From rhetorical action to rhetorical entrapment in the Valletta Summit

In rhetorical action, a researcher should demonstrate the ‘constructive potential’ of rhetoric to shape the opponent's behavior. A crucial point of the analysis is bringing out precisely how rhetorical action led to entrapment. The analytics entails assessing how the rhetoric of root causes by African partners during the Valletta Summit resulted in entrapment and hence the EU policy change. In such a case, the focus of analysis shifts from the persuasiveness of the speakers’ rhetoric to ‘the assessment of being persuaded,’ i.e., the reception of African rhetoric

70 European Commission (2020).

71 European Commission (2015ac).

72 European Commission (2015v).

73 European Commission (2015o).

165

by the European partners. A key feature in rhetorical entrapment is understanding how the opponent frames community norms concerning his own normative identity and behavior⁷⁴. As mentioned in the theory chapter, rhetorical action does not always lead to entrapment. As well, rhetorical action becomes a form of learning when entrapment occurs. The notable differences between the interlocutors do not solely reveal rhetorical entrapment. Therefore, the framing of the concept of addressing the root causes by the African partners and highlighting the inconsistencies within the EU’s normative actorness in migration management was not by itself enough to prove rhetorical entrapment. It required the analysis of the understanding of how the EU felt compelled to accept the persuasion. Looking at rhetorical entrapment from a different angle, the concern was whether there was a strong enough commitment to the community norms (i.e., those of the EU-Africa partnership) for the EU to feel persuaded to change its migration policy. Another factor was the EU’s need to realign its external actions to retain its identity as a normative actor. The combination of these two rhetorical elements demonstrates rhetorical entrapment.

Like had been observed by the European Parliament president, experts of the EU-Africa relations noted the differences in the partners’ interests and expectations during the summit.

As the EU made an effort to re-energize the co-operation with African partners on migration control measures, the African countries were determined on non-control measures. Denis Tull, an expert of EU-Africa relations, once commented that,

“We should not pretend there is a common interest here. What is being called

‘co-operation’ by the EU is seen very differently by African countries”. ⁷⁵

74 Kratochvil et al., (2006); Splidsboel-Hansen, (2006)

75 Financial Times (2016).

Denis Tull, was a researcher of African politics at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin

166

As a learning phase, the European partners had been confronted with a new policy alternative.

In his speech, Bettel, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg and the then head of the Luxembourg Presidency in the European Council, expressed an observation that the EU felt compelled by the African states to shift its migration policies.

“Europe is experiencing its greatest migration crisis since the second world war. It is important for us to be meeting now because we [the European Union] are currently at a critical turning point. The European Union finds itself compelled to redefine its policy for border management, with regard to receiving migrants and refugees, while remaining faithful to the values of the Union and which define us as the European Union. Europe wants to remain open and faithful to its values".⁷⁶⁷⁷

Although Bettel expressed the EU’s urgent need to manage the migration crisis, he also noted a strong persuasion from the African partners. The rhetorical action was achieving entrapment:

the EU could neither deny the accusations of human rights violations in migration control and migrants’ deportation nor deny that addressing the root causes was a more sustainable solution.

Nevertheless, the European partners knew that framing the concept of the root causes wholesomely served African partners' interests. Bettel noted that ‘We (the European Union) are currently at a critical turning point.’ In this critical turning point, the EU could not defend itself against the accusations or reject the rhetoric of the root causes. Throughout the Valletta summit, the European partners did not oppose the allegation of human rights violations for taking what African partners considered a fortress approach. The EU leaders also did not oppose the logic of African rhetoric of addressing the root causes. The EU was left with no option other than changing its policy, or else it would have demonstrated more double standards between its normative principles and its actions.

76 Grand Dutchy of Luxembourg (2015).

77 European Commission (2015g).

167

The entrapment was evident in Bettel’s words when he pointed out that, ‘the European Union finds itself compelled to redefine its policy for border management…’ this statement placed the EU as the target of rhetorical action. The statement, ‘the European Union finds itself compelled to…’ by Bettel cannot be understood as ‘the African partners compel the EU to redefine its policy for border management.’ In comparison, the latter statement translates to rhetorical action while the former indicates rhetorical entrapment. As the head of the Luxembourg Presidency in the European council, his expression of the EU’s feeling of entrapment represented that of the broader EU.

Another evidence of rhetorical entrapment was the EU’s need to stick to its normative values and principles. Bettel further indicated that ‘the European Union finds [..] while remaining faithful to the values of the Union and which define us as the European Union. Europe wants to remain open and faithful to its values’. The over-emphasis on the term ‘the EU want to remain faithful to its values’ showed both the EU’s need to align its normative identity with its actions within the EU-Africa partnership framework and comply with the international norms and values of migration management.

There were other voices that expressed a sense of the EU entrapment. Speaking to the press at the end of the 2015 Valletta Summit on migration, the spokesperson of the European Commission said:

“The EU is constantly analyzing these issues with its African partners. Based on the results of these different work strands [development projects to address the root causes of African irregular migration], it will be decided in what form this joint analysis will be ultimately presented”.⁷⁸

78 Chadwick (2017).

168

The idea of addressing the root causes had emerged out of a controversy. As noted by the spokesperson of the European Commission, the agenda that was conceived rhetorically became the agenda of the following EU-Africa summit in Abidjan.

Due to the unceasing influence, the EU surrendered to the rhetoric that irregular migration was a shared responsibility. When the Summit ended, more voices from Europe accentuated that the key issue in the African irregular migration management was strengthening cooperation by addressing everyone’s interests. The Italian undersecretary of foreign affairs, Benedetto Della Vedova, noted

“the sense of this summit is to take the discussion to a political level and to show that we are aware that there is a mutual interest and we (the EU) are ready to intervene”.⁷⁹

It was at the political level where the reflection of speech character, as the medium of ideas, happened. Rhetorical action was acknowledged - the summit had taken the discussion to a political level rather than the conventional technocratic approach. The managing director of the European External Action Services and the EU’s diplomatic service, Lotte Knudsen, also highlighted that

“there is a recognition of collective responsibility. It is not just an EU problem or an African problem”.⁸⁰

Within the context of the root causes, Knudsen’s rhetoric indicated shifting perspective by the EU to take responsibility on its part as opposed to solely migration control that it had firmly pushed forward. Similar rhetoric came from Paolo Magri, ⁸¹ one of the participants in the summit. Magri noted

79 Financial Times (2016).

80 ibid

81 Paolo Magri is a member of the Europe Policy Group del World Economic Forum; He is also the Executive Vice President and Director of the Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI); Secretary of the

169

“after years of debate about migration, we are finally going beyond the tip of the iceberg, which is the emergency of rescuing [African] people in the sea, and we are looking at its deep roots, such as underdevelopment and economic disparity.”⁸²

As a member of the Europe Policy Group, del World Economic Forum and the Strategic Committee of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the rhetoric by Magri’s as well as other European leaders such as Bettel and Knudsen, indicated the EU’s readiness to a new intervention approach of addressing what African countries referred to as root causes of irregular migration.