African rhetoric in the Valletta Summit (critique rhetoric of neo-colonialism)

As part of the opening speeches, Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, President of the African Union Commission, was on an entirely different tone from that of the European leaders and the president of the EU Council - Tusk. The rhetoric of coloniality and the EU’s double standards was evident in her speech. She expressed questions about why Europe framed African irregular migration as a crisis. Yet, larger numbers of Europeans came to Africa during and before colonization, and the situation was not labeled the ‘European migration crisis’ in Africa. Zuma started her analogy of migration between Africa and Europe from pre-colonial times.

“Historically, Africa has been receptive to European migration even before colonialization. As well, during and after the second world war, Europeans flocked to Africa to as far as the most southern part of Africa for commercial and settlement

45 European Commission (2015aq). (see also European Commission, 2015t; European Commission, 2015ak)

46 European Commission (2015ab).

47 European Commission (2015af); European Commission (2015ap);

153

purposes. They were welcomed, and at that time, there was no crisis of European migration in Africa. The challenge of African migration cannot be fixed with quick fixes. It needs sustainable solutions”.⁴⁸

A striking difference between Zuma’s rhetoric and that of European partners was the context situation. As the European partners spoke the language of the migration crisis, Zuma and other African representatives spoke the historical past and, in particular, the Europe-Africa colonial engagement. Secondly, as the European partners sought support from the African partners to implement mechanisms to prevent people from reaching Europe, Zuma had an opposite view. She faulted Europe for not honoring the principle of reciprocity. “Historically, Africa has been receptive to European migration even before colonialization… They were welcomed and at that time, there was no crisis of European migration in Africa”. Her tone suggested that, because of the Africa-Europe colonial engagement, Europe needed to be more friendly to irregular migrants rather than making a huge investment in border protection to stop them from reaching Europe.

Zuma’s speech was a deconstruction of the EU’s rhetoric that African irregular migration was indeed a crisis “…and at that time there was no crisis of European migration in Africa”. Her point was that if Europeans went to Africa and the situation was not labeled a crisis, it should not have been a crisis when African irregular migrants went to Europe.

Moreover, she outrightly opposed the president of the European Council, Tusk. Tusk had claimed that “..this testifies how grave the situation is: the reintroduction of border controls, or “technical barriers” at the borders. It is a clear demonstration that we need to regain control of our external border”. In response, Zuma declared that “..the challenge of African migration cannot be fixed with quick fixes. It needs sustainable solutions.”

48 European Commission (2015ae).

154

Such strong opposition by the chair of the African Union Commission showed contradicting motivations for each partner, i.e., the need to manage migration crisis vis-a-vis the need to address the root causes.

The Senegalese president and then the chairperson of the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS), Macky Sall, further referred to Africa-Europe colonial engagement. Sall represented not only his country but also the broader West African countries.

Unlike the European partners who started their speech by framing African irregular migration as a crisis, Sall, just like Zuma, started his speech by highlighting the Africa-Europe historical engagement.

“We are here in the spirit of dialogue and openness. [..] we are here, and the relationship is based on solidarity. Dialogue and migration go back to the beginning of time. The problem of migration is not easy. What we need to have is a global sustainable approach. It is only then we will be able to resolve this complex matter together. [..] Between African and Europe, we have a long history. We have seen very many shared sacrifices.. twice in one generation. We have long cooperation between Europe and Africa. We are very close. We are interlinked. We have cultural ties and linguistic ties..”. ⁴⁹ [Translated from French]

The critical point in Sall’s initial part of his speech was how colonialism interlinked Europe and Africa. He suggested that the current happenings (both challenge and solution to African irregular migration) required an understanding of Africa-Europe historical engagement, which led to both “cultural ties and linguistic ties.” The observable differences of both speakers’ opening remarks in a speech between the European and

49 European Commission (2015ar).

155

African partners showed a diverse conceptualization of the problem of irregular migration.

African partners were also critical about the measures taken by the EU in migration control. Zuma expressed her concerns regarding the European partners' overemphasis on border protection. She accused the EU member states of taking a fortress Europe.

“Part of the problem we are facing today is in part because some countries in Europe have taken a fortress approach. There is no part of the world that can be a fortress.

African Union is not in support of and cannot endorse the establishment of the so-called processing centers in Africa. The processing centers or whatever they may be called will become de facto detention centers that will constitute a serious violation of human rights and re-victimization of migrants”.⁵⁰⁵¹

As the representative of the African Union, Zuma, strongly opposed the EU’s proposal for extra-territorialization of migration control as had been mentioned by Tusk, i.e., “..to find partners as far away as possible from Schengen...” Zuma was clear that ‘African Union is not in support of and cannot endorse the establishment of the so-called processing centers in Africa’. She was categorical that African did not support anything of such kind, ‘…or whatever they may be called’. Her critique of the EU’s fortress approach was taken was also endorsed by the President of Senegal, Sall, who mentioned.

“We should avoid policies that involve building new barriers. That is not the way forward. Let us engage in a partnership that creates prosperity for both partners”.⁵² Sall did not only reject the EU’s proposal for empowering control measures by asserting that building new barriers ‘is not the way forward’ but also redirected the EU to a notion of shared

50 European Commission (2015ae).

51 European Commission (2015ag).

52 European Commission (2015ar).

156

prosperity. Sameh Shukry, the head of the delegation of Egypt, Minister for Foreign Affairs, was critical to the EU’s violation of human rights through the unlawful deportation of African irregular migrants. He saw unlawful deportation of migrants as an attempt by the EU to engage in the partnership in a coercive manner. He expressed that,

“The solution to irregular migration is to address the challenges in a human manner on the bases of cooperation and partnership and shunning any coercive migrant return policies”.⁵³

Shukry’s comments seem to be addressed to Tusk, who had earlier stated that ‘the European Union will stick to its international obligation in terms of asylum rights, but it must be clear that without registration [in the Dublin System], there will be no rights. If a migrant does not cooperate, there must be consequences...’. As the EU Council president suggested, the deportation of irregular migrants would result from failure to comply with the EU’s Dublin System. This prompted Shukry to recommend ‘..shunning any coercive migrant return policies’. It is worth noting that even before the 2015 Valletta summit, the African countries had resisted deportation (see chapter three).

African leaders were certain right from the onset of the Valletta Summit. They knew they were coming to discuss the root causes of irregular migration. The representative of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of Liberia, was asked by journalists about the African expectation from the summit. He responded,

“We came here specifically to identify what causes [African irregular]

migration.”⁵⁴

Similar rhetoric came from Barnaba Marial Benjamin, Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Minister of the Republic of South Sudan, who commented that

53 European Commission (2015k)

54 European Commission (2015j).

157

“I think more commitment from Europe [to address the root causes] is important;

with such commitment, African countries will be ready to manage migration.”⁵⁵

Alongside the South Sudan minister was his Sudanese counterpart, who gave a supporting argument. Ibrahim Ghandour, Foreign Minister of Sudan responded to a question,

“…But there are root causes including poverty eradication, fair trade agreements, climate change, and conflicts. So, we need to address the root causes in order to not discourage but to make everyone not think of leaving their home. […] (On the question of how the EU did repatriation of irregular migrants). This is against human rights. European countries keep telling us about human rights, and repatriation of people is one of these issues. So, we better deal with it on the basis of that… It has to be voluntary and in accordance with the international law”.⁵⁶

Ghandour’s gist of his comments was the need to address the root causes of irregular migration.

However, to generate persuasion, he delegitimized the EU normative actorness by highlighting the inconsistency between what the EU said and what it did regarding irregular migration control and deportation of migrants. ‘…European countries keep telling us about human rights, and repatriation of people is one of the issues. So, we better deal with it on the basis of that. It has to be voluntary and in accordance with the international law’. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the head of the Egyptian delegation, Shukry, further reinforced the need for addressing the root causes of African irregular migration.

“.. more importantly, the EU’s restrictive measures that rely mainly on security measures, interception and border control do not only expose irregular migrants to violence, discrimination, and exploitation but also fail to reduce the number of irregular migrants. What is needed is to address the

55 European Commission (2015l).

56 European Commission (2015s).

158

root causes of irregular migration, economic empowerment, poverty alleviation, trade and investment. Moreover, to address the root causes of irregular migratory movements, a range of strategies will be required:

Economic development, poverty alleviation, trade and investment”.⁵⁷

In summary, contrary to the European partners who gave the presentist version of African irregular migration, African partners were more concerned with the historical past. As Europe drove the migration control agenda, Africa pushed forward the agenda of addressing the root causes of irregular migration. Besides, African partners delegitimized the EU’s migration control approach, terming it an effort to establish a fortress Europe.