Justifying opposition and support to EU-Africa cooperation on deportation in West Africa

In this article, Omar N. Cham and Prof. Dr. Ilke Adam examined how governmental and non-governmental actors in the Gambia, both pre-and post-regime change, justify their policy positions or actions on one of the most controversial and politicised migration issues in West Africa: cooperation on deportation with the EU. 

Abstract

Migration, in general, is not a salient political issue in West Africa. However, one migration aspect that remains highly controversial and unpopular is cooperation on the deportation of undocumented emigrants with the EU and its member states. In this paper, we set out a typology of justification frames for studying how political actors in West Africa might frame their support or opposition to cooperation on deportation. We distinguished three types of justifications: identity-related, moral, and utilitarian. While the moral (human rights) and utilitarian (political, economic, securitarian, labor) frames are rather classic justifications in migration politics and governance, our analysis shows that identity-related (‘neo-colonial resistance’ and ‘neo-colonial compliance’) justification frames highlight how historical path dependencies matter in understanding the drivers of (migration) politics and governance in West Africa. This is particularly evident when the images of cuffed and shackled deportees from Europe evoke memories of dark historical pasts.

Migrants Africa EU

Team members

Research areas involved