Managing or restricting movement? Diverging approaches of African and European migration governance

Abstract

Though a common EU-African agenda of dealing with migration goes back at least a decade with bilateral, regional and continental approaches, it has gained in visible importance in recent years. But what are the actual approaches and does the rhetoric they evoke speak to their actual practice? Unpacking 76 policy documents relating to the governance of migration from African and European institutions between 2005 and 2016, the paper finds that the rhetoric is diverting in itself (both managing and controlling mobility) but also surprisingly similar. There is however a pronounced difference between a management-orientated discourse and the restriction-orientated practice. This is likely tied to hidden agendas: for the EU moving migration controls away from Europe's borders to the African continent, whilst simultaneously strengthening the rhetorical EU-African partnership. The rhetorical mirroring in African documents may also be an attempt by African states to achieve leverage in an otherwise asymmetric relationship.

Putting the Cart Before the Horse: How the Eu-Africa Cooperation on Migration Has Failed and What To Do About It

“…EU policy makers acknowledge most migration take place within the continent (Zanker, 2019). However, EU-Africa migration management policy documents still focus on irregular migration towards Europe (Zanker, 2019), given the preponderance of the terms 'illegal' and 'irregular' migrants and the insertion of a South-North dimension in the said instruments. Put simply, the documents indicate the EU perceives migration from Africa as a security issue.…”

“…The migration crisis that began in late 2014 and reached its zenith in 2015 indicates such 'planned and well-managed migration policies' have registered limited success. This is because migration governance "juxtaposes two potentially competing visions: regulating forms of mobility and controlling irregular migration" (Zanker, 2019). Regarding the former, migration is accepted as an instrument for development.…”

“…Regarding the former, migration is accepted as an instrument for development. Policies in this direction seek to facilitate mobility (Zanker, 2019). However, with the ongoing Covid19 pandemic, the adoption of policies and measures restricting mobility has been observed all over the world.…”

“…Development is also considered a territorialized process (disconnected from globalization), leading to the enactment of migration policies that prefers development at home to 'prevent' migration (Nijenhuis & Leung, 2017). Consequently, to policymakers, development is a trade-off to security concerns (Zanker, 2019).…”

“…Some policy frameworks exist and acknowledge the need for Africa-EU migration to be transnationally governed. Nevertheless, gaps exist between rhetoric and implemented policies (Zanker, 2019). These gaps, which Czaika and de Haas (2013) termed the 'implementation gap', have not been addressed in considerable depth in terms of the EU-Africa regional cooperation on migration.…”