In world politics, the EU is referred to as a normative power and is considered an actor that
‘shapes the conceptions of the normal.’ Most studies portray the EU as a norm shaper or a force for good (Manners 2002; Pace, 2011). In his work, ‘Constructing the self and changing others:
Reconsidering Normative Power Europe,’ Diez presents several ways the EU constructs the duality of ‘self ’ and ‘the other’ in international affairs. One way of othering is through the representation of others as inferior. Secondly, by representing them as violating the universal principles (Diez, 2005). Based on this study, African partners rhetorically expressed that the EU partners looked down upon them despite being partners. They saw the EU’s attempt to off-load all human rights violations to African countries as a way of labeling them as inferior.
The rhetoric by African partners described the EU-Africa partnership on migration management as not of equals. Morrice put forward that irregular migration is a key area where
“global inequalities and colonial relations of domination become reproduced and cemented in the process” (Morrice, 2019:25). African Partners’ rhetoric indicated an effort to overcome this domination. Such resistance by the post-colonial others and rhetorical action against the EU actors corresponds with Staeger’s critic of NPE that
199
“NPE is not the post-imperial, non-colonial normative discourse it pretends to be.
Its intellectual origins and false claims of universality have detrimental effects on the African decolonial project. Within Africa–EU relations, NPE intervenes to capitalize on EU–AU institutional similarities to reinforce European normativity”
(Staeger, 2016: 981-2).
In this regard, the scholarship of NPE experiences one significant weakness. Scholars concede that the EU is still not a perfect global actor but one in the process of self-construction (Diez, 2013). Such understanding leaves an open question: if the internal systems of self-construction fail, can ‘post-colonial others’ influence the EU to comply with the global norms? This study has filled the knowledge gap by presenting a case of irregular migration management where the EU internal mechanisms did not deliver normative actorness. A perspective answer is yes - ‘the post-colonial other’ can influence the EU to comply with international norms. This is also the answer to the research question: African partners indeed contributed significantly to influence the EU’s migration policy shift. They did so through rhetorical action. It is generalizable that ‘the post-colonial other’ can resist the EU’s influence and, in turn, influence the EU for a positive change. However, such generalization is limited to irregular migration management. However, the EU's effort to reposition its action to match its normative principles is not a weakness. It is progress towards establishing itself as a legitimate normative power to
‘the others’.
7.8 Summary of the discussion chapter
While most rhetorical action cases are concerned about the EU and the potential members, this study aimed at explaining the 2015 EU migration policy shift and how African partner countries acted as agents of change. The African partners used rhetorical action as a political strategy to articulate their interests by highlighting the root causes of irregular migration and the EU’s non-conformance with the Africa-EU partnership norms.
200
As early as 2008, soon after the EU initiated the effort to reach out to African countries for irregular migration control, African leaders started linking colonialism and neo-colonialism to irregular migration management. Italy’s need for a migration control partnership with Libya gave Libya a perfect opportunity to revisit the colonial agenda. After rhetorically entrapping Italy, Libya persuaded Italy to commit to compensating for colonial injustice. Later, after 2016, Italy was the most vocal EU member to echo the African countries' rhetoric that colonialism was the root cause of African irregular migration. The second rhetoric connected neo-colonialism and the root cause of irregular migration while it criticized the EU actions. The rhetoric was amplified through unworking migration control agreements between African partner countries and the EU actors.
During the 2015 Valletta Summit, it was clear that the African and European partners were pushing for different issues. On the one hand, the European partners made an effort to revisit the migration control mechanisms and sought support from Africa countries to manage borders.
The EU leadership framed the situation as a crisis that required an urgent solution. On the other hand, rhetoric by the African partners had two perspectives. First, it re-directed the Summit’s agenda to historical issues using colonial rhetoric. African partners claimed that the economic relationship with Europe was exploitative and was the root cause of African irregular migration. The strategy of influence by the African partners explained the relations between two distinct and reinforcing processes. They voiced out what constituted the root causes of African irregular migration and rejected that the 2015 migration issue was indeed a crisis.
Secondly, African partners delegitimized the EU's external actions in irregular migration control and criticized the EU’s identity as a normative power. As a normative power, the EU’s identity came into the spotlight for the fortress approach to migration management I had taken.
African leaders criticized the EU for many deaths of migrants on its doors and the asylum seekers trapped in human trafficking networks in North Africa. Another critic of the EU