In rhetorical action, a key strategy to win the target audiences is to connect with their world of reality (Wiethoff, 2018). Libya was the first African country to strategically use African irregular migrants to persuade the EU actors to meet Libya’s demands. Essentially, Gaddafi referenced issues outside the values and norms of partnership. For example, he highlighted the racial and cultural differences between African irregular migrants heading Europe and the Europeans. He knew well that irregular migrants had been highly securitized in Europe and that Italy’s main objective was to keep off migrants. Being aware of this Italy’s perception of irregular migrants, his reference of African irregular migrants as black, Muslim, dangerous and uncivilized aligned with security discourse in Europe. Indeed, this strategy worked to make his colonial rhetoric more appealing to European audiences. When judged using the EU’s normative principles (as well as the norms of the Libya-Italy partnership), Gaddafi’s effort to link African irregular migration to the colonial agenda was a form of blackmail. His rhetorical strategy generated persuasion through racial prejudice by presenting irregular migrants as an unbearable risk to the future of the EU.
The foundation of any action applied in the Libya-Italy partnership was supposed to connect to the global norms. Prejudice and bias against irregular migrants are against the universally accepted norms. Correspondingly, such racial comments were against the norms and values of the EU-Africa partnership on migration control. Gaddafi’s rhetoric did not align with universal principles, or the Libya-Italy shared values or even the agenda of irregular migration control.
To the universal audience, Gaddafi’s rhetoric was unfounded. Gaddafi’s rhetoric on the securitization of irregular migrants, however, was contextually valid since it connected to the real motive of his target audience. Irrespective of being biased, Gaddafi’s rhetoric addressed
187
the real Italy's motivation for irregular migration control. In this case, what can be interpreted as blackmail, had the potential, and indeed it generated a strong persuasive power against Italy.
Most notably, blackmail was Gaddafi’s strategy to bring Italy closer to the discussion of colonialism. In rhetorical action, argumentation is different from formal logic. Rhetoric takes a discursive approach in that it brings an agent to adhere to others, whereas logic is a mere calculation as per the values and norms previously set forth. Logical reasoning is impersonal, while rhetorical action is based on the hierarchies of socialized norms and much attention is given to the agent (Sillince, 2002; 2005). The persuasion of Gaddafi’s rhetoric was derived from the convergence between argumentation and the logic that the EU already perceived irregular migrants as a threat to national and social security in Europe. No matter how irrelevant colonial history was in the context of irregular migration management, Italy could not refute Gaddafi’s argumentation about the logic of colonial injustices.
Even though Libya managed to justify its political goal based on blackmail, it was able to drive the idea of unsorted injustice related to coloniality to gain legitimacy. The incontestable argument of Italy’s colonial injustice served as a warrant for the validity of Libya’s claim for compensation within the partnership framework. Since Italy’s interest was irregular migration control, based on the principle of mutual interests, Libya’s interest was as well, in accordance with broader community norms. As put forward by Miskimmon et al., “a less powerful speaker can stimulate a powerful actor by asking a targeted audience to justify the disconnection between its narrative and understanding of self-identity and the seemingly contradictory actions or inactions” (Miskimmon et al., 2014:10, see also, Roselle et al., 2014; Crilley, 2015). In particular, the EU and Italy had less influence to forge a workable relationship with Libya without meeting Gaddafi’s demands. Additionally, since it was a time of crisis that required an actionable partnership, Italy could not dare Gaddafi justify the link between compensation for colonial injustices and cooperation towards irregular migration control.
188
Gaddafi's reference to the colonial rhetoric can best be explained as ‘possessing a narrative’
rather than ‘being a narrative.’ In international affairs, the understanding of events is contextually constructed and depends on the audience's interpretation (Ryan, 2005). It was clear to both Italy and Libya that the colonial agenda was far separate from the theme of partnership – irregular migration control. Libya did not frame colonialism as the root cause of either the migration of Libyans or other African migrants. Instead, Gaddafi possessed the grievances of colonial injustice irrespective of whether Italy needed a migration control partnership or not. It was notable indeed that Gaddafi arrived in Italy for ‘negotiation of irregular migration control’ wearing the emblem of Omar Al-Mukhtar, one of Libya’s famous anti-colonialist. He was also accompanied by Al-Mukhtar’s son (Fetouri, 2019). In this case, rhetorical action using a ‘possessed narrative’ constituted high persuasiveness to redirect the Italy-Libya negotiation's top agenda from irregular migration control to compensation for colonial injustices.
Any attempt by Italy to reject Libya’s colonial rhetoric would have had implications. It would have openly denied that colonialism did not occur or Italy’s colonial actions were not harmful.
Either way, it would have demonstrated inconsistency based on the universal understanding of colonialism and violation of human rights, thereby losing credibility. Italy would not have a legitimate argument to defend itself from compensating Libya and would have demonstrated double standards for accepting that colonialism led to a loss of life and property but was not willing to pay. Italy got rhetorically entrapped. Even when it was clear that Libya was driving its egoistic preferences, Italy could not defend itself or generate a credible counterargument within the partnership.
Rhetorical entrapment is said to have occurred when a rhetorical strategy emerges successful, i.e., when the interlocutor has been cornered and compelled to claim a stance that otherwise, they would not have supported. Italy could not have declined the accusation or reversed its
189
stance to form a true partnership with Libya. Due to Italy’s inability to denounce partnership norms and values, Gaddafi was able to constitute and reconstitute Libya’s identity as a victim of colonization to establish the Italy-Libya partnership that would maximumly serve his interests.
Even after the removal of Gaddafi from power in 2010, the unrecognized Libyan government had presented a similar threat to the EU: that Europe would turn black due to African irregular