"Write again, Blue Eyes."

“Tickets please … Tickets please”…The porter made his way from seat to…

Reasons not to

Oh for a government who didn’t spend all their time finding reasons…

Convenient Demonologies: Stopping Migrant Caravans

President Donald J. Trump has been engaged with berating human caravans, a…

Hell hath no fury: The makings of a…

By Dr Strobe DriverNormally I restrict my opinions to international relations issues…

Remembering the Peace Makers: What the Armistice Commemorations…

Those in the war industry and the business of commemorating the dead…

Morrison's latest prop

So the Liberal Party has hired a bus as a new toy…

Concepts of Nonsense: Australian Soft Power

Soft power was always a term best suited for eunuchs. It relies…

What does a minute's silence mean?

It means, "shut the f*ck up!"It means, make no noise!It means let…

«
»
Facebook

Keeping Your Refugees: Macron, Francafrique and Euro-African Relations

Ties between Europe and Africa have never been rosy. A relationship based on predatory conquest and the exploitation of resources (slave flesh, minerals, and such assortments) is only ever going to lend itself to farce and display rather than sincerity. The late Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, whose death must be placed squarely at the feat of the Franco-Anglo-American intervention in the Libyan conflict of 2011, typified the cruelly distorted relationship, a man who morphed from erratic, third way statesman of revolution to terrorist inspired “Mad Dog”; then to a modern, if cartoonish figure capable of rehabilitating a state from pariah to flattered guest.

A neat expression of Euro-African ties was captured in the 2007 Dakar address by then French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Like the current French President Emmanuel Macron, Sarkozy wanted to make an impression on those in what had been formerly characterised as the Dark Continent. The leaders of the Maghreb and West Africa had been led to believe that promise was wafting in the air, that France would have a grand update on its relationship with former colonies on the continent. The system of Francafrique, larded with neo-colonial connotation, would be scrapped. Sweet sensible equality would come to be.

An impression he did make, albeit in spectacularly negative, sizzling fashion. “The tragedy of Africa is that the African has not fully entered into history… They have never really launched themselves into the future.”

Sarkozy’s speech seemed a cribbed version of texts produced at a time when European officials were falling over each in other in acquiring, and renting portions of the continent. But in 2007, a French leader could still be found speculating about the limited world view of African agrarianism, its peasantry cocooned from enlightenment. “The African peasant only knew the eternal renewal of time, marked by the endless repetition of the same gestures and the same words.” This, for the French President, was a “realm of fancy – there is neither room for human endeavour nor the idea of progress.”

The impact of the speech was such as to prompt Senegal’s foremost scribe Boubacar Boris Diop to suggest a cognitive confusion of some scale. “Maybe he does not realise to what extent we felt insulted.” Defences were offered in France, one coming from Jean-Marie Bockel. The speech, he concluded, had one thread through it: “the future of Africa belongs firstly to the Africans.”

And so now, in 2018, where history has again become an issue, throwing up its human cargo of suffering from conflict, poverty and strong shades of neo-colonialism, France, fashioned as a European leader, again finds itself considering how to respond to relations with the southern continent.

For various African states, the signs are not good. Historical condescension and the sneer seemingly persists. Macron, in an effort to steady the refugee control effort in the European Union, has gone into full school teacher mode. The EU, he has iterated, cannot take decisions on behalf of African states, though he does suggest that, “Helping Africa to succeed is good for Europe and France.”

African states also suffered from a distinct problem of fecundity: unplanned population growth threatened further northward migration. Immigrant processing centres in North Africa designed to halt the flow into Europe’s south, he suggests, “can fly, just if some African governments decide to organise it”.

This is something Macron has been onto for a time, and it replicates a broader formula adopted by wealthier states to more impoverished ones. No doubt eyeing such ghoulish experiments as Australia’s Pacific Solution, which shifts the burden of processing and assessing refugee claims to small, low-income Nauru and unstable Papua New Guinea, Macron suggested in 2017 that states such as Libya carry the can, a suggestion as absurd as it is venal.

In August that year, he ventured, with agreement from German, Spanish and Italian counterparts, to focus on the setting up of migrant processing centres in Libya, Chad and Niger. These would involve European resources to help create and sustain them. The gaping flaw of this suggestion, one carried over into the EU negotiations last week, ignores the shattered status of Libya, a state in all but name.

Such plans, in the assessment of Left MEP Malin Björk, were “tainted by structural racism towards the African population”. In the opinion of the Swedish MEP, “Europe has not right to criminalise mobility of movement especially not in third countries.” Such views are coming across as marginally quaint in the hard nosed and distinctly inhumane line of EU politics.

The value of Macron’s schooling is also compounded by manifold problems on what Europe actually intends to do. The EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan that came into force on March 20, 2016 was meant to be a holy of holies, stemming the flow of refugees into frontline Greece. It came with the natural consequence of shifting the routes of movement towards the dangerous crossing of the Mediterranean. Like aqueous matter, human flows will find a way.

Macron is only speaking for Europe in one respect: regaining control of borders and putting the refugee genie as far as possible back into the bottle. Disagreement reigns over the method. During negotiations in Brussels, EU leaders agreed, for instance, that “regional embarkation platforms” established outside the zone would be implemented to target the people-smuggling process. In principle, it was also agreed that there would be secure migrant processing centres set up in EU countries.

On this point, member states remain deafeningly silent, though Macron has insisted on the traditional formula that states who first receive the migrants should have those centres. The current Italian government hardly sees the point of why; other EU states are more than fit to also conduct such processes.

As such squabbling to the richer North takes place, the impecunious South will simply continue to be a massive conduit of dangerous, often deadly travel. This, along with Francafrique notions and various lacings of European suspicion towards African states, will continue with headstrong stubbornness.


3 comments

  1. New England Cocky

    When natural resources are “stolen” from the people and processed elsewhere for the benefit of the “thieves” then there will inevitably be a demand from the subjugated peoples for the opportunity to work in the countries doing the exploitation. This is just another expression of the fallacy of “trickle down economics”.

    Australia, under the present LNP misgovernment, is directed towards and into this mould. Protect the multinational corporations by effectively gifting them our natural resources, free, gratis and for nothing, thanks to excessively generous tax concessions, and all the politicians have to look forward to is a seat on the board of those foreign corporations.

    The past examples of this behaviour come from both major parties; Greiner (Lib, NSW Premier) to over 40 corporate board seats; Carr (ALP, former NSW Premier) Macquarie Bank board; and the most recent and least discussed Baird (Lib former NSW Premier) who organised the sale of the NSW Land Titles Office to a consortium of foreign banks and received a desk job reported as earning about $2 MILLION PER YEAR. Now … who says you need talent to be successful?????

  2. Josephus

    NE Cocky is so clear and well informed, alas. I do think that population pressure in some parts of Africa is a factor as well, though. I recall a Greens MP relating a Coalition colleague’s remarks:’ What’, he said, ‘you don’t want to use your MP job to get a cushy job post career with a resources or energy company? You must be mad’.

    The future will be wars over land and water; Fortress Europe is only the beginning.

    Europe it is true is mostly pretty densely populated.In the past the whites multiplied very rapidly and would have been subject to famine had they not a) in their millions escaped to other areas b) used birth control more recently and C) raided the rest of the world for minerals, oil, land to grow food, tobacco etc.

    While Europeans were and are the most rapacious, the Indians and Chinese are catching up. Then the whole lot will be escaping ocean rise and the loss of islands and coasts. I recall too an Indian man from the Maldives relating how his island was sinking; he could see the water rising he said.

    Not to mention the Pacific. First Nauru is mined out, then it is used to dump desperate refugees, finally it will cease to exist and its population escape to NZ or to Oz. Meanwhile the rich of all colours will survive a bit longer.

  3. wam

    It may not b hard to make me feel dumb, binoy, but you often have that effect. The positive. for me, is your use of ‘processing’.
    Surely not all the asylum seekers have no documents, making processing their claims relatively straight forward?

    The migration from Africa and the ME is as all migrations are, to find a better life. The majority may well be neither asylum seekers nor refugees?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: