The Neo-Colonial
Europeanization of Africa
-
A post-developmental perspective on the communication of the AU-EU Partnership
Angela Brouwers and Elsa Le Ber MSc Sustainable Management
Uppsala University, Campus Gotland Supervisor: Matilda Dahl
Master thesis 2020/06/03
"People know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do;
but what they don't know is what what they do does."
Michel Foucault (cited in Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982, p. 187)
Acknowledgements
As students and research apprentices, we are delighted that this thesis has allowed us to chase our shared interest in sustainable management research. In the process, we have committed our attention to the topic and shared countless discussions, experiencing collaborative work.
Over the course of writing the following thesis, we have come to realize how lucky we are to have the opportunity to carry out such research together as well as with external help and support. We would, therefore, like to thank Uppsala University (with a special mention to Campus Gotland) and highlight our gratitude to our supervisor Matilda Dahl and our classmates, who have provided us with valuable feedbacks through dedicated engagement. This not only challenged us to do better but also gave us the support to explore and express our voice as researchers while gaining knowledge that will contribute to our future.
Abstract
Despite the declared end of colonization and the successive obtention of independence by African countries in the 1960s, this thesis argues that the African continent is still faced with neo-colonial practices. Deriving from post-development theory, this thesis analyzes how the Western development discourse is manifested in modern-day North-South relations. To answer this question, the communication of the European Commission surrounding the Commission- to-Commission meeting of the to be renewed African Union- European Union partnership, is scrutinized and reflected upon in the light of a post-development-, decolonial-, and intercultural epistemological theory. The three theories show viable points of convergence that this thesis puts into practice in a genealogical study, combined with Critical Discourse Analysis, inspired by Foucault’s work on discourse and power. Assessing videographic and written communication material from the European Commission, this study shows that the narrative of the EU towards the AU is currently changing. The EU advocates for a shift from a donor- recipient- towards a mutual and equal relationship within the frame of the partnership between the two continental institutions. Nonetheless, whereas the changes are observable in the form, they are lacking in the substance of the discourse. The observed normative mechanisms conveyed through the EU commission’s narrative are identified as followed: romantic storytelling about the sistership between AU and EU; a neocolonial attitude hidden behind the notions of ‘partnership’ and ‘natural partners’; the non-recognition of the colonial past slowing down the (re)questioning of development and Eurocentric assumptions derived from Enlightenment assumptions; a hyperbole on materialistic, economic and business matters portraying the EU as managing the AU; and lastly a polarizing effect putting in evidence the effective power of the discourse carving a Eurocentric and binary world perception. We conclude by discussing a possible decolonial EU attitude in conversation with the emergence of Pan-Africanism. Along with possible future researches, we also discuss the implications of our own values and our role as researchers.
Keywords: Development discourse, Post-development, neo-colonialism, intercultural epistemology, decolonization, African Union, European Union, AU-EU partnership, genealogy, CDA
Table of Content
List of Abbreviations 8
Introduction - A critique to development 9
1. Theoretical Framework 11
1.1. ‘Development’ 11
1.2. Post-development theory 11
1.3. Decolonial theory 14
1.4. Intercultural Epistemology 14
2. Research Philosophy & Axiology 17
3. Methodology 18
3.1. A Genealogical Approach 18
3.2. Critical Discourse Analysis 19
3.3. Data sources 21
4. EU communication on the AU-EU Partnership 23
4.1. Background information 23
4.2. Social media analysis 24
4.3. Document analysis 28
4.3.1. “Towards a Comprehensive Strategy with Africa” 28 4.3.2. “Defending our values and the multilateral order” 31
4.3.3. EU ‘managing’ the AU? 32
5. Analysis 34
5.1. EU as a normative actor 34
5.2. “The Partnership” 35
5.3. “Europe and Africa are natural partners” 35
5.4. Colonization (non)recognition 36
5.5. Materialism and economic growth obsession 38
5.6. Polarized or Polarizing? 39
6. Discussion 40
6.1. Axiological reflection on the analysis 40
Conclusion - The neo-colonial Europeanization of Africa 42
Epilogue 44
References 45
Appendixes 49
Appendix I: Promotional Video LinkedIn & Facebook 49
Appendix II: Questions and Answers: Towards a Comprehensive Strategy with Africa 50
Appendix III: Remarks by HR/VP Josep Borrell and Commissioner for International Partnerships Jutta Urpilainen at the press conference on the Joint Communication towards
a Comprehensive Strategy with Africa 55
Appendix IV: Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council - Towards
a comprehensive Strategy with Africa 58
List of Abbreviations
AU African Union
AI Artificial Intelligence
CDA Critical Discourse Analysis
C2C Commission-to-Commission
EU European Union
ECSC European Coal and Steel Community IMF International Monetary Fund
NPE Normative Power Europe
OECD Organizations for Economic Cooperation and Development PDA Positive Discourse Analysis
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
UN United Nations
WB World Bank
Introduction - A critique to development
In 1884, 14 largely European powers sat around a table in Berlin to discuss their claims to African territory to agree upon the rules by which they would parcel out Africa among themselves. This so-called ‘scramble for Africa’ saw the North’s great powers rush into control of Africa’s land and natural resources in search of national prestige (Whiteman, 2012). By 1900, European states had claimed nearly 90% of the continent and had drawn the boundaries of Africa much as we know them today (Heath, 2010).
One could say that times have changed, and continents are not being divided up by rulers anymore. A large body of literature, however, argues that imperialism has shaped into neo- imperialism or neo-colonialism, where Western countries are still exploiting ‘developing’
countries and where the Western ideology of development is being used to mobilize
‘developing’ countries to accept modern-day exploitation, cultural adaptation, environmental destruction and economic dependency. To include and unify non-Western countries in the hegemonic1 Western way of life, which is regarded as superior (Sachs 1992, Escobar 2000, Mokrani & Lang 2013, Gudynas 2016, Sidaway, 2007). This school of thought can be characterized as post-developmentalism.
‘Development’ in the light of post-developmentalism can be seen as a “system of knowledge, technologies, practices and power relationships that serve to order and regulate the objects of development” (Lewis et al. 2003:545 in Sande Lie, 2008) in its discursive mode. Inherently, post-development theory draws on one of the most significant thinkers of discourse analysis;
Michel Foucault, who has laid the foundations of questioning the ideological foundations of a linear history of progress and development, initiating scrutiny on that what is often taken for granted or which goes unquestioned.
The to be renewed partnership between the African Union and the European Union makes an interesting case to explore the development critique. The partnership between these two political unions is aiming to bring Africa and Europe closer together to face common challenges and to move towards equal cooperation. The partnership is an excellent example of how the Western world handles its colonial past with the African continent. The occasion of the partnership summit which is planned for October 2020, provides this research with momentum, for the analysis of the communication of the new partnership strategy. In this thesis, we will put scrutiny on the EU’s communication surrounding the Commission-to-Commission (C2C) meeting, which took place in February 2020 and forms a building block for the future summit.
The analysis of this thesis entails a genealogical approach, where the focus lies in the interaction between discursive and non-discursive elements, in this case between the discourse of development and the communication of the EU’s Commission on the last C2C meeting of the AU-EU partnership. This approach allows this research to question the linear approach to history and progress in alignment with the decolonial theory which advocates that Eurocentrism has shaped the perception of history and progress. Besides, this study’s critique is based on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to further impart norms and observe how they wield power, in this case, of the EU over the AU. The analysis of this study, therefore, focuses on questions such as; How is the EU talking about the AU-EU partnership? Which keywords are being used? What do these keywords transcribe when related to our theories? What is the
1 Hegemonic; ruling or dominant in a political or social context
norm of that what is being communicated? And why? The normative ideologies and assumptions will be discussed and reflected upon in the light of post-development theory, where the theory of intercultural epistemology2 allows this study to question the dominant ideas of knowledge in the interplay between different people of different cultures, to open up the dialogue for different perceptions.
Research Question and Aim of study
The purpose of this thesis is to recognize the naturalized ideology of development in the C2C communication concerning the AU-EU partnership and to question its norms with the guidance of post-development theory and the theory of intercultural epistemology. By doing so this thesis aims to create awareness on possible naturalized language and ideology of the development discourse brought forth in modern-day North-South relations and in particular the AU-EU partnership. The renewed 2020 partnership aims to bring different cultures and modes of knowing together, to cope with inter- and intra-societal challenges, to build common paths.
It is therefore essential for the international sustainability debate to scrutinize the partnership with a critical stance on development and power relations. The research question of this thesis therefore states;
How is the Western development discourse manifested in the European Commission’s communication on the 2020 Commission-to-commission meeting of the AU-EU partnership from a post-development perspective?
2 Epistemology; the theory of knowledge, especially concerning its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion
1. Theoretical Framework
1.1. ‘Development’
This theoretical framework is about development in what is variously known as the ‘Primitive World’, the ‘Third World’, the ‘Underdeveloped World’, the ‘Global South’ or the ‘Developing World’. The word ‘development’ is symbolically linked to a promise of well-being, happiness and a better quality of life, in Western ideology development is inextricably good; development means ‘good’ growth and growth is perceived as good in itself. Consequently, ‘good development’ is a pleonasm. According to Latouche (1996), this is exactly the underlying problem of development which we will aim to lay bare in this theoretical framework.
Development made its big entrance on the world stage right after the Second World War, when Europe started rebuilding and ‘developing’ countries slowly started to gain their independence from their colonial rulers (Whiteman, 2012). In this period (1950-1970), a large body of literature concerning the underdeveloped countries “sought the factors that explained development within non-system such as ‘states’ or ‘cultures’” and once these factors had been discovered, reproduction in underdeveloped areas was seen as the road to salvation (Dos Santos, 1968 in Wallerstein, 1995). As a consequence, being developed would also mean
‘being civilized’, qualifying citizens of underdeveloped countries as ‘uncivilized’ (or yet to be civilized). Development within the colonial context meant the transformation of African societies according to the needs, demands and imperatives of colonial regimes but furthermore meant that the economic benefits were flowing out of the country, due to the colonial external orientation (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2012). Post-War development studies were moreover largely dominated by the experiences of Western industrialized societies, given the Western social science background, many development theorists looked for parallels between the development history of the West and non-Western societies. But this reductive bias began to show that development did not bring about the desired change for non-Western societies, such as the African continent (Brohman, 1995).
During the mid-seventies, postmodern theory began to make its entrance in development studies and started to focus on the underlying premises of development (Nederveen Pieterse, 2000). Negative consequences of development started to be viewed as intrinsic to development, rather than unintentional side-effects of it. Furtado (1975, in Lang & Mokrani, 2013) e.g. argued that economic development, had been understood as that idea that “the poor may one day enjoy the same lifestyle as those who are rich today” and that the prospect of well- being, in the global context had been used to mobilize ‘peripheral’ countries to accept and understand sacrifices to legitimize the destruction of ancient cultures, environment and to justify forms of dependence that reinforce the exploitative nature of the system of production (Furtado, 1975 in Mokrani & Lang, 2013).
1.2. Post-development theory
In 1992, Sachs started to question the very objective of ‘development’ in ‘The Development Dictionary - A Guide to Knowledge as power’ and called for ‘alternatives to development’
rather than development alternatives (Sachs, 1992 in Ziai, 2017). The Development Dictionary thereafter became crucial in establishing what has become to known as the post-development school wherefore Sach’s famous sentence of development to be ‘a ruin in the intellectual landscape’; a lighthouse which supposedly inspired nations, but which now ‘shows cracks and
is starting to crumble’ Sachs (1992: 1) is providing the cornerstone of today’s post- development theorists.
With the help of Sach’s Development Dictionary (1992), post-development theorist created a whole new vocabulary for describing the dystopian character of development; in which development is ‘a cast of mind’ (Sachs 1992:2), an ‘ideology’ (Alvares 1992:90), an
‘interpretive grid’ (Ferguson 1990:xiii), a ‘discourse’ (Escobar 1995:5-6), a ‘myth’ (Latouche 1993; Rist 1997) (Matthews, 2017), or a ‘hoax (Thomas 2000:3). The different theorists, however, all agree upon the thought that development ties the ones ‘in need of development’
to a certain way of thinking – one that is Western, capitalist and neo-colonial (Mokrani & Lang, 2013). With the concept of modern development as a tool of imperialism that even after the colonial area, searches to include participants in the hegemonic (Western) way of life, which is regarded as superior.
This dominant Western development perspective is inextricably linked to capitalism (Hardt &
Negri 2000, Werlen 2015, Sidaways 2007, Gudynas 2016, Green 2003) in ways that economic growth is predominantly perceived as the instrument for ‘developed’ societies. This notion can illustratively be retraced in the neoliberal policies of many Organizations for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries since the 1980s. This is especially the case in multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which have historically been linked to the expansion of global capitalism in the name of development for the African continent. (Brohman, 1995, Sidaways 2007, Wallerstein 1995, Whiteman 2012, Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2012).
Post-development in perspective with degrowth and environmental justice
Post-development theorists have helped to point out that the severe environmental constraints are making the dream of development an illusion, challenging both the arrogance of Western assumptions and the (imposed) desirability of the contemporary Western industrialized way of life (Matthews, 2007). While advocates of the sustainable development movement also recognize the environmental constraints, post-development theorists are more explicit about the impossibility of the universal achievement of the developed way of life and more insistent on the need to rethink the desirability of eternal economic growth. Despite the rejection of other critical approaches to development, post-development could, therefore, be viewed within a larger field of discourses for ecological and civilizational transitions. Escobar (2015) identifies points of convergence between post-development theory and the degrowth movement, which even though they “originate in somewhat different intellectual traditions and operate through different epistemic and political practices, share closely connected imaginaries...”. Moreover, both theories share a radical questioning of the core assumptions of growth and economism, with a vision of alternative worlds based on ecological integrity and social justice, and the ever- present risk of cooptation (Escobar, 2015).
In line with the post-developmental convergence with degrowth, Velicu (2019) has connected the degrowth movement to the environmental justice (EJ) movements, showing similar trades.
She argues that environmental justice theories foster the idea that liberalism will ultimately be good for everyone and that “the EJ theories often conceptualize a ‘commodified’ version of justice, where the underlying patterns of oppression are not deciphered”. EJ should, therefore, regard a more pluralist approach, hinting to autonomy as cultural recognition with concepts such as community self-reliance, self-determinations, or commons. For degrowth scholars, modern industrial societies reduce the possibilities of decision, action and creativity by
imposing not only market conditions but also ‘radical monopolies’ of thought which exclude non-industrial activities (Illich 1975, in Velicu, 2019), just as we recognize this need for the development narrative. Velicu (2019) consequently argues that the EJ movements should necessarily be an anti-growth movement: a struggle against market clientelist dependencies and commodification of life sources, technocratic infrastructures, and centralized bureaucracies. In this, the research shows noticeable similarities to the post-development theory; critiquing the ontology and epistemology of development as it has been understood, but also theorizing how it could be understood with an endogenous approach3. In the context of our research question, this suggests that one can look at the developmental behaviour of the EU as opposed to the detrimental consequences of the development discourse on others, in this case, the AU.
Limits of post-development
To reject development, may sound naive, therefore to avoid misinterpretation post- developmentists are stressing that its critique should not be understood as a call for a return to earlier ways of life, or that the improvement of social organization is impossible (Matthews, 2004). But that it essentially boils down to a call for change that will enable people to blossom, flourish, leaving them free to change the rules and the contents of change, according to their own culturally defined ethics and aspirations (Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997). This has created a point of confusion and discussion in the post-development field; as development critics also need to be attentive to calls for modern conveniences; “What happens when post-development theorists’ desire to celebrate ‘the otherness of the other’ is confronted with ‘others’ who insist on their sameness with ‘us’ and assert their right to live as ‘we’ do?” (Matthews, 2017). Based on her own experiences, Matthews here argues that different (non-Western) perspectives on development tend to be overlooked in post-development theory, overshadowed by the romanticized idea of the rejection of development, all the while post-development thinkers are living lives that appear to be characteristics of the advantages of living in the developed world, which results in a somewhat discomforting paradox.
Foucault & Post-development
The very word ‘development’ reveals that development is a discourse in itself. Besides, post- developmentists argue that its discourse can be seen as “a system of knowledge, technologies, practices and power relationships that serve to order and regulate the objects of development”
(Lewis et al. 2003:545 in Sande Lie, 2008) in its discursive mode. Inherently, the theory draws on one of the most significant thinkers of discourse analysis; Michel Foucault (1970) who has laid the foundations of questioning the ideological foundations of a linear history of progress and development. In the Foucauldian sense, ‘development’ should be thought of as an episteme4, a discourse Foucault defined as; “the condition of possibility of all knowledge, whether expressed in a theory or silently invested in a practice.” (Foucault cited by Staeger, 2016). We believe that by rethinking development in a Foucauldian manner, it is important to recognize that there exist other epistemologies which are conditioned as Foucault argues. Even though Foucault did not address the emancipation of colonial states in his work, his approach shows how we may analyse development as a system of power in motion, an approach we shall be discussing later on in this thesis.
3 Growing or originating from within
4 Episteme; referring to knowledge, science or understanding
Despite the convergence of the two critiques on discourse as a system of power, Nederveen Pieterse (2000) argues that Foucault’s imagination of power is a concept without exit, whereas the political horizon of post-development, is one of resistance and local struggles aiming towards emancipation. Here the two critiques on development do not seem to align. Nederveen Pieterse’s argument seems illustrative for the impasse post-development criticism is often facing; approaching development as a critique and concept without exit, which makes the articulation of alternatives to development very difficult. Whereas post-development is helpful to pose an observation on development as a discourse, we have observed the theory to be quite barren practically, especially when it comes to thinking about the change and conceptualizing alternatives.
The decolonial theory, as we will argue in the next chapter of this theoretical framework, offers an opportunity to gain an African perspective on development and to understand the struggle of decolonization and its mechanisms. Focusing on the epistemological aspect of decolonization, we will thereafter introduce ‘intercultural epistemology’ as it shines a light on how to make sense of the communicational aspects of the AU-EU partnership.
1.3. Decolonial theory
Quite similar to how we perceive the development discourse, “Coloniality is an invisible power structure that sustains colonial relations of exploitation and dominations long after the end of colonialism.” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2012). Ndlovu-Gatsheni provides us with four dimensions of a “set of technologies and subjectivation” of the “colonial matrices of power”, namely: “control of economy”, “control of authority”, “control of gender and sexuality” and “control of subjectivity and knowledge” (2012). All four are interlinked and equally important, forming a systematic system over a society. Within the frame of our research question, we will be focussing on the last point. It “includes epistemological colonisation and the rearticulation of African subjectivity as inferior and constitute by a series of ‘deficits’ and a catalogue of
‘lacks.’” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2012). Ndlovu-Gatsheni calls for “epistemic freedom” in response to a “systemic crisis”, relating to the bigger societal problems and thus sustainability, reminding us that what perhaps Europeans tend to forget is that: “the ‘Global North’ ‘after five centuries of “teaching” the world, has lost the capacity to learn from the experience of the world” (citing Santos 2014: 19). This inability of the Global North to learn from the rest of the world emerged from invented white supremacy that underpinned colonialism and imperialism (citing Santos 2014: 19). “It has delivered a double crisis – systemic and epistemic.” (2018, p.7).
Decolonization is thus not history but very much part of the 21st-century challenge of neo- colonialism. Ndlovu-Gatsheni further notes that “Taken together, the concepts, movements and archive - (of decolonization) -, constitute what Meera Sabaratnam (2017: 7) depicted as ‘other ways of thinking about and being in the world that can form alternative points of departure to the hegemonic knowledges of empire’.” (2018, p.53). Indeed, where post-development helps us to spot the failures of the Western development ideology, decolonial theory helps to think anew. Moreover, intercultural epistemology gives a frame into which one can look at international transcultural relations such as between the Global North and the Global South, in this research in the context of the AU-EU partnership.
1.4. Intercultural Epistemology
Intercultural epistemology discusses the implications of the construction of knowledge at the meeting point of different cultures. Cultures from different parts of the world have developed different views of nature throughout human history. This plurality of views is rooted in traditional systems of beliefs and build on foundations of “wisdom and experiences gained over
millennia from direct observations and transmitted over generations” (Mazzocchi, 2006).
These different interpretations are allowing people to believe in their names, in their languages, in their environment and in their heritage of struggle (Ngugi wa Thiong’o, 1986 in Ndlovu- Gatsheni, 2018). Cultures have shaped different lifeworlds and they all entail a truth within its own context, consequently that what is regarded as knowledge within one culture, could go undervalued in another. The way we think, legitimizes knowledge, along with our understanding of self and by extension of the world, therefore depends on our own culture, or in words of the intercultural epistemological thinker Van Binsbergen; “Culture is just a machine for the production of self-evidence, of local truths” (2008, p.79). The anthropologists Devisch (2006), also explains that the “complex social-cultural webs of significance” are
“constitutive of the multilayered fabric whose patterning reverberates through and between the various fields and levels of body-self, group-life, and world-views. Body, self, group, and world are parts of one another.” (2006, p.122). In other words, self-perception influences the way one explains the world and consequently, this works the other way around too. Culture might therefore exactly be that in-between self-perception, and the world around, which inevitably shapes how knowledge is constructed. In this regard, development discourse cannot, and should not be disentangled from culture and its imposition in a universalistic way ultimately leads to conflicting issues.
Thereby, when facing challenges involving interculturality “forging the multiplicity of disparate cultural orientations into a more coherent whole so that the various parties involved in a concrete situation (…) may increasingly tend to apply convergent worldviews, recognize convergent rules, and thus produce convergent truths.” (van Binsbergen, 2008, p.103). In contrast with the Western ‘development’ ideology, the idea is to bring cultures together and in so different modes of knowing, as opposed to uniformization of cultures, to cope with inter and intra-societal challenges and build common paths. Nonetheless, these intercultural exchanges cannot take place if it is consistently “defeated by hegemonic imposition, of the worldview, rules and truth of one of the parties involved”, such an imposition, over the course of time, turns a dynamic societal debate into a sterile one, always reproducing the same outcomes including its issues such as inequalities (van Binsbergen, 2008, p.103). In order to foster international cooperation in an intercultural environment, it is, therefore, crucial to learn to understand ourselves as much as each other, at the individual level as much as the societal level. Devisch transcribes this idea through the eyes of an anthropologist: “Such an approach to the culture-sensitive encounter bears witness to the ever-emerging possibilities for mutually enriching co-implication, artfulness, and dignity, and for coming home as co-constitutive subjects of interweaving 'glocal' (global and local) worlds” (2006, p.144). The cooperation, and thus the “encounter”, lies as much in receiving as in giving. As we consider the AU-EU partnership to be a “culture-sensitive” setting, as it is aiming to bring the African and the European continent closer together, we will be looking at the position the EU takes in the encounter through the material we selected for the study. Wisdom and transcultural transmission will provide further support to assess the receiving/giving position.
New communication streams? Wisdom and transcultural transmission
The Western anthropologist Van Binsbergen (2008), who has studied African philosophies extensively, grants a perspective concerning the interplay between Western and African modes of knowing. He proposes to use the study of ‘traditional wisdom’ to widen up modes of knowing as “obvious bedding for modern (or rather, post-modern) scholarship aware of its social and existential responsibilities as well as of its limitations.” Van Binsbergen argues that this can contribute to the “reconstruction of meaning and practice under post-Enlightenment
conditions” (2008, p.58). Here, by ‘reconstruction of meaning’, Van Binsbergen expresses the possibility for the co-construction of knowledge rather than (cultural) epistemological competition. For such a turn to happen, he also reminds us, taking the case of “traditional wisdom”, that “wisdom is a communicative undertaking, and therefore requires a common cosmological reference (…), recognition of a shared basis of valuation however diffuse, (…) among both sender and recipient of each other’s shared humanity, (…) each other’s potential familiarity and competence in the problematic at hand, and agreement as to a shared medium of communication” (2008, p.76-77). The study of traditional wisdom is thus an endeavour to actively improve the ability to listen to one another and creating the space for it, allowing transcultural transmission necessary “to a re-arrangement of the receiver’s view of self and world.” (van Binsbergen, 2008, p. 77). Furthermore, ‘Transcultural transmission’, as van Binsbergen describes it (2008, p.102), represents a way to engage with different epistemologies and decentralize ideologies, however, it may be extremely difficult without fully immersing oneself for a long period of time, as he did so himself when living among the Nkoya in Zambia.
Nonetheless, he reminds us that “we may yet hope to acquire a measure of watered-down transcultural knowledge (…) if we do not rely heavily on explicit articulation in language, but instead (…) try to rely on other encodings (e.g. in bodily contact rhythms, song, dance, ritual), and on the following recognised admissions of epistemological poverty and humility: silence, empathy, introspection, and love.” (2008, p.102). In other words, despite the difficulties of communication and collaborating, in times of global challenges, we can (re)learn how to self- care and care for each other. On this Devisch adds “the more that affinity and affectionate fellow feelings grow, the more this encounter is transferential” (2006, p.143). The idea is not to destroy one mode of knowing to replace with another but rather to (re)learn as individuals as well as collectively to listen to each other, respect each other and live together. The other is them but it is also you. Maybe this is what Devisch tried to express by “Borderlinking produces unexpected linkages and co-implications, but it also unties, makes free” (2006, p.122). In the context of the partnership between the AU and the EU, intercultural epistemology proves itself to be a viable addition to post-development theory, by incorporating cultural factors and discussing the implications of knowledge sharing and co-creation.
Mobilizing our theoretical framework in our research
Throughout the theoretical framework, we have provided key concepts to the development discourse, which is well articulated by post-development theory. In merely commenting on the undesirable outcomes of the development discourse, post-development theory, however, seems to remain in a state of perpetuity. This is where Foucault comes in handy; whereas his theory on discourse as power has been reused to spot the consequences of development, Foucault’s theory can also be used to observe the development discourse in motion, as a methodology;
understanding and feeling how it wields power similar to an introspection. To gain perspective and further deconstruct the development discourse, as well as how it wields power, decolonial theory builds on the experience of the colonized, with a focus on epistemological colonization.
In addition, intercultural epistemology expands unto what it means to consider and sense cultural differences in the construction of knowledge, which we have found essential within the frame of a multicultural partnership of the AU and the EU. When it thus comes to our analysis, intercultural epistemology helps us to observe the position the EU is taking in its relationship with the AU and ultimately how the EU’s development discourse is manifested in the C2C communication, from a post-development perspective.
2. Research Philosophy & Axiology
Referring to research philosophy, the American philosopher Thomas Kuhn (1962) first used the word ‘research paradigm’ to describe a researcher’s worldview. A research paradigm, in Kuhn’s words, reflects a researchers’ perspective, thinking, school of thought, or set of beliefs that inform the meaning or interpretation of the research data (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017), therefore concerning both conscious and unconscious steps and considerations that are undertaken while conducting research (Hiles, 2008). According to Guba and Lincoln (2000), the research paradigm comprises of four essential elements; ontology (relating to the nature of reality), epistemology (relating to the creation of knowledge and understanding), methodology (relating to the research design, methods and procedures used to find something out) and axiology. Axiology, which has only recently attracted more attention within the field of qualitative research (Hiles, 2008), concerns the various forms that value can take such as “the aesthetic value of beauty, the ethical values of good/bad and right/wrong, and the epistemic values of truth, rationality, and justification.” (Hiles, 2008). It is therefore through axiology that subjective truth and bias of us as researchers may be laid bare and taken for granted facts can be put under scrutiny in the C2C communication on the AU-EU partnership.
When conducting research, it is important to realize that inquiry paradigms will thus always involve a set of philosophical assumptions. Hiles (2008) argues that making assumptions, is not the problem, but that it is key to pay attention to which assumptions have been made or taken for granted. This is where the latter element, ‘axiology’, can be of great importance for the analysis of this study. Namely; our personal values as researchers reflect how we write and how we conduct research. Are we aiming to understand the AU-EU partnership, or are we aiming to bring about a change? Which values are forming our points of departure and what do we consider to be ethical right or wrong, ugly or pretty? And why?
In this study, we will depart from a critical inquiry paradigm. Following Guba and Lincoln (2005) critical philosophy situates its research in social justice issues and seeks to address the political, social and economic issues, which lead to social oppression, conflict, struggle, and power structures at whatever levels these might occur. The research methodology is therefore suited to studies about social justice such as neo-Marxist methodology, feminist theories, cultural studies, postcolonial/indigenous methodologies e.g. aiming to give a voice to the
‘voiceless’ or those less powerful (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). Although critical theory already believes that values are inherently connected to social realities, we believe that by paying additional attention to values through axiology, we will be able to create extra transparency.
Being European researchers while analyzing the communication between the AU-EU, decolonial theory and intercultural epistemology have shown how alternative views tend to be easily overlooked in the interaction between different cultures. Rather than merely critiquing, our study is aiming to open up the dialogue and enrich discussion on ‘normative’ assumptions and values. By reflection on our personal philosophical positioning at the end of our analysis.
3. Methodology
The South African decolonial thinker S.J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, suggest that predetermined methodology in research might only result in the reproduction of the same knowledge. With his statement, Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) aims to question the very epistemological foundations upon which knowledge is built, to defy the universality of knowledge and open up for different (non-Western) modes of knowing. According to Ndlovu-Gatsheni, the very revealment of a student’s methodology prior to even doing actual research, “perhaps already determines a priori the knowledge to be produced”. In line with the influential postcolonial thinker Franz Fanon (1971) critiqued that methodology (those from humanities and social sciences) should be left for the ‘botanists and mathematicians.’ If we ourselves, are to reject the universality of knowledge, we might as well tempt to follow their advice by trying to take some distance from a systematic methodology type, in the form of a genealogical approach.
3.1. A Genealogical Approach Definition of genealogy:
“Genealogy is a methodological process concerned with telling the story of how a set of discursive and non-discursive practices come into being and interact to form a set of political, economic, moral, cultural, and social institutions which define the limits of acceptable speaking, knowing, and acting.”
(Anaïs, 2013, p.125)
Post-development theory puts in light development as a fabricated discourse at the benefit of the Global North over the Global South due to a Eurocentrism in knowledge production. The decolonial theory deconstructs the Western discourse of development, putting in perspective the colonized experience and demonstrating the power it still has today. In order to deconstruct the development discourse present in the EU’s communication on the Commission-to- Commission (C2C) 2020 meeting of the AU-EU partnership, this thesis adopts a genealogical approach.
The genealogical approach, inspired by Foucault, provides a non-linear thinking process of history and progress in which discourse is used as a material where one can spot traces of history. When analyzing the development discourse in relation to EU’s communication content, we will thus pay attention to “our contemporary understanding of causation, subversion, and the critical assessment of truth claims, including the more general assumptions of veridiction itself.” (Knauft, 2017, p.2). Although Foucault was also sometimes pointed out for eurocentrism, especially in his earlier work in the 1970s (Knauft, 2017, p.3) he remains a great source of inspiration: “Genealogy does not resemble the evolution of a species and does not map the destiny of a people.”(Foucault cited by Knauft, 2017, p.6). Instead of confirming the existence of a certain discourse (here development) within practices or events (here the 2020 C2C meeting of the AU-EU partnership), we look at how the discourse functions in these practices or events. This way, our specific focus on the communication on the C2C meeting of the AU-EU partnership is analyzed among its “proper dispersion” of events and not as the logical continuity of a supposed linear history and progress. Genealogy does not see discourse as the result of “what we know and what we are” but rather as a manifestation of what one gives value to (2017, p.6). For this reason, we are interested in both discursive and non- discursive elements, looking into their interactions, the alignment and/or non-alignment between the words and the practices, which is also called ‘history of the present” (Anaïs, 2013, p.126). Genealogy as an approach to our critique allows us to confront simultaneously the construction of development discourse and its insertion within our subject of study. In this
manner, our analysis does not stand for a “better account of what is going on in the world” but rather issues a fertile critique, allowing future discussions on what development means or could mean (Fassin and Hartcourt, 2019, p.8). Nonetheless, genealogy studies “may be as powerful as they are potentially diverse, unsystematic, or non-comparable.” (2017, p.10).
“At certain moments innocent questions, patient inquiries, and modest interventions may all prove useful in a larger, more indeterminate sense of prying open efforts to foreclose thought and introducing sufficient doubt to allow for discussion. In practical terms, this means telling smaller stories, the ones that never quite fit, retaining awkward numbers, preserving puzzling bits of evidence - the elements that may not define a situation, but leave it slightly unsettled.”
(Redfield, 2019, p.87) From a positivist standpoint, one could doubt the veracity of such analysis or perceive it of being cherry-picking. It is thus important to highlight that the value of such critique lies in the ensemble of multiple genealogical analysis of the “framework of evaluation itself” (Butler quoted by Zerilli, 2019, p.40) of discourses’ categorizations and truth-claims that are brought to light. Our study contributes to this ensemble rather than offering alone a response to modern development issues. We thus see the need for several genealogists analyses on similar matters.
This allows genealogical analysis to be “diversely applied in analysis and not subject to definitive or normalizing modes of application.” (Clifford cited by Knauft, 2017, p.12). We thus believe that the genealogical approach to our analysis contributes to the so-called paradigm shift, popular in sustainability discourse. However, this paradigm shift is a much bigger patchwork for which we only insert our piece into, participating in the process.
Whereas the genealogical approach describes the methodology behind our thinking process, we will now lay out our methodology on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as our medium to convey our analysis and appropriate as it focuses on imparting norms. We see critiques as
“always, at least in part, a response to a certain state of the world being developed within a certain configuration of power and knowledge in the academic and public spheres.” (Fassin, 2019, p. 14) and into complementary with the genealogical approach.
3.2. Critical Discourse Analysis
Added to genealogy we will be using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), a combination argued for by Anaïs (2013), who shows how the practical elements of CDA can be used to achieve a viable mix for social research. First of all, what exactly does ‘critical’ in CDA means? Michel Foucault, one of the central thinkers of CDA, described critique as the “art of not being governed or better, the art of not being governed like that”, moreover he described the position as “desubjugation5” or “insubordination6”, wherein he refers to a prescriptive statement;
“something should or should not be like this” (Foucault 2007:44 in Herzog, 2016). In this sense, critique is referring to a norm, which is forming the basis for Foucault’s notion of critique. In other words, “the art of not being governed like that” expresses the unavoidable formation of norms but the possibility to highlight them, to render them visible. In addition, the critique shows how the norm wields power rather than advocating how it should be.
Throughout his work, Foucault himself was critical of norms in general and hegemonic norms in particular. He was aware that norms can be used as techniques of domination or control and
5 The defiance of authority or the refusal to obey orders 6 The action of bringing oneself out of control or domination
that even unsuspicious norms, such as autonomy, liberty, solidarity can turn into impositions, consequently used to justify certain actions (Herzog, 2016). When relating this to the case of the AU-EU partnership, we will analyse the questions with the help of our data sources; what is the normative basis of the AU-EU partnership? what is the norm of the desirable results of the partnership? and what is desired in the AU-EU partnership? This vision corresponds to Langan (2011) who argues the EU to be a normative power or actor in Africa-EU ties, under the imperative of a moral economy, in which the EU pursues the norms of e.g. democracy, security and liberalism. In his article, Langan (2011) furthermore argues for critical theory as a mean to “disrupt the status quo, challenge worldviews and influence the social, political, and economic systems being placed under scrutiny”.
Critical Discourse Analysis finds its origin in critical linguistics. Juxtaposed with critical linguistics, however, CDA takes the analysis of language a step further by analysing how language as a means of social construction, is shaped by society and shapes society (Machin &
Mayr, 2012). As the name already reveals; Critical Discourse Analysis, besides practising
‘criticality’, the approach focuses on the questions of how social categories, knowledge and relations are shaped by discourse (Fairclough, 2003, Van Dijk, 1988 in Machin & Mayr, 2012).
By looking at discourse, CDA assumes that power is transmitted and practised through discourse, both shaped by society and shaping society, aiming to capture the interrelationship of the nature between language, power and ideology (Fairclough, 1992 in Machin & Mayr, 2012 ) to describe the practices and conventions in and behind texts that reveal political and ideological investment.
CDA, therefore, focuses on language in all its forms, e.g. texts, images, film and sound (Machin
& Mayr, 2012), not only that what can be found in the lines but also what can be found in between the lines; and the assumptions and taken for granted concepts. In CDA, language is thus analysed as a form of social practice, language is intertwined with how we maintain and regulate our societies and is inherently part of the way that people seek to promote particular views of the world and naturalise them (making them appear natural and commonsensical).
Ways in which this can be communicated is for example through ideas, values or identities that are promoted (Machin & Mayr, 2012). What we think of as culture is inseparable from language, this translates itself into our analysis by focussing on what events or persons are for example foregrounded and which are backgrounded or excluded altogether? Which emotions does the sound or music evoke, when used in combination with images? And what is this
‘language’ trying to convey? Based on which norms?
Machin & Mayr (2012) argue that it is often in the smallest linguistic details where power relations and political ideology can be found, hidden at first sight, but waiting to be discovered.
Through CDA we will, therefore, analyse the EU’s external communication surrounding the C2C meeting and deconstruct how the data is used in order to create meaning, looking critically to word usage, how this interrelates to the power relations and ‘denaturalizing’ it in order to reveal the kinds of ideas, absences and taken-for-granted assumptions (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
How has the language of the AU-EU partnership changed over its discourse and why? By answering these questions, we wish to analyse what possible ideological goals they might serve, aiming to expose strategies that appear normal or neutral on the surface but which may, in fact, be ideological, seeking to shape the representation of events and persons for particular ends.
That being said, we wish not to fall into a “blame game” and also look at “the potential for discourse to offer genuine emancipatory alternatives” (Bartlett, 2012, p.5). We, therefore, want
to contribute to the emergence of critiques on the “broader picture which also includes instances of collaboration, egalitarianism and bottom-up change” (Bartlett, 2012, p.7) by looking at the AU-EU partnership as space in which norms can be re-discussed rather than the destruction all-together of the partnership.
3.3. Data sources
As aforementioned, we will be focusing on the external communication of the European Commission that is issued surrounding the 10th AUC-EC Commission-to-Commission (C2C) meeting held on the 27th of February 2020 at the African Union (AU) Headquarters in Addis Ababa. The C2C meeting forms a building block for the partnership, to be solidified at the AU- EU ministerial meeting and the 6th AU-EU Summit, which is planned for October 2020. As the C2C event provides us with great momentum, we have chosen to analyze the event’s connected European Commission’s social media post, issued on the 27th of February and the European Commission’s debriefing documents, which have been issued on the European Commission’s website on the ninth of March.
The data we have selected have a promotional and informing use in the name of the EU, and this is consequently where the genealogical approach with CDA will come into play. The communicative data will form the base of the analysis so that a handmade patchwork blanket can be constructed, consisting of the discursive (historical) information which is brought forth.
In different words, the discursive information is connected in the non-discursive communicative data, which will be analyzed with the help of CDA.
We have identified the following data, which will be analyzed in the next chapter of this thesis and can simultaneously be found in the appendix of this thesis;
Material Title Appendixes
Social media post - Analysis part 1
European Commission - Post released on LinkedIn &
Facebook (27/2/2020)
“Africa and Europe are sister continents” I
European Commission documents- Analysis part 2 European Commission - Q&A (9/3/2020)
Questions and Answers: Towards a Comprehensive Strategy with Africa
II
European Commission - Statement (9/3/2020)
Remarks by HR/VP Josep Borrell and Commissioner for International
Partnerships Jutta Urpilainen at the press conference on the Joint Communication towards a Comprehensive Strategy with Africa
III
European Commission - Joint
Communication (9/3/2020) Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council - Towards a comprehensive Strategy with Africa
IV
Analysis part 1
The data for this analysis will include the social media post of the European Commission on Facebook and LinkedIn, where the European Commission has issued its most elaborate post.
The core content for analysis 1 will revolve around the promotional video (appendix I) named;
“Africa and Europe are sister continents” posted on Facebook and LinkedIn on the 25th and 27th of February 2020. The video promotes the partnership between the AU and the EU on the occasion of the 10th Commission-to-Commission meeting.
Analysis part 2
In addition to the video communication material, we have selected three written communication documents that were issued by the European Commission following the C2C meeting of the AU-EU partnership in Addis Ababa on the 27th of February 2020. The three documents add content depth to the visual communication material and their diverse formats allow us to experience different perspectives on similar matters but most importantly on the same event.
The first document (appendix II) is a Q&A format. The documents provide an interesting opportunity of analysis since the format is often used by the European Commission on diverse matters. In our case, in order to issue an analysis of the text, we will look at which questions the commission has chosen and how these in combination with the answers are formulated. It is also important to note that Q&A documents are transcriptions of spoken texts which offers us a good opportunity to analyse a less polished language than other types of communication material. as this Q&A follows the.
The second document (appendix III) transcribes Josep Borrell’s (High Representative and Vice President) and Jutta Urpilainen’s (Commissioner for International Partnerships) statements during the C2C meeting in Addis Ababa. The original information is directed to the meeting’s audience but is transcribed to be communicated to a larger public. Alike Ursula von der Leyen as well as the European Commission and by extension the EU, Josep Borell’s and Jutta Urpilainen pitch what the “new Comprehensive Strategy with Africa” entails.
The latter document (appendix IV) contains ten proposed actions for the EU to partner with Africa by the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council upon which will be reflected with the help of document one and two. Even though this document concerns an internal occasion, the document has been issued as a press release, for which the data will be included in the analysis. As our central focus is how the EU portrays itself to the larger public, we will mainly focus on the “10 proposed actions” that are mentioned in the document.
4. EU communication on the AU-EU Partnership
In the analysis of this thesis, we will be focussing on the communication issued by the European Commission surrounding the C2C meeting for the AU-EU partnership. This chapter is divided into 4 sub-chapters; first, we will provide some background information about our chosen case study.
Thereafter we will be analyzing the social media posts issued by the European Commission on both LinkedIn and Facebook on the 27th of February 2020, the day of the C2C meeting.
Subsequent we will be analyzing the documents issued by the European Commission on the 9th of March, which reflect upon the C2C meeting. And last, we will be concluding the analysis into key elements extracted from the two analyses.
4.1. Background information The African Union
In May 1963, 32 Heads of independent African States met in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to create Africa’s first post-independence continental institution. The meeting marked the birth of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor of the African Union. The OAU was shaped by the ideology of Pan-Africanism, the belief that people from both the African continent and diasporan ethnic groups of African descent share not merely a common history but also a common destiny. Dating back to the Atlantic slave trade, the ideology moreover includes the belief that unity is vital to economic, social, and political progress, to "unify and uplift" people of African descent that would be control of its own destiny (AU, 2020). In 2002 the OAU officially established the African Union, derived from the need to refocus Africa’s attention from decolonisation towards a strategy that increased cooperation and integration of African states for the African continent to play its rightful role in the global economy and addressing the negative influences recognized as results of globalization. Since 2011, when Morocco joined the union consists of all 55 African states. Functioning as an intergovernmental organisation with an Assembly of Heads of State and Government, Executive Council, Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC), Specialised Technical Committees (STCs), the Peace and Security Council and The AU Commission. With which it promotes the participation of African citizens and civil society through the Pan-African Parliament and the Economic, Social & Cultural Council (ECOSOCC).
The EU
Whereas the predecessor of the AU dates back to 1963, the founding of the EU is dating back to the year 1950, when the Foreign Minister of France, Robert Schuman proposed the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) which would be the first of a series of supranational European institutions that would ultimately become today's European Union. It was the ECSC’ aim to bring the member’s coal and the steel markets together as it would – in the words of the Declaration – make war between historic rivals France and Germany "not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible" (EU, 1950). The ECSC did not only serve to prevent a new war, ironically for this thesis, it also aimed to reform and maintain the existing colonial empires and to consolidate Western Europe’s influence in Africa (Whiteman, 2012). The importance of Africa for Europe was highlighted in this same Schuman speech, where it was said that; “Europe would, with increased resources, be able to pursue one of its essential tasks: the development of the African continent.”
(Schuman Declaration, 1950).
The EU’s aim to bring about development with the aim of poverty alleviation, social progress and humanitarian concerns on the African continent has “helped to shape an acceptable public image
of a supranational European project assisting weaker colonies” (Langan, 2012). Additionally, development has however also rationalised the extension of existing colonial linkages to the European Union as a supranational body. The promotion of Africa’s development still has an important place within Europe’s strategy today, through which the EU practices and legitimizes moral and ethical norms. Throughout EU’s history, development for the African continent has been practised through many conventions and agreements; from the Yaounde Conventions in the sixties to the Lome Convention in the seventies, leading to latest Cotonou Agreement. This last agreement is about to expire in 2020 and it is for this reason that the sixth AU-EU summit, planned for October 2020, is aiming to come up with a new partnership agreement between the institutions.
The antecedent agreements to the 2020 partnership, have generally drawn a lot of criticism on post- colonial structures and asymmetric economic policies in the name of development (Whiteman, 2012). In line with this, critics have argued that the historical Africa-EU partnership has not brought about the desirable development for the African continent (Langan, 2012) and that the European continent has mostly been profiting from the development discourse to the African continent (Langan, 2012). Against this backdrop, the new 2020 partnership that is to follow up an agreement that has received a lot of criticism, is aiming to bring both continents together in an “equal agreement”, that is simultaneously aiming to leave behind a “donor-recipient” relationship.
4.2. Social media analysis
“Africa and Europe are sister continents” (Appendix I)
Available at; https://www.facebook.com/107898832590939/videos/517375628966124 The social media post, as shown on the taken
screenshot, is guided by the text that the European Commission is sharing a message to its African partners. The brand-new President of the European Commission (12/2019), is addressing the commission’s partners with a confident and feminine voice that is guided by relaxing background music. In general, the video displays mainly footage of African livelihoods, in alternation with the president in front of the new AU- EU logo and a few scenes of political meetings. Europe seems to be only, or almost exclusively, represented by the face and voice of Ursula von der Leyen whereas Africa is voiceless, but represented through images of youth, workers, women and children showing smiley faces. Overall, the video shows ‘joyful’, ‘positive’ and
‘sunny’ scenes of daily African lives, elders are mostly absent in the video and young people are displayed doing a variety of activities, such as; work, domestic tasks and hobbies (e.g.: market, electrical material
work, sport, water fetching, a mother with her baby, a “center of technology”, etc.) making the general atmosphere of the video is quite lyrical.
The first detail that strikes is the title “EU- Africa” that relates to the partnership between two political institutions, that is; the European Union and the African Union. The title, which may suspect a lack of recognition, at first sight, can also be viewed in the light of development discourse.
The African Union has been existing since the year 2002, as described earlier. The latest Cotonou agreement, which dates from 2000, was an overarching framework between the EU and the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries. This means that the 2020 partnership will be dealing with ‘just’ Africa whereas its predecessor covered the
“...EU's relations with 79 countries, including 48 countries from Sub-Saharan Africa.” (European Council, 2000). The difference between the 2020 partnership is thus that the partnership will only involve the African continent and moreover will include all 55 African states, rather than 48 as the Cotonou agreement did. Likely, this is where the EU has been attempting to put emphasis. As we can see from the title and when put in the light of the development discourse, one can conclude that the EU is perceiving itself to be partnering with the African continent, rather than ‘just’ the AU.
The illustration, which simultaneously serves as the background of the commission’s speech, has the overall look of an eye or a camera lens, in which the pupil is represented by the shape of the African continent. The new logo clearly expresses that the focus is on the African
continent, whereas a depiction of the European continents seems to be missing.
One could expect a symbolic representation signified by both institutions’
flags the same way, for example, the European Commission symbolized its economic partnership agreement with Japan (EU-Japan trade agreement enters into force, 2019). In comparison with the logo of the AU-EU summit in 2016, alongside this text, it becomes clear that there has been made a deliberate choice in logo change through the use of a uniform logo design for both parties, which gives the 2020 partnership logo a completely new look compared to the latest summit, where the flag
of the EU and the AU were depicted noticeably.
Part 1: (0:00-0:20)
“Africa and Europe are sister continents. We have a historic bond and a common goal.
To leave to the next generation a better future. To sow the seeds for their economic prosperity and the security they need to thrive. And to leave a clean and healthy planet for them. It is with this ambition in mind that Africa and Europe have helped shape international agreements like the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on climate change. ” The first sentence of the video states; “Africa and Europe are sister continents.” The opening immediately gives the impression that the continents are ‘family’ and are sharing a special bond.
The normative use of the title is likely to refer to the term ‘sister relationship’, which is an agreement form most common between cities that seek to promote cultural and commercial ties. In this case, however, used for the cooperation of two continents. The first sentence is then followed by; “We have a historic bond and a common goal.”. The two opening sentences are aiming to connect and to affirm the close relationship between the EU and “Africa”. A regular economic partnership, such as the EU-Japan trade deal, generally does not require affirmation of historic
close ties. One could therefore wonder, why the supposedly close relation is greatly emphasized by the EU in the AU-EU partnership. In the theoretical framework of this thesis, we argued that
“decolonial theory helps us to think anew”, a way of doing this is by posing the question if can we consider a historic partnership to be intrinsically justified and right as a point of departure? The relationship between the African and European continent goes back a few hundred years and the relationship can thus be observed in the development discourse. According to post-development theory, development discourse sustains an unequal power relationship that finds its roots within the colonial past, the decolonial thinker Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2012) goes further here and argues that;
“Coloniality is an invisible power structure that sustains colonial relations of exploitation and dominations long after the end of colonialism.” Both observations imply that historic (former colonial) relationships should not go unquestioned, or used as justification, but rather have to be put under careful scrutiny.
Following, the top priorities of the partnership are being introduced in the sentence; “To sow the seeds for their economic prosperity and the security they need to thrive”. And to leave a clean and healthy planet for them.” It becomes clear here, that the EU envisions itself to be helping future generations through the use of the pronouns ‘their, they and them’. While the sentence is clearly expressing who is being helped, the shots of solely African livelihoods convey a one-directional narrative. Consequently, it remains ambiguous who is ‘sowing the seeds’. In line with this, Machin
& Mayr (2012) argue that passive verbs (to sow, to leave) indicate nominalisation, which conceals actors and agents of change. Moreover, by channelling and narrowing vision with the surrounding given content in the sentence, agents are hidden through the use of normalisation. That what then might be challenged, can simply be is presented as a thing that is. From a post-developmental perspective, it is important to understand who is envisioning to be sowing seeds; is the African continent sowing its own seeds, enabling it to be free to change the rules and the content of change, according to own culturally defined ethics and aspirations (Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997) or are Western ideological seeds being sowed, which can obstruct the African continent to consider alternative points of departure to hegemonic knowledges (Sabaratnam in Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018).
Following an genealogical approach, one can also looking at the context that makes the EU interested in future generations. This can be put into perspective with the demographic changes in both Europe and Africa along with the competition of the multilateral order, between the EU, the USA and China in Africa, which will be further discuss later in the analysis. Moreover, Ndvolu- Gatsheni argues that “coloniality of power not only resulted in the ‘theft of history’ but also in the theft of African future” (2018, p.248). This way, one may understand what leads the EU to ‘target’
the future generations and how this may be viewed as a sign of the colonial attitude dressed in development discourse.
Part 2: (0:20-1:11)
“Because we have common challenges such as climate change, digitalization, security, fighting inequalities and making sure that the economy works for everyone. And together, we will turn these challenges into opportunities. The transformation of our economies, to make them green and digital, will create new jobs, especially for our youth. We need to invest in their education and skills. And to support the development of the
sectors which will create their jobs such as the digital economy and renewable energy.”
The first sentence of the second part starts with;
“Because we have common challenges.”, with intonation on the word ‘have’, which in line with part 1, is affirming the interconnectedness between
