As early as 2006, the EU had intensified irregular migration control beyond its territory. The EU reached out to African countries to develop a partnership towards irregular migration control. Besides, it was around this period that some African countries started linking colonialism to African irregular migration. During Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, Libya became an EU’s strategic partner in African irregular migration control through the central Mediterranean route that was the main migratory route to Europe. Being a direct receiver of African irregular migrants and Libya’s neighboring country, Italy had a more active role in acting on behalf of the EU in developing a partnership. In 2008, Italy initiated diplomatic negotiation with Libya on establishing a partnership on African irregular migration control. In this negotiation, Gaddafi brought from nowhere the rhetoric of Italy’s colonial rule in Libya and the need for compensation. Rather than framing Italy’s financial input as development funds like in the other African countries, Gaddafi was particular - he claimed that Libya was only interested in compensation for the colonial rule in the early 20th century as a precondition to co-operate in irregular migration control. Speaking at a ceremony in Rome during his three-day visit, and while standing next to the then Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, Gaddafi said,
“Europe will 'turn black' unless the EU pays Libya £4 billion a year, as compensation for colonial injustice. Libya will not participate in the control of illegal immigrants from Africa. Unless my request for money is met, Europe
131
will otherwise become another Africa. Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European because there are millions of African immigrants who want to come in. We don't know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions”.23
From a rationalist perspective, there was no direct correlation between the rhetoric of compensation for early 20th-century colonial injustice and co-operation towards African irregular migration control. Nevertheless, Ghaddafi was well aware that Libya was the most strategic migrants’ transit route to Europe. He emphasized his unequivocal relevance in assisting Europe to manage African irregular migration. By so doing, he magnified the consequences of the EU’s failure to manage African irregular migration by saying, “tomorrow Europe might no longer be for Europeans as there are millions of blacks who want to come in”.
Gaddafi further used irregular migrants to negotiate his high demands through outward blackmail. He capitalized on the differences between African irregular migrants and Europeans when he said,
“We don't know what will happen; what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans”. 4
Again, he created a problematic situation for Italy to oppose his demands: first, he wanted Italy to acknowledge that there existed an unsorted issue of colonial injustice. Secondly, he demanded Italy take responsibility for colonial actions by offering compensation. Most significantly, he framed African irregular migrants as a security threat to European culture to construct irregular migration control a priority to the EU actors. In response to Gaddafi’s demands, the former Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, had several options:
2 The Telegraph (2010).
3 BBC News (2010).
4 BBC News (2010).
132
• First, Berlusconi could have disregarded Libya’s role in irregular migration control and therefore dismiss Gaddafi’s demands. This then would have necessitated Italy and the EU to seek for an alternative strategy without Libya. Italy would then avoid being entrapped by embarking on what Dixon (2017) refers to as norm disregard. However, Libya being the major migratory route to Europe, the cost of losing the Italy-Libya partnership was unbearable to the EU.
• Secondly, Italy could have disregarded colonial injustice and claim that the context was irrelevant and, if it was relevant, only to an insignificant level. By so doing, Italy would have pushed for irregular migration control agenda without incorporating the Libya-Italy colonial engagement. Ben-Josef and Dixon (2019) refer to such a reaction as norm avoidance – Italy would have avoided colonial rhetoric by directly funding irregular migration control and therefore avoid being entrapped. Even then, Italy would have acknowledged Libya as a vital partner in irregular migration control. Yet, the risk would have been high for Italy since there would be no motivation for Libya to participate in migration control.
• The third option would have been a re-interpretation of the colonial rhetoric to its advantage by accepting the logic of colonialism but giving more attention to irregular migration. Such a move would have downplayed Libya’s colonial demands and capitalized on Italy’s interest - irregular migration control. However, Libya would have questioned the partnership as ingenuine and one that only served the EU's interests.
• Due to strong socialization between Libya and Italy, and the EU’s need for strategic irregular migration control partners, and the validity of colonial rhetoric, the process of rhetorical action led to an entrapment. Berlusconi could not reject the validity of the colonial injustice committed by Italy. He had minimal chances for a valid counter-argument, and as a result, there was rhetorical entrapment.
133
Eventually, Berlusconi signed an Italy-Libya agreement in 2008. According to the agreement, Italy pledged to compensate Libya 5 billion Euros over the next 25 years for colonial injustice, and in return, Libya was to cooperate in irregular migration control5. Berlusconi acknowledged that the money that Italy committed to compensate Libya was purposely meant to address the adverse effects of colonialism as opposed to the common expectation - contribution towards migration control mechanisms. He categorically stated that,
“As head of the government and in the name of the Italian people, I feel it is my duty to apologize and express my sorrow for what happened many years ago and left a scar on many of your [Libya’s] families. The money paid is a material and emotional recognition of the mistakes that our country has done to yours during the colonial era".67
Provocative and controversial as Gaddafi’s remarks were, they revealed a feeling of entitlement for compensation of colonial injustice that Africa still holds. As a result of this attitude of entitlement, it remained apparent that African leaders lived to wait for good opportunities to address the atrocities and injustices related to the colonial era. For instance, Gaddafi responded to Berlusconi’s remarks that,
"In this historic document, Italy apologizes for its killing, destruction and repression against Libyans during the colonial rule."8
Gaddafi’s demanding tone, as exemplified by his diction, was not of an aid beggar. The EU's need for African irregular migration control gave him a perfect opportunity to address colonial injustice. Even in the absence of a significant crisis, through blackmail (the securitization of
5 Financial Times (2016).
6 The New York Times (2008).
7 Fetouri, (2019).
8 The New York Times (2008).
134
African migration), Gaddafi created a compelling reason for Italy to pledge compensation for colonial injustice.
Gaddafi’s strategic action to drag the colonial rhetoric into irregular migration control partnerships did not end with the Libya-Italy agreement. Instead, it became the beginning of new rhetorical action (i.e., framing neo-colonialism as the root causes of African irregular migration) by African countries against the EU actors. As mentioned in the later section of this chapter, having sorted out the colonial issues with Libya, after the Valletta Summit, Italy became the most vocal EU member, urging other EU members to stop colonizing Africa as that was the root cause of African irregular migration.