Looking into EU-African
Collaboration and Its Rabat Process
through a Foucauldian Perspective
A Real Development Collaboration or an Intent to Curb
African Emigration towards Europe?
Jana Wessel
Communication for Development One-year master
15 Credits Spring/2019
Abstract:
The aim of Europe to tackle migratory movements already within the African continent thus minimizing African emigration towards Europe has been a prominent political debate in recent years. The migration-development-nexus is a very important factor to consider, when debating forms of development. De Sousa Santos shows that the critical term, he coins as the “Epistemologies of the South” is that “all of our theoretical thinking in the global North has been based on the idea of the abyssal line” referring to a space in which Northern knowledge constitutes valid knowledge and Non-Western knowledge is less valid and questionable. A causal chain that clearly stems from colonial times. This research deals with the EU-African Rabat Process as a case study by analysing how the notion of development is framed in the official communication of the 4th and 5th Rabat Process Ministerial Conferences in connection to curbing African emigration towards Europe and furthermore, during the migratory crisis by analysing the Valletta Summit 2015. The applied mixed method discourse analysis, a Concurrent Triangulation Strategy, is based on a quantitative word frequency method that is complemented by a qualitative Foucauldian discourse analysis informed by De Sousa Santos’ notion of the “Epistemologies of the South”. Analysis shows that due to diverging interests and the fathoming for cooperation options, the framing of development is based on discrepancies and strong European interests of managed migration and return policies; however, still more comprehensive than mere economic development especially after the UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.
Keywords:
Sustainable development, migration-development nexus, Rabat Process, Foucault, Epistemologies of the South.
Abbreviations:
ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
AU African Union
CoPil Rabat Process’ Steering Committee (official abbreviation1)
EU European Union
GAMM Global Approach to Migration and Mobility
ICMPD International Centre for Migration Policy Development
JAES Joint Africa-EU Strategic Partnership
JAEDMD Joint Africa-EU Declaration on Migration and Development
JVAP Joint Valletta Action Plan
MDAP Marrakesh Political Declaration and Action Plan 2018-2020
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
RP The Rabat Process
RDP Rome Declaration and Programme for 2015-2017
RPP Rabat Process Partner
Table of Content:
1) Introduction ... 5
a) Research Questions ... 8
2) Literature Review and a Short Historical Perspective of the Migration-Development Nexus in the EU-African Context ... 9
a) Limitations of the Research ... 13
3) Theoretical Framework ... 14
a) Having a Look at Foucault ... 14
b) Power, Knowledge and the Abyssal Line ... 16
c) Framing Development ... 19
4) Methodology and Data Collection ... 20
a) Mixed Method Approach ... 20
b) Qualitative Method ... 21
c) Quantitative Method and its Data Collection Procedure... 24
5) Analysis ... 25
a) Situating Discourse ... 25
b) The Rome Declaration and Programme ... 31
The Migration-Development Nexus ... 32
c) Marrakesh Declaration and Action Plan: ... 37
The Migration-Development Nexus: ... 39
d) The Valletta Summit Meeting ... 43
The Migration-Development Nexus ... 45
6) Conclusion ... 50
7) Bibliography: ... 54
8) Annex... 61
1) Introduction
Journalistic documentaries add to our development knowledge. The French-German journalistic documentary called “Europe’s Bouncers: How Africa ought to stop refugees”23 provides a rich insight into the current developments of European-African collaboration to counter Europe’s struggles to deal with African emigrants arriving at its Mediterranean borders. Europe’s aim to tackle migratory movements already on the African continent thus minimizing African emigration towards Europe has been a prominent political debate.
Already the Cotonou Partnership Agreement between the members of the African,
Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) from 2000 stipulates in article 13.4 on
Migration: “that strategies aiming at reducing poverty, improving living and working conditions, creating employment and developing training contribute in the long term to normalising migratory flows”4. This quote highlights the interest in minimizing emigration flows and the assumption that emigration flows from the ACP countries are not normal. This partnership agreement is a precursor for upcoming continental and regional agreements. The aforementioned documentary gives various hints at whether migratory treaties can be understood as a mutual collaboration or an unbalanced relationship in which Europe profits by its African counterparts to reach its goals. During the migration crisis, the Valletta Summit Meeting 2015 was held by European and African Head of States. The European Council wrote on the aforementioned meeting’s background information: “the EU has been confronted with unprecedented number of migrants and refugees arriving in Europe. They are moving for different reasons. […] The EU […] has taken a range of measures to address the challenges created by migration. But migration is not just an issue for Europe”5.
Castles and Miller specify within the connection of migration and development that remittances, or “money sent home by migrants has become a crucial economic factor in many less developed countries. […] They flow directly to low-income households, and
2 Original title: “Türsteher Europas: Wie Afrika Flüchtlinge stoppen soll“ – own English translation 3 Schäfer
4 Official Journal of the European Communities, p. 8 5 European Union A
have a direct effect on poverty reduction”6. The recipient is an active agent free to decide on the money’s use without any organizational or development project interests involved. Amongst other factors, the reception of remittances is also considered as a major driver for development within the African migration agenda7. The connection of migration and development, the migration-development nexus, is one of the journalistic documentary’s argumentative strands and an important factor when debating forms of development.
Development is however far more complex than the outreach of remittances and emigration has also negative impacts on migrants’ home countries such as brain drain8. Since development has become an important factor to lessen certain migratory flows, it’s thus necessary to understand which form of development is set as it affects societies in the long-run and intersects with other development goals set for and by these countries. Research focuses rather on the underlying reasons for the shift towards a migration-development nexus or securitization approach and implementation strategies than on defragmenting EU-African cooperation discourse itself in connection to its understanding of development.
It’s important to highlight three relevant documents concerning the migration development nexus: the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development9, the Global
Approach to Migration and Mobility10 (GAMM), and the Global Compact for Migration11.
The latter being the “first-ever UN global agreement on a common approach to international migration in all its dimensions”12. The GAMM is the all-encompassing migratory policy framework by the EU and characterizes itself as focusing on the migrant by placing her at the centre13 and further elaborates that “[i]n order to be relevant, effective and sustainable, policies must be designed to respond to the aspirations and
6 Castles and Miller, p. 59 7 Van Criekinge, p. 263
8 Definition: “Emigration of trained and talented individuals from the country of origin to another
country resulting in a depletion of skills resources in the former.” (IOM)
9 United Nations, 12.12.2016 10 European Commission, 18.11.2018 11 United Nations 2019
12 Ibid
problems of the people concerned”14. At a continental level, the EU-Africa Ministerial Conferences and the EU-African Summit Meetings have constantly dealt with the topic of migration aiming at regional implementation and cooperation through various macro agreements for instance the Joint Africa-EU Declaration on Migration and
Development15.
De Sousa Santos coins the critical term “Epistemologies of the South”16 as “all of our theoretical thinking in the global North [that] has been based on the idea of the abyssal line17” referring to a division in which Northern knowledge constitutes valid knowledge and Non-Western knowledge remains questionable. A causal chain that clearly stems from colonial times18 and hasn’t been overcome yet. Transferred to a development perspective, it shows that international approaches are in risk of imposing development models on Southern countries without valuing their approaches, ways of knowing, and solution models.
Based on the aforementioned factors, this research scrutinizes the recent discourse on the migration-development nexus by focusing on the case study of the EU-African cooperation along the western migratory route, the so called Rabat Process19, which is in place since 2006. The Rabat Process together with the Khartoum Process established in 201420, which in contrast is based on the Eastern African migratory route21, were taken up as implementers of the Valletta Summit Meeting22.
This research focuses on the official declarations of both the 4th and 5th Rabat Process Ministerial Conferences and its action plans. Analysing data from 2014 onwards is justified by setting in shortly before the migration crisis and lasting until the Global
Compact for Migration is developed as a common management strategy to the global
migratory situation. To anchor this data within a broader international perspective of development and migration, additional data is taken from the aforementioned Global 14 Ibid 15 European Commission, 9.11.2015 16 De Sousa Santos, 2016, p. 17 17 Ibid, p. 20 18 Ibid 19 Ibid 20 Ibid 21 European Commission, 22.0.2019 22 EU/ICMPD
Approach to Migration and Mobility and the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.
This research focuses on how development is communicated in its most basic terms, being international political discourse leaving aside its media transmission or outreach. The applied mixed method discourse analysis, a Concurrent Triangulation Strategy, is based on a quantitative word survey method that’s complemented by a qualitative Foucauldian discourse analysis because according to Foucault, the three different documents should hint towards different historical and political points. The analysis is informed by De Sousa Santos’ approach of the Epistemologies of the South, complementing the Foucauldian framing of the power-knowledge nexus from a rather North-South divide and post-colonial perspective. Additionally, the political declaration and action plan decided upon in the Valletta Summit in November 201523 as an ad hoc meeting to the migratory crisis, is included in the analysis as explained in the following section.
a) Research Questions
The overarching research question is as follows:
How is the phenomenon of development framed in the official communication of the 4th and 5th Rabat Process Ministerial Conferences in connection to curbing African emigration towards Europe?
This research question is two-sided. It, firstly, analyses which factors characterize the notion of development communicated by the selected discourse that’s consequently translated into programs, agendas, and broader regional development ideas. Secondly, it investigates in how far development is pre-shaped by the macro-level discourses and hence exploited to reach the goal of less African migration reaching European shores. The sub-research question focuses on the aforementioned Valletta Summit meeting:
How is the migration-development nexus portrayed in the official declaration and action plan of the Valletta Summit meeting as a direct answer for EU-African cooperation throughout the migratory crisis?
The aim of the second research question is to go further into detail and analyse whether there’s a change of discourse in handling the migration-development nexus towards a stronger focus on curbing non-skilled, non-professional migration towards Europe during the migratory crisis.
Approaching the research question through a Foucauldian discourse analysis and a constructivist approach opens up for an analysis of power and post-colonial structures in connection to the approach of the Epistemologies of the South provided by De Sousa Santos inter alia. “Constructivists employ discourse analysis to identify the rules and reasons behind all kind of dialogue”24. This framing of the research questions and topic from a perspective of and discussion around the notion of development differs from a security studies perspective. The literature review proves the difficulty to separate the EU’s stand towards migration and development from a security perspective, but this topic will only be touched upon selectively but not scrutinized in depth.
This research is designed to shed light on the triangular connection between official documentation (declarations, action plans and strategies), its impact on shaping development discourse and on how development is connected to and influenced by migration. This triangular connection highlights the underlying complexities in respect to the power-knowledge nexus, which is especially important since the international community has decided upon a common approach to migration - the Global Migration
Compact25.
2) Literature Review and a Short Historical Perspective of the
Migration-Development Nexus in the EU-African Context
Research on the EU-African cooperation in connection to the migration-development nexus is broad. The edition by Carbone is a good example covering the wide spectrum of EU-African cooperation - migration inter alia.
24 Moses & Knutsen, p. 277
The Cotonou Agreement26 signed on June 23rd, 200027, is the successor of the Lomé
Agreement and the valid cooperation framework until 202028. This most comprehensive agreement between the EU and developing countries establishes bases for the major areas of cooperation as follows: “development cooperation, economic and trade cooperation, political dimension”29. The Cotonou Agreement should be translated into
regional and continental agreements with Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. Carbone describes this agreement as “part of a process of ‘normalisation’ between the EU and its former colonies”30. It’s an important historical anchor for the migration-development
nexus and became priority on the agenda for the EU’s relations with Africa31. Crush’s
research published in 2014 focuses on the EU-ACP relationship and highlights that the EU focuses mostly on South to South migration as it’s far higher than EU immigration and constitutes an alternative to emigration towards Europe thus “reducing migration pressure on Europe”32.
The aforementioned agreement was subject to changes in 2005 and 2010. The 2005 amendments were based on tightened securitization33, which is interesting, as according
to Crush, the 90s had been characterized by unfruitful international cooperation based on a security approach, which was replaced by a development approach to improve cooperation34. Chou emphasizes that “[t]he dominance of a security-led approach in the EU’s migration policy has led several observers to point towards an ‘overwhelming presence of the “security rationale” surrounding the debate concerning migration and development’”35. Both Crush and Van Criekinge, highlight the carrot and stick approach
implemented by the EU and its Council referring to development aid that’s provided in exchange for policies on readmission, enhanced border management etc. 3637.
26 Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
and the European Community and its member states came in to force in 2003
27 Official Journal of the European Communities 28 Carbone, p. 4
29 European Union, 28.03.2019 30 Carbone, loc. cit.
31 Van Criekinge, p. 259 32 Crush, p. 49
33 Carbone, p. 4 34 Crush, p. 41
35 Chou, 2006, pp. 2-3 cited in Van Criekinge, p. 268 36 Van Criekinge, p. 270
In 2005, the European Council adopted the Global Approach to Migration38, which was
converted into the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility in 201139. The European Council states that this approach “defines how the EU conducts its policy dialogues and cooperation with non-EU countries, based on clearly defined priorities and embedded in the EU’s overall external action, including development cooperation […] an example of international cooperation at its best”40. Olivier shows in his analysis on Europe’s
position as a former colonizer that the European Union’s goal for cooperation is to act upon root causes of poverty, political instability etc. to prevent these issues from expanding to the European context whether it be in terms of terrorism, irregular migration etc41.
In 2005, the EU Council also announced The EU and Africa: Towards a Strategic
Partnership42, which was subject to criticism by the EU-AU Ministerial Conference in
2005, who decided to develop a joint framework43. After various meetings between the European Union and African head of states44, the ground was set for a collectively developed overarching continental framework, namely the 2007 Joint Africa-EU
Strategic Partnership (JAES)45. It provides guidance for the long-term cooperation
between the two continents based on commonly selected priority areas – migration inter alia46. The JAES was adopted during the 2nd EU-African Summit held in December
2007 in Lisbon together with an action plan for the period of 2008 to 201047. The JAES is
based on the EU’s Global Approach to Migration and Mobility48. The shared vision
statement of the JAES says:
“The partnership will be based on a Euro-African consensus on values, common interests and common strategic objectives. This partnership should strive to bridge the development divide between Africa and Europe through the strengthening of
38 European Commission, 18.11.2018 39 Crush, p. 40
40 European Commission, 18.11.2018 41 Olivier, p. 63
42 Council of the European Union, 19.12.2005 43 Carbone, p. 7 44 Ibid., p. 3 45 European Union A 46 European Commission A 47 ibid 48 European Commission, 22.04.2015
economic cooperation and the promotion of sustainable development in both continents”49.
Three further action plans with changing priority areas have been adopted until 2020 including development as an integral part50. Major achievements obtained by the adoption of the JAES and its connected action plans were emphasized in a brochure published in 2014 by the EU with the title: The Africa-EU Partnership: 2 Unions, 1
Vision51. It shows that both the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals
and migration were crucial topics for the partnership.
In 2006, the EU-African Dialogue on Migration and Development, the Rabat Process, was brought about by the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) and the European Council to discuss integral solutions to migration along the western migration route (Central, West and Northern Africa and Europe) to avoid leaving the responsibility to the countries of origin and destination52. This conference was part of the Council’s urge to establish an integral migration policy resulting in various regional partnerships after the establishment of the aforementioned Global Approach to Migration in 200553. This is in line with the global trend to establish regional agreements with state blocs or sub-regions to enhance cooperation tailored to local specificities54. The Rabat Declaration was taken up in the Joint Africa-EU Declaration on Migration and Development (JAEDMD) in 2006 in Tripoli55 adopted by the EU-African Ministerial Conference on Migration and Development5657. It was also taken up within article 68 to 71of the JAES 58. The Rabat Process had its fifth Ministerial Conference in 2018 leading to the 2018-2020 Marrakesh action plan59. Both, the Rabat and Khartoum Process are political and technical dialogue platforms connecting countries along each migratory
49 Council of the European Union, 9.12.2007, p. 2 50 European Commission A
51 European Union, 2014
52 International Centre for Migration Policy Development 53 Van Criekinge, p. 259
54 Crush, p. 40
55 International Organization for Migration A
56 Joint declaration by Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Ministers responsible for migration and Ministers
responsible for development from Africa and EU Member States and AU and EC Commissioners and other representatives
57 European Union, 23.11.2006
58 International Organization for Migration A 59 Rabat Process
route. An additional participant is the European Commission60. The Rabat Process focuses on five areas: dialogue, network, action, knowledge-sharing and monitoring61.
Although the action plans by the Rabat and Khartoum Process together with the JAEDMD were in place, the EU called for an ad hoc meeting in 2015 with the African head of states to discuss the current migratory crisis. The Valletta Summit’s action plan is considered part of the JAES and an advancement of its applicable action plan62. The meeting has been justified in the following way by the EU: “Following numerous tragedies in the Mediterranean, the special meeting of the European Council on 23 April decided to mobilise all efforts at its disposal to prevent further loss of life at sea and to tackle the root causes of the migration crisis, in cooperation with the countries of origin and transit”63. The Valletta Summit Meeting and its Joint Valletta Action Plan (JVAP) are connected to the above mentioned regional processes64 and in case of the Rabat Process, the 2018 Marrakesh Action Plan is in line with the JVAP to strengthen implementation and operational coherence65.
Overall, there are many frameworks and programmes working in parallel. This has been criticised by scholars such as Carbone and Van Criekinge because it affects both inter-policy coherence and implementation66. Additionally, many EU programmes on migration are implemented by intermediary organizations affecting the relationship with cooperating countries, who rather consider the latter as leading partners67.
a) Limitations of the Research
The collaboration between African states and the European Union has a long history and a clear connection between migration and development has been made since the 2000
60 Rabat Process A 61 Rabat Process
62 Third action plan covering the period from 2014 to 2017 adopted by the 2014 4th Summit Meeting in
Brussels
63 Council of the European Union, 09.11.2005 64 Rabat Process A
65 Rabat Process 66 Van Criekinge p. 273 67 Ibid, p. 266
Cotonou Agreement. Based on the research’s scope, the focus will be on the Summit Meetings surrounding the migratory crisis. In addition to these action plans, the European Union, its Council and other EU institutions have adopted documents and action plans that aren’t included within this research as they are foremost Eurocentric in their approach. Topics not related to the migration-development nexus within the selected declarations and action plans are only mentioned when relevant.
3) Theoretical Framework
a) Having a Look at Foucault
This research doesn’t attempt to cover the complexity of Foucault’s understandings of discourse to the fullest since they vary over time. Therefore, it seems appropriate to select a central writing by Foucault as a starting point, which will be the inaugural lecture Foucault gave at the Collège de France in 1970 and enrich it with additional insights taken from his interviews and diverse writings. This lecture was hold after the publication of his two very prominent books dealing with discourse called The Order of
Things (1966) and The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969).
Firstly, it’s important to highlight the definitiveness Foucault assigns to discourse68 and the fact that “in every society the production of discourse it at once controlled, selected, organised and redistributed by a certain number of procedures”69. For Foucault, Western thought has defined discourse as the transit between thought and speech – in other words, the articulation – thus neglecting its depth and complexity70.
According to Foucault, discourse is composed and influenced by three types of limiting procedures: internal and external procedures and the procedures of subjection71 as explained in the following.
68 Foucault, 1981, p. 51 69 Foucault, 1970, p. 52 70 Ibid, p. 65
The external factors are primarily based on three understandings: the prohibition that certain discourse can be pronounced whereas other can’t; the division of madness; and the will to truth. Prohibition comprises underlying structures that steer us in what we can say according to time, event, surrounding etc. The division of madness and reason has become limiting as reason has become institutionalized as well as the understanding of madness. The most contemporary factor is the will to truth, which permeates the former two. It’s about what and why we consider something truth and thus influences how we come to know and what we define as valid knowledge. The underlying reason for the categorization of truth is institutionalized and constantly reinforced through learning, publications etc. In science, it’s found in the will to show the truthfulness of data and the correct answer to the problem at stake72.
The internal procedures are classifying principles and locating discourse in connection to chance and event. These principles are: the commentary, the author and the constitution of the disciplines73. Commentary allows for a constant reframing of discourse because commentaries are found on discourse that’s maintained within a society due to its importance or institutionalization. These discourses are stemming from literature, law, culture etc. and are commented on leading to secondary texts. Comments contrarily constitute primary texts themselves according to their importance gradation and often only take the primary discourse as a starting point and diverge from the actual message. The author shapes discourse (said und unsaid) and allocates it together with its meaning in relation to a range of other discourses. The discipline according to Foucault, is delimiting what can be said to belong to a certain aggrupation of knowledge and objects considered to constitute a terrain. The will of truth is confirmed and demarcated in its limits by fault. According to Foucault, “it pushes back a whole teratology of knowledge beyond its margins”74 as it doesn’t engage with what is supposedly faulty75.
The procedures of subjection cover speech rituals, doctrinal groups, societies of discourse and social appropriations. Although for Foucault, there were no clear
72 Ibid, pp. 52-55 73 Ibid, pp. 58-60 74 Foucault, 1970, p. 60 75 Ibid, pp. 58-61
examples of societies of discourse by then, he considers that the different procedures of subjection are intersecting in contrast to the internal principles, which are marking out each other. Speech rituals refer to the act of discoursing in its form, format and transmission. Doctrinal groups share a certain understanding and characterization of discourse. Societies of discourse in contrast try to maintain discourse within its intimate circle reaffirming their identity and abstain thus from its circulation. Social appropriations refer to the way discourse is adapted to serve its aim76 as in education e.g.
Discourse and its underlying identity and power are defined through the appearance of certain principles rather than others. Additionally, discourse carries power as to whom has access to pronounce and convey it77. Rituals define who can hold certain discourse, as well as disciplines select through their demarcations, which discourses are defining and thus powerful as they re-affirm the disciplines in their content and continue manifesting the rules of belonging or exclusion.
b) Power, Knowledge and the Abyssal Line
Foucauldian discourse analysis allows for exploring the “power-knowledge-nexus”78, which constitutes an integral part of the research question. At a first glance, both thinkers, Foucault and De Sousa Santos are different. This is restated by De Sousa Santos in his new and comprehensive book The End of the Cognitive Empire79. He refers to
Foucault and the limitations of his theorizations about the exclusion of certain groups from its understanding of disciplines and his conceptualization of knowledge as being too limited for grasping the Epistemologies of the South80. According to De Sousa Santos, “Foucault’s disciplines are as based on the experience of the metropolitan side of modern sociability as their Foucauldian cultural unsaid. The disciplines are falsely universal [because they] […] do not consider the forms of sociability existing on the other, colonial, side of the line”81. Giving more depth to this quote, Foucault highlights 76 Ibid, pp. 61-64 77 Ibid, p. 53 78 Cheek, p.4 79 De Sousa Santos, 2018 80 De Sousa Santos, 2018, p.3 81 De Sousa Santos, 2018, p. 3
that disciplines control affiliation to a grouping of knowledge and thus the construction and confirmation of discourse and knowledge82. Escobar explains that although Foucault had his focus on the West, especially his framing of power is interesting to apply to the subordination by developing countries83.
Taking one step back, I would firstly like to introduce De Sousa Santos’ framing of the
Epistemologies of the South. This concept unfolds the re-affirmation of colonialism in
post-colonial times through the narrowing of valid knowledge to Western knowledge leaving alternative ways of knowing to struggle for their recognition. Consequently, Western knowledge, epistemologies and framings are consolidated through a demarcation by other knowledges. This relates to Foucault’s understanding of “subjugated knowledge”84, where certain types of knowledge aren’t considered as scientifically worthy to enter into the range of validated knowledge foremost the disciplines. Foucault characterizes this knowledges as “fall[ing] into disuse whenever they are not effectively and explicitly maintained”85. However, from De Sousa Santos’ perspective this “subjugated knowledge” is as required for our framing of the episteme as validated knowledge, but constantly struggles for its recognition. The difficulty lies in the fact that in post-colonial times, there’s no recognition of this demarcation because colonial thinking and the construction of the “other” are per se considered to be overcome neglecting the conservation of concealed colonial structures. This demarcation between the “metropolitan world”86 and the “colonial world”87 constitutes the abyssal line. The so-called epistemicide thus refers to the ways of knowledge that are extinguished by the abyssal line. Consequently, it’s the very notion that ways of knowledge on the other side of the abyssal line constitute alternative knowledges that is criticised by De Sousa Santos because by being alternative, it asserts the existence of a supreme and externally validated knowledge in the first place, which doesn’t allow all these different epistemologies to be competing accounts.
82 Foucault, 1970, p. 61 83 Escobar, p. 378 84 Foucault, 1980, p. 82 85 Ibid, p. 82 86 De Sousa Santos, 2018, p. 20 87 Ibid, pp. 20-21
Within the framing of the Epistemologies of the South, De Sousa Santos refers to the sociology of absences and the sociology of emergence88. The former “identifies the ways and means through which the abyssal line produces nonexistence, radical invisibility, and irrelevance”89. The sociology of emergence contrarily identifies the ways of knowing present in the colonial world, its struggles for recognition and social transformations through new epistemologies90. The sociologies of absences and emergences can be described as two lenses. The first shows the negativities, the lack of representation and acknowledgement; whereas, the second, identifies the movements and tendencies based on the recognition of the first to establish and validate alternative accounts. The approach of the Epistemologies of the South includes both theoretical and methodological foundations and a differentiation of the different layers of problems that underlie the approach. These problematiques allow in different ways for connections with Foucauldian discourse analysis as they question authorship, historical accounts and archives and the power structure underlying knowledge recognition. De Sousa Santos states that “[i]f we wanted to formulate the epistemologies of the South in Foucauldian terms, […] we would say that they aim at the archaeology of the archaeology of ways of knowing”91. The selected discourse for this analysis constitutes the meeting point of the two worlds, where the metropolitan world, conscious or unconscious of the abyssal line, and the colonial world, exceedingly conscious of the abyssal line and the struggle to be literally acknowledged, look for common grounds of cooperation. The selected discourses document the cooperation between two continents that based on De Sousa Santos’s understanding are divided by the abyssal line. Taken from Foucault’s understanding of the archaeology of knowledge, “the past can be treated as being akin to an archaeological site; it can be ‘excavated’ using a special set of analytical tools, layer by layer as it were”92. It’s here that combining the understandings of Foucault and De Sousa Santos is beneficial because Foucauldian discourse analysis allows for scrutinizing underlying Western power structures and the
88 Ibid, p. 23 89 Ibid, p. 25 90 Ibid, pp. 26-28 91 Ibid, p. 4
Epistemologies of the South complement this understanding with tools for analysing
deeper levels of subordination and post-colonial power relations in terms of knowledge production. “Genealogy […] sees to re-establish the various systems of subjection: not the anticipatory power of meaning, but the hazardous play of dominations”93.
The Foucauldian discourse analysis enables a defragmentation of the selected discourses through a genealogical tracing questioning inter alia power created through discourse itself based on its principles and the external categorization of discourse. Escobar explains Foucault’s approach as “those practices of modern culture embodied […] in different discourses […] and the processes by which they arise and develop. This is what Foucault calls “writing the history of the present””94. For De Sousa Santos, it’s necessary to take a step back and question the structures underlying these processes to understand how knowledge gets validated.
This research analyses in depth how migration-development discourse is coined and in connection with De Sousa Santos it’s possible to deeper scrutinize how agreement processes take place and to question how the abyssal line affects the framing of the migration-development nexus.
c) Framing Development
This research leans against the understanding of sustainable development by the United Nations because it’s applied in the declarations and action plans scrutinized in the analysis section subsequent to the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.
The United Nations frame sustainable development as a future oriented development, which incorporates three components “economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection”95. This means that development should be accessible for all and create resilience to eradicate poverty and future impediments to development. Therefore, “there must be promotion of sustainable, inclusive and equitable economic growth, creating greater opportunities for all, reducing inequalities, raising basic
93 Rabinow, p. 83 94 Escobar, p. 380 95 United Nations
standards of living, fostering equitable social development and inclusion, and promoting integrated and sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems”96. Escobar’s explanation connects this to the realm of Communication for Development: “without examining development as a discourse we cannot understand the systematic ways in which the Western developed countries have been able to manage and control and, in many ways, even create the Third World politically, economically and culturally”97. This also connects to Foucault’s understanding of “governmentality”98, “formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, the calculations and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power”99, which permeates society to an extent that people are orchestrated to behave in a certain way without knowing that they are following indications of behaviour100. Relating this Foucauldian framing to the functionality of action plans shows that through the implementation of actions, countries and their structures are infused with a certain type of governance. Although governmentality is a central concept framed by Foucault it will be secondary to this research.
4) Methodology and Data Collection
a) Mixed Method Approach
The selected method is based on primary literature. As explained above in Foucauldian terms, it constitutes the pure discourse and not its commentary or advancement of thought, as in secondary literature. Secondary data, such as journal articles and communication by African countries is used to anchor the analytical data obtained from the primary sources. To frame the obtained data within the European context, it’s thus necessary to include the Joint African-EU Declaration on Migration and Development and the GAMM as the latter is bridging both internal and external security concerns and the EU’s position towards migration.
96 United Nations 97 Escobar, p. 384 98 Foucault, 1991, p. 103 99 Ibid, p. 102 100 Ibid, pp. 102-104
When working with textual data, it’s necessary to scrutinize it from various angles as to understand its complexity and totality. Therefore, it’s adequate to use a mixed method strategy of inquiry, namely the “Concurrent Triangulation Strategy”101, where both qualitative and quantitative research takes place simultaneously, with mostly none of the data being prioritized during data analysis. “This traditional mixed method model is advantageous because it […] can result in well-validated and substantiated findings”102. The quantitative data derives from a text search method as in general content analysis. Whereas, the qualitative method is a Foucauldian discourse analysis. Both methods are forms of document analysis103.
In this selected Mixed Method approach, the data derived from the quantitative part of the research focuses on the content structure providing an overarching framework for answering the research questions further developed by the in-depth content insights taken from the qualitative analysis. In other words, framing the frequency of preselected concepts and words (coding framework) is a first step in defragmenting structures and discourses and this quantitative data is combined with extensive qualitative data to answer the research questions.
b) Qualitative Method
Foucauldian discourse analysis stems from his understanding of discourse mentioned in the theoretical framework104. It’s a fluent intersection of the method and the theoretical framing of discourse itself105. In combination with the aforementioned quantitative
method, the discourse analysis is therefore the bridge between quantitative data and qualitative in-depth analysis of the texts.
There’s a strong necessity for anchoring the results obtained from discourse analysis through secondary and additional primary literature. Foucault is very clear about the defragmentation of discourse and how a piece of discourse needs to be contextualized historically to understand its complete meaning and possible interests. To deliver a 101 Creswell, p. 213 102 Creswell, pp. 213-214 103 Prior, p. 3 104 see 3)a) 105 Potter, p.4
critical analysis, information from the African Union and the Rabat Process’ official webpage provide additional insights into the discourse. It’s through this anchoring and framing that discourse analysis comes into being. “Foucault is not making empirical generalizations about what people in various countries thought or did; he is trying to construct the general mode of thinking (episteme) that lay behind what was no doubt a very diverse range of beliefs and practices”106. It’s through the archaeological and historical tracing of contexts that the aforementioned is possible and discourse can be anchored – the so called genealogical analysis. According to Foucault: “the genealogical portion […] applies to the series where discourse is effectively formed: it tries to grasp it in its power of affirmation […] [-] the power to constitute domains of objects, in respect of which one can affirm or deny true or false propositions”107.
Foucauldian discourse analysis as mentioned in his inaugural lecture is a two—tracked path combining genealogy with the “principle of reversal”108. The latter refers to the reversal of the delimiting and exclusionary principles characterizing discourse, meaning that once we have understood the effect these have on a particular discourse it’s important to consider the backside of the coin through the principles of discontinuity, specificity and its exteriority. Put in a nutshell by Foucault: “the critical task will be to analyse the processes of rarefaction, but also of regrouping and unification of discourses; genealogy will study their formation, at once dispersed, discontinuous, and regular”109.
Additionally, once broad knowledge exists about the discursive event, it can be understood and interpreted in “the way in which texts themselves have been constructed, ordered, and shaped in terms of their social and historical situatedness”110 and also in connection to the internal principal of the authorship as mentioned above. Two aspects become clear through this quote, firstly, the underlying epistemology of the research being constructivist and secondly, the notion of situatedness, which
106 Gutting, p. 40 107 Foucault, 1970, p. 73 108 Foucault, 1970, p.67 109 Foucault, 1970, p. 71 110 Cheeks, p. 7
explains why documents such as the GAMM will be included in the research as they provide insights into the social and historical situatedness.
The ways in which discourse is shaped, concepts are patterned and interconnected and how arguments are formulated, do have social and political consequences111. This reconnects to De Sousa Santos, who states that “whatever does not exist in our society is often actively produced as non-existent and we have to look into that reality”112. This quote highlights both a partial reality and a created absence. Julien emphasizes this advantage of content analysis, which accentuates both presence and absence and “conscious and unconscious messages communicated by text”113. To frame such a created absence within a partial reality, it’s necessary to create a clear margin for contextualization of data derived from content analysis because the researcher herself has an impact on the direction of interpretation and meaning. Additionally, the very same attributes of discourse apply to this research, meaning that it carries meaning and consequences through its configuration of facts and arguments, as well as De Sousa Santos’ and Foucault’s theoretical framings and discourses do for themselves and to the present research. Foucault describes this as the “power of constraint […] on other discourses114”, by which one discursive path is prioritized over another affecting its side of impact and allocating discourse within the power-knowledge nexus. This hints both to the constructiveness of discourse and the various effects that discourse can have as for instance in Foucault’s understanding of the comment, where the comment itself can diverge from the actual discourse. Although Foucault steps back from interpretation, defragmentation of discourse itself is a form of interpretation and a selection of one path over another, which eventually points towards the positionality of the researcher. “Discourse analysis can thus be perceived by some as not providing a sufficiently rigorous methodology”115. It’s therefore that the mixed method approach is important to validate data and to approach the research questions from various angles
111 Moses & Knutsen, pp. 219, 240 112 De Sousa Santos, 2016, p. 21 113 Julien, p. 2
114 Foucault, 1970, p. 55 115 Cheeks, p. 6
simultaneously. To mitigate research bias, the selected discourses were recently analysed after the literature review to avoid prior external interpretations.
c) Quantitative Method and its Data Collection Procedure
The quantitative text search query aims at examining the occurrence and frequency of different words. The guiding concepts for the mapping method circulate around the notion of development and its diverse mentioning together with connected concepts that have crystallized from the extensive literature review prior to the data collection. Julien provides the following definition: “Content analysis is the intellectual process of categorizing qualitative textual data into clusters of similar entities, or conceptual categories, to identify consistent patterns and relationships between variables or themes116”. Although Julien provides a rather qualitative understanding of content analysis, the results of this form of content analysis are quantitative.
Data clusters were identified through NVIVO117, scrutinizing a priori selected texts based on coding frameworks. Additionally, NVIVO delivers data or rather rankings of words and concepts that appeared the most throughout the texts. The aim was to focus the content analysis on four main codes: migration, security, cooperation, development. To obtain a first overview, all text were combined in a text search analysis and NVIVO ordered words based on their frequency. The words that appeared the most, were ones like action, international countries etc. because they were repeated throughout the documents’ titles etc. Consequently, to work with a very narrow a priori defined coding framework was difficult as there were so many synonyms. The plan consequently changed to classify words manually into the aforementioned clusters being: Cooperation; Development; Migration and Security and Dignity in addition to the following subwords: need, root causes, management, knowledge and impact118. For the text search query, the minimum amount of letters was five and the setting was changed to words from the word stem.
116 Julien, p. 2 117 QRS International
Results are shown inter alia in figures presenting the word frequencies. The 25 most frequent coded words have been selected to show trends in discourse. However, to compare and frame the data, additional information is also taken from the overarching word frequency result list per document. It’s an active decision not to present figures with frequencies based on each coded word, but to concentrate on the overarching trends to better answer the research questions119.
5) Analysis
a) Situating Discourse
Focusing on understanding the historical and social factors preceding and underlying these discourses120, the Rabat Process was initiated by the European Council to find solutions to the strong African immigration taking place in countries along the southern borders of the European Union especially Spain, which was by then carrying major responsibilities together with Morocco121. The three main aims were to focus on the migration-development nexus and reduce irregular migration by strengthening means of regular migration122. This shows that the EU Council has a strong interest in finding solutions to irregular migration and to address root causes for emigration through enhanced development to curb migration to Europe. The Rabat Process describes itself as promoting a balance between both European and African migratory interests and perspectives123. It remains to be questioned whether this query is possible because the process is guided by the EU and incorporated by its selected partner, the International
Centre for Migration Policy Development. Participants are approximately 60 African and
European countries affected by and/or situated along the West-African migratory route124. The financing for the underlying implementation comes from the European Commission, being one of the participatory stakeholders of the RP125. Carbone explains that “[t]he EU, by blending ideas of consent (for example, dialogue, partnership,
119 Note: This means that coded words on the y axis are not the same for each figure 120 Cheeks, p. 5
121 International Centre for Migration Policy Development 122 Van Criekinge, p. 260
123 Rabat Process A 124 Rabat Process A
ownership) and coercion (for example, trade liberalisation and aid conditionality), has managed to impose its material (and even normative) interests on weaker partners”126. The question becomes thus one of authorship. “How is it possible to retrieve the past experiences and memories of agencies and realities that were subjected to abyssal exclusion by Western-centric abyssal thinking?”127 In this specific case, this quote by De Sousa Santos can be understood in its reversed sense: a case in which all countries both from the metropolitan and colonial world are cooperating and discourse and thus knowledge seems to be created in mutual consent through a joint process. This constitutes an additional complexity because “[t]he current model of aid to development is a good example of how an abyssal exclusion can be disguised (and worsened) by treating it as if it were nonabyssal. The persistence of the invisible abyssal line, and the difficulty in disentangling abyssal from nonabyssal exclusions, makes the struggles against domination even more difficult”128. This is especially important when considering the outreach of political declarations, which are a reference point for other actions and discourses and thus become established knowledge through the diverse cross-references between for instance different declarations.
For Foucault, authorship is important because it mirrors power relations. The Rabat Process documents don’t have a clear authorship, as documents initiate by saying “WE”129 and there’s no clear statement on who is publishing the declarations and its action plans. By initiating the documents with “WE”, the idea of co-joint decision making is underlined. Europe had been criticised in the beginning of the 2000 to mainly pursue its interests in migration by creating frameworks without including partner countries. An example of this criticism is the The EU and Africa: Towards a Strategic Partnership. It can be assumed that documents are written by the Rabat Process’ Steering Committee (CoPil), which is constituted by selected African and EU countries, together with the European Commission and the Economic Community of West African States130. The
126 Carbone, p. 10
127 De Sousa Santos, 2018, p. 15 128 De Sousa Santos, 2018, p. 24
129 See Rome Programme and Marrakesh Action Plan 130 Rabat Process A
CoPil is also in charge of monitoring the implementation and scrutinizing funding options for the Rabat Process’ action plans.
FIGURE 1ROME DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME 131(DATA PROCESSED THROUGH NVIVO)
Figure 1 shows the 25 codes/words that appeared the most within the Rome Declaration and its Programme. The word appearance shows that words such as border (21), return (16), reintegration (8), readmission (7) and security (7) are very frequent. A question becomes thus whether the a priori criticised focus on securitization is reshaped or covered up by different terms or achieved through “exchange”, which is mentioned 12 times and points towards either shared responsibility (7) or an unequal exchange. Additionally, there’s a strong focus on both destination (19) and origin (16). The seemingly equal frequency might point to a balanced approach between both ends; whereas transit is mentioned only 6 times. The focus on both ends also becomes apparent in the sixfold mentioning of the word “root causes”. The word sustainable is mentioned only twice as follows: “sustainable solutions” 132 and “sustainable
131 Note: All Coded Words are originally from the document and quotes are comprised within this
document.
development”133. The RDP was implemented before the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable
Development. It thus becomes apparent that the framing of development before the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development was linguistically speaking not in terms of
sustainability. The word range shows a quite broad spectrum covered by the declaration and program and there are certain very strong word groups: migratory terms (migration, migrants, border, return, reintegration, readmission); forms of collaboration (dialogue, cooperation, support); and protective words (protection, security) inter alia. Carbone argues though that words like dialogue, cooperation and collaboration can create an understanding of mutual consent, where it might not exist134. Nevertheless, it’s necessary to keep in mind that a single word can have different connotations. Evidence shows that there’s a stronger focus on return migration, reintegration of migrants and readmission by home countries.
FIGURE 2MARRAKESH DECLARATION AND ACTION PLAN135(DATA PROCESSED THROUGH NVIVO)
133 Rabat Process B, p. 3 134 Carbone, p. 10
135 Note: All Coded Words are originally from the document and quotes are comprised within this
Figure 2 shows the 25 codes/words that appeared the most within the Marrakesh Declaration and Action Plan (MDAP). It entered in a very interesting moment, firstly because it’s the first action plan after the migration crisis and the aforementioned Valletta Summit Meeting. The aforementioned migratory word group gets represented more remarkably including now also the terms “trafficking” (11), “smuggling” (10), “refugee” (10), “asylum” (7), and “displaced” (7). The discussion concerning origin (4) and destination (2)136 is put aside.
The MDAP is furthermore the first declaration and action plan after the SDGs. The mentioning of the concept of “sustainable development” thus elevated to six references. The term “development” is mentioned less though with 20 references in comparison to 54137. The words “root causes” (16 references) are now under the 25 most apparent words. The word “benefit” (6) is now also included in the list and the references concerning cooperation have been changed visibly with “dialogue” changing from 21 to 8 references; “cooperation” from 20 to 5 references; “support” 19 to 9 references and “exchange” from 12 to 3. The question however remains, who should benefit from what? Although “security” appears in this figure 2 with 7 references, it’s also referenced five times in the RDP.
136 Analysis of the Marrakesh Declaration and Action Plan by NVIVO
137 Note: 20 references include 6 references from “sustainable development”, which the system counts
FIGURE 3 THE JOINT AFRICA-EUDECLARATION ON MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT138(DATA PROCESSED THROUGH NVIVO)
Figure 3 shows the 25 codes/words that appeared the most within the Joint Africa-EU Declaration on Migration and Development. This document is very important for the framing of the Rabat Process and thus an important historical factor to consider since it was established shortly after the Rabat Process and influenced by the latter however applicable to the majority of African countries, being thus broader in its outreach. There’s a strong focus on the migratory vocabulary focusing on origin (19), destination (11) and transit (9) in connection to the terms refugee (7), migratory (7), irregular (8), migrants/migration (19, 73). Being the first joint and co-owned139 declaration on migration and development by the EU and African Partners, there’s a strong reference to cooperation vocabulary: cooperation (16), support (13), dialogue (10) and partnership (8). Dialogue between the different actors has become an important factor in EU migration policy140, which connects to the fact that dialogue is mentioned continuously.
138 Note: All Coded Words are originally from the document and quotes are comprised within this
document.
139 Carbone, p. 25 140 Van Criekinge, p. 258
This first introduction to the documents’ structural part shows that there are plenty of connections to the main points made in the literature review: firstly, the importance of security to the EU; the readmission of certain migrant groups by the African partners and the exchange approach, which remains to question whether it covers up a form of carrot-and-stick approach in relation to heightened border management, as for instance the word management (16) is referenced often141.
b) The Rome Declaration and Programme
The RDP initiates by mentioning the meeting’s participants and establishes a form of togetherness framing the members as “We”142. The declaration sets the base for the programme/action plan, which defines how (method, time, measurement) the practical implementation shall take place143.
The different references to other declarations and treaties show that the RDP is a nodal point within a policy and declaratory network taking place at national, regional and international level thus influencing the outreach and scope of the agreements reached by the RDP, which pledges for internal coherency. This is underlined by the fact that it’s “respecting the sovereign right of States with regard to the entry of economic migrants onto their territory”144. The RDP’s internal operational pretensions are to enhance “methods of governance of dialogue, the introduction of new policy frameworks and an increase in concrete measures”145.
The declaration comprises 23 statements in verb or adverb form (e.g.“confirming”, “expressing”, “underscoring”146). These verbs show that there are only two statements based on a concrete agreement being firstly, enhanced collaboration between the different countries involved in the migratory process147 and secondly, the further application of actions mentioned by the previous Dakar Programme and the new actions
141 Van Criekinge, pp. 268, 270 142 Rabat Process B, p. 1 143 Ibid, p. 4 144 Ibid, p. 4 145 Rabat Process B, p. 11 146 Ibid, p. 2 147 Ibid, p. 1
by the RDP148. The other statements don’t transfer into direct actions because they rather express considerations. The RDP focuses mainly on two aspects being the migration-development nexus and the “coordinated and balanced approach to migration issues between dialogue partners”149. A focus on shared objectives means that objectives possessed by only one side need to be agreed upon through compromises or in exchange for something if they are considered at all.
A deep textual analysis of the entire document shows that it’s very comprehensive as statements and actions although they’re superficial and unspecific in their design are interrelated and connected to broader fields of discourse.
The Migration-Development Nexus
The action plan is divided into four thematic pillars: “Organising mobility and legal migration; […] Improving border management and combating irregular migration; […] Strengthening the synergies between migration and development; […] Promoting international protection”150. Taken together with the aforementioned argument, the division of the thematic areas shows the unequal distribution between migration control and development.
The RDP’s most characteristic sentence is the following: “Strengthening the link between migration and development, based on the conviction that managed migration can contribute to the sustainable development of countries of origin and destination”151. Only managed migration is considered beneficial in line with the other central argument put forward by the declaration that irregular forms of migration being undocumented migration, trafficking and smuggling need to be overcome. Furthermore, it establishes that sustainable development should take place both in the country of destination and origin in form of a co-developmental process. There are three factors to consider. Firstly, literature shows that the African countries often emphasize the positive impact immigration has on the receiving country in form of brain gain and the economic
148 Ibid, p. 3 149 Ibid, p. 1 150 Ibid, p. 3
contribution152 to argue for the simplification of visa procedures. Additionally, the GAMM states that “[g]ood governance of migration and mobility of third countries nationals can create value on a daily basis for the development of millions of people, increase the EU’s competitiveness and enrich European societies”153. The JAES furthermore emphasizes as quoted in the literature review that sustainable development should be reached on both continents154. Secondly, a large part of African migration is South to South migration that can contribute to the development of both country of destination and origin. Literature shows that African migration takes mostly place within the same continent. Exact data on the extent is scarce though155 156. Thirdly, the fact that emigrants have an impact on their home structures in form of remittances, diasporic knowledge etc. The framing of development both within the declaration and action plan is mostly connected to economic development for instance by improved dispatchment of remittances.
The managing of migration comes clear through different facets. Van Criekinge explains that “[t]here are essentially two approaches which the EU can take in linking migration and development: either to ‘use development tools to reach migration goals such as tackling illegal immigration’ or to ‘utilise migration tools such as legal immigration to achieve development objectives”157. Firstly, labour policies should analyse and focus on supply and demand structures to channel migration according to different countries’ needs. Secondly, migrants, who return voluntarily, should be supported in their labour market integration, which allows for the transfer of skills from the destination to the home country thus mitigating brain drain. It also supports the EU’s aim to improve return policies. Thirdly, there’s a connection between migration management158 and administrative development of countries of origin in form of civil registration of its nationals. It’s described in the RDP as “a factor for progress and economic and social
152 Van Criekinge, p. 262
153 European Commission, 18.11.2018, p. 5 154 European Commission A, p. 2
155 Castles & Miller, p. 148 156 Schäfer
157 Van Criekinge, p. 269
158 Definition: “A term used to encompass numerous governmental functions within a national system
stability”159. These should be national responsibilities, but Escobar explains that “not only the economic, but increasingly also the sociocultural and political systems are being progressively permeated and appropriated by the socioeconomic and cultural systems of the “advanced countries””160, which relates to Foucault’s understanding of governmentality. Coming back to the aforementioned RDP’s comprehensiveness, it also connects to the fact that readmission programs between countries and organized return can only take place, when the migrant’s identity is cleared up.
There are many factors coming into play. Firstly, strengthening and supporting legal migration. Secondly, the application of international biometric identification standards (International Civil Aviation Organization Standards) allow for more security and less document falsification. Thirdly, the prevention of statelessness means that less special protection161 needs to be provided. Fourth, in many European countries the residency or duration of protection is hinging on proper identity documentation. Fifth, establishing practices of shared identity information among Rabat Partners means that the detection of undocumented or falsely documented migrants becomes easier. Although the enhanced protection of vulnerable groups, refugees and asylum seekers are central factors both within the Rome declaration and programme, there’s a strong focus on its prevention through development inter alia162.
Recently, Germany, one of the RPPs, presented a Draft Bill for the Improved Execution
of the Obligation to Return163, proposing a downgraded and limited acceptance of migrants not applicable for international protection without passports or valid local identification documents. Although, this draft bill is from 2019 and the RDP from 2014, it shows the particular interest of Rabat partners in national civil registration processes and the identification of migrants through internationally valid travel documents. Managed migration should be prioritized and cooperation amongst Rabat Process Partners should enhance detection of irregular migrants through an integrated border
159 Rabat Process B, p. 6 160 Escobar, p. 382
161 The protection of stateless persons has been established in The 1954 Convention Relating to the
Status of Stateless Persons
162 Rabat Process B, pp.10-11 163 Bundesrat
