EU Refugee Crisis Depoliticized Through Development Aid

Introduction

In 2015, the European Union (EU) faced a significant challenge - a large influx of migrants and refugees crossing into Europe. This event, often referred to as the "refugee crisis," dominated headlines and sparked intense political debates within the EU. Rather than directly addressing the political tensions and controversies surrounding this issue, the European Commission sought to reframe the problem in a different way.

The Commission created the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) as a response to the refugee crisis. However, instead of presenting it as a direct reaction to the political dynamics within the EU, the Commission tried to depoliticize the issue. They reframed migration as a technical problem of poverty and underdevelopment in Africa that could be addressed through development aid and cooperation with African countries.

By locating the "

" of the crisis in Africa and emphasizing the EUTF as a continuation of the EU's long-standing development cooperation, the Commission was able to shift attention away from the political debates happening within Europe. This strategy had significant implications, leading to what researchers call the "

migratization of development

The trend where development policies and aid are increasingly designed with the primary goal of reducing migration to Europe, rather than focusing on poverty reduction and sustainable development.

 

" - where development policies and aid are increasingly designed and implemented with the primary objective of reducing migration flows to Europe, rather than focusing on poverty alleviation and sustainable development in their own right.

Conceptualizing (De)Politicization

The study examines the concept of (de)

in the context of European integration, where politicization has become a key issue. Politicization is defined as a three-dimensional process involving:

1. Increased
   salience
   The degree to which an issue or topic is prominent and important in public discourse and debate.

    
   of debates
2. polarization
   The process where opinions on an issue become divided into extreme positions, with little middle ground.

    
   of opinions
3. Expansion of actors and audiences involved in EU policies

The researchers argue that EU actors, such as the European Commission, do not simply respond to domestic politicization pressures. Instead, they can adopt different (de)politicization strategies to pursue their own goals and sustain their long-term survival.

One example of this is the creation of the EU Trust Fund (EUTF), which the researchers view as a strategy of 'assertive

' by the European Commission. This involves features like:

• Restricting participation from other actors
• Promoting consensus
• Reframing issues in technical terms
• Focusing on
  output legitimation
  Gaining acceptance and support for policies or actions by emphasizing the tangible results and outcomes they produce, rather than the political process behind them.

   
  (i.e., emphasizing the results and impacts of policies)

The success or failure of these (de)politicization strategies is influenced by factors like the type of institution involved, the location of the policy (internal vs. external to the EU), and the level of salience and polarization of the policy domain. For instance, associating migration with less politically salient policy areas like development aid can aid depoliticization efforts, while linking it to more controversial domains like security can increase politicization.

Depoliticizing the EU Refugee Crisis

The study describes how the creation of the EUTF enabled the European Commission to minimize existing disagreements and political divisions within the EU over how to respond to the 2015 'refugee crisis'. The EUTF was the result of an '

' strategy that the Commission employed.

This strategy involved several key elements:

1. Locating the source of the problem in Africa rather than within the EU
2. Reframing the political issue of unwanted immigration as a technical problem stemming from underdevelopment
3. Restricting participation from other political actors like the European Parliament
4. Focusing on the EUTF's
   technocratic
   Relating to or involving decision-making based on technical expertise and evidence, rather than political considerations.

    
   and expertise-based aspects rather than political considerations
5. Relying on outputs (i.e., the results and impacts of the EUTF) to legitimize EU policies

By adopting this approach, the Commission was able to make the conflict over the refugee crisis less visible, polarizing, and salient, effectively depoliticizing the issue.

Addressing the EU Refugee Crisis

The study discusses the EU's response to the 2015 refugee crisis, which saw over a million migrants cross into Europe. The uncoordinated actions of member states, with frontline countries unable to accommodate the sudden influx, led to a perception of crisis and secondary movements, as well as unilateral border closures.

Efforts to establish a fair internal redistribution system through relocation schemes proved highly controversial and deadlocked. As a result, the EU shifted its focus to the external dimension of migration policies, establishing the EUTF to address the root causes of instability, displacement and irregular migration in 26 fragile African countries.

The Construction of an African Crisis

The EUTF was widely believed to have been established in response to the EU 'refugee crisis'. However, the Constitutive Agreement establishing the EUTF locates the crisis not in Europe but in Africa, more precisely in the Sahel and Lake Chad, Horn of Africa, and North of Africa regions.

Critics noted that the crises the EUTF aimed to address had not been clearly defined. One interviewee suggested the use of a crisis rationale to set up the EUTF was "abused", as the real crisis had happened years earlier with the Syrian conflict. The EUTF in fact originated from the 2011 EU Sahel Strategy, with an added focus on migration management and root causes during the 2015 'refugee crisis'.

The creation of the EUTF enabled the Commission to divert attention away from the perceived EU 'refugee crisis' and the resulting tensions between Member States, suggesting its establishment was at least partly driven by political convenience rather than an acute African crisis.

The EUTF as a Technocratic and Consensus-Building Response

The study discusses how the EUTF represents a technocratic and consensus-building response to the increased migration flows into Europe. Rather than engaging in politically sensitive discussions about redistributing asylum-seekers within Europe, the EUTF has shifted the focus to addressing the 'root causes' of migration, such as poverty, unemployment, instability, and lack of access to resources and education.

This technocratic approach is reflected in the EUTF's emphasis on evidence-based policymaking, including the creation of research facilities to better understand the drivers of migration. However, the extent to which this research actually influences the EUTF's strategy and programs is questionable, as the underlying 'root causes' narrative may be flawed, with economic development often leading to more migration in the short term.

Nonetheless, the 'root causes' framing allows the EU to present the 'refugee crisis' as a technical issue that can be addressed through technocratic means, rather than through political debate.

Avoiding Conflict: The 'Root Causes' Approach as Consensus-Building

The study discusses how the 'root causes' framing of the EU refugee crisis has been effective in building consensus among diverse stakeholders with different preferences, thereby depoliticizing the issue. The 'root causes' approach satisfied both migration control-oriented actors and development-focused actors, with the EUTF serving as a bridging instrument that combined migration management and a focus on addressing the underlying drivers of migration through development cooperation.

This combination of different policy approaches appears to be part of a broader pattern in addressing complex migration challenges, where the EU seeks to find common ground and avoid direct confrontation between competing interests.

'A DEVCO Show' – Insulating the EUTF from Politics

The European Commission established the EUTF, which gave the Commission, particularly the

, significant control over the decision-making process. This allowed for faster procedures but excluded other key stakeholders like the European Parliament.

The Commission maintained a strong grip on all aspects of the EUTF, from setting the strategy to project implementation, often presenting Member States with a fait accompli. This was seen as an attempt to insulate the EUTF from political scrutiny and democratic oversight, with the Commission justifying the exclusion of the Parliament as necessary to avoid the "politicization of debates" and ensure decisions were made by technical experts rather than political actors.

Controlled Transparency as a Tool of (Re)Legitimization

The European Commission adopted a strategy of controlled transparency and publicity to depoliticize the EU refugee crisis and (re)legitimize its work through the EUTF. While the Commission emphasized the importance of transparency and visibility to demonstrate the concrete results of EUTF activities, the underlying political decisions regarding priority countries, project design, and selection criteria remained largely opaque to external stakeholders.

This approach gave the EUTF an apolitical façade, even as the Commission subordinated development aid to address the root causes of migration, thereby reintroducing political and strategic considerations into development policy.

The Politicization of Development Aid

The study discusses the broader trend of the politicization of development aid, where donors increasingly align development assistance with their national security and foreign policy objectives. This is not a new phenomenon, but it has become more overt and accepted over time.

The EUTF is cited as an example of European donors explicitly using development aid to meet their domestic strategic objectives, particularly in the area of migration management. The EUTF has prioritized cooperation with EU member states and international organizations over direct funding to recipient governments, in order to ensure EU visibility and the transfer of European values.

This has led to a shift in development aid priorities, away from the poorest countries and towards those of strategic importance to the EU in terms of migration flows. The EUTF's emphasis on migration management, such as funding for the Libyan border guard, has been criticized for undermining the objectives of development cooperation laid out in EU treaties.

While the EUTF claims to promote "win-win partnerships" between donor and recipient countries, the assumption of shared interests is questionable. Many African countries do not view migration as a threat, and remittances are an important source of revenue. The politicization of development aid through instruments like the EUTF has therefore been met with skepticism, as it appears to prioritize the EU's security concerns over the development needs of partner countries.

Conclusion

The study examines how the European Commission has sought to depoliticize the EU refugee crisis by transforming it into a technocratic issue that can be addressed through an 'evidence-based approach' and directing aid to address the 'root causes of migration'. This depoliticization strategy involves several key elements:

1. Locating the source of the problem in Africa rather than within the EU
2. Shifting the debate from political to technical terms
3. Bridging the gap between different actors
4. Tapping into the desirability of development policy
5. Establishing an 'emergency' Trust Fund

However, the study argues that by subordinating development aid to its usefulness in addressing the root causes of migration, the Commission has reinserted political and strategic considerations into development policy, resulting in a politicization of development policy.