communities, including in areas such as incomegeneration,
jobs, and education”
9
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/oct/eu-1994-recommendation-expulsion-non-EU-Member-Countrynationals-sw.pdf]
10 http://www.afronline.org/?p=40764
EU-AFRICA: Fortress Europe’s neo-colonial project | 5
The effect of this idea is that people, from the “countries of first asylum [and] transit” are
settled in these “hosting countries” where “opportunities” - with “private sector
development “, stimulating “entrepreneurship” and “responsible private investment
in African agriculture - are created to deter them from moving further north towards
Europe. Such artificial creations we see the camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan where
there is no long-term “hope” of a decent life.
These “protection” camps are however, just part of the story. This is underpinned and
cemented into African life by “border management”. For the sake of “security” border
management has to be improved by “cooperation” between: “origin, transit and destination
countries” including returning migrants to their country of origin.
But for this to work it is essential that “robust Civil Registry systems – and the issuing of:
“secure national identification cards and passports”
is established across Africa, for how else will these state know who are or are not a citizen?
This will means that there are “national capabilities to control land, see and air borders”.
“Root causes of migration”
There are a number of references to tackling the “root causes” of migration which can be
simply explained by, on the one hand, war, persecution and poverty or, for example, to join
their families, and on the other that the mobility of people is a historical fact – it has always
happened and always will.
THE LATEST DRAFT
Valletta Summit Version Five (dated 6 November 2015) contains a few changes but little of
substance.[11]
First, “promoting legal channels for migration” now reads “Promoting regular channels”.
Second, under “Protection (Point 3.1) is added: “Further engage with actors from civil society
organisations on how to ensure a more accessible, equitable and effective international
protection “
There is also an additional objective before the end of 2016 under “protection” which further
emphasises the intended role of “camps”:
“Develop targeted projects to improve resilience, safety and self-reliance of refugees in
camps and host communities in countries most affected by forced displacement in
close coordination with host countries, international organisations”
Third, under returns and readmission (p20) this paragraph has been deleted:
“Strengthen the capacity of authorities of countries of origin to respond in a timely manner to
readmission applications, including through support to modernise civil registry systems and
fingerprints digitalisation
But it is inserted, in a stronger form, right at the end of the document:
EU-AFRICA: Fortress Europe’s neo-colonial project | 6
“Cooperate with countries of origin on addressing the absence of identification documents –
and the absence of civil registry which is often the cause of it – as one of the main difficulties
in the application of return and readmission policies
– Strengthen the capacity of authorities of countries of origin to respond in a timely manner
to readmission applications, including through support to modernise civil registry systems
and fingerprints digitalisation”
The Background Note publish by the Council of the European Union, on Monday 9
November, just two days before the Summit started, sets out five key areas for the EU, the
last of which states:
“Return and readmission
Leaders are expected to make progress on return arrangements and readmission
agreements. In particular, they should strengthen cooperation in order to facilitate the
return and sustainable reintegration of irregular migrants, both from EU member states and
associated countries and from African countries of transit and destination. The summit
should also call for strengthening the capacity of authorities of countries of origin to
respond to readmission applicants. A special emphasis is expected to be put on
identification and issuance of travel documents.”
An African negotiator told the website Afronline:
“there is no dialogue. What we are seeing from the EU is a monologue that seeks only to
impose its own agenda.” [
12]
And on the eve of the Summit African reservations came into the open:
“Experts raise concerns over lopsided EU-Africa migrant
"Forced into action by its biggest refugee crisis since World War II, the European Union is
pressing some northern African nations to sign lopsided deals that would send thousands
back without sufficient protection, African diplomats and migration experts are warning.
Concern is growing that the EU will use its considerable political and economic clout -
including access to more than 1.8 billion euros ($1.9 billion) in aid - to buy off vulnerable
countries on the sidelines of a two-day summit with African leaders starting Wednesday in
Malta.
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." [
13]
THE ENDGAME
The overall strategy, which is more cleverly disguised in the latest draft, is not new, it is
simply presented differently. The EU fundamental concern is to stop people, refugees or
[
12] Joshua Massarenti (translated by Kimberley Evans), ‘EXCLUSIVE. EU-Africa: Valletta, the summit of
dissent’, Afronline, 30 October 2015, http://www.afronline.org/?p=40663#more-4066313 http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2015-11-09/local-news/Malta-summit-Experts-raise-concerns-overlopsided-EU-Africa-migrant-deals-6736144971
EU-AFRICA: Fortress Europe’s neo-colonial project |7
migrants, moving up the continent of Africa until they reach the shores of the Mediterranean
– where they become the EU’s problem.
This goes together with the creation of civil registry systems across Africa with biometrics
(fingerprinting), quick “returns”, new readmission agreements and the enforcement of its
neo-colonial project through the “externalisation of Europe's asylum responsibilities”.
Sources
Valletta Summit: Full documentation - ongoing:
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the
author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not
constitute an endorsement.
© Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals/"fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome
links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an
appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK)
with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions
of that licence and to local copyright law
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten