The panel presented dealt with Migrations: Securitization and Necropolitics, putting the focus on international African migrations in the Southern Border, specifically on the Atlantic Route (West Africa-Canary Islands). However, the intention is to build a space for dialogue and reflection on whether the securitization-necropolitics nexus can be applied to other case studies from the African continent.
As Mbuyi Kabunda pointed out, no region or layer of society is exempt from migration, since we live in an era characterized by the trinomial between development, migration and international relations. For its part, the African migratory phenomenon is part of the structural inequalities that persist in the current international system. The presence of violence and armed conflicts, economic and financial crises, and models of organization of political institutions and the State that are alien to the continent are some of the factors that undermine the continent’s stability. In 2006 there was an increase in African migratory flows to the Canary Islands, which led the Spanish central government to implement the I Africa Plan (2006-2008), a strategic foreign policy framework that outlined a roadmap for its relations with Africa. This strategic framework currently has three editions that have been formulated at different times in different national and international contexts (2006, 2009 and 2020 respectively), and whose updates take up the baton from the previous plan. Although the 1st Africa Plan addressed a variety of issues, we are particularly interested in the section dedicated to regulating and managing migration with a view to reducing the influx of irregular African migrants into Spain, using measures such as border control, bilateral agreements with third countries and the call for collaboration with the European Union and other African regional organizations.
Relations with Africa are based on an Afro-pessimistic vision that “(re)constructs the continent discursively as a scenario where political instability, armed conflicts, ‘fragile’ or ‘failed’ states, natural catastrophes, epidemics (e.g. HIV-AIDS, malaria or Ebola), etc. prevail”; (African Studies Group [GEA], 2020). The Plans talk about the “root causes” that are the breeding ground for migration, and although they do not explain what is meant by “root causes”, these are treated as endogenous causes of African states. The conversion of structural causes into endogenous causes that favor inter-regional mobility leads to the Spanish government’s cooperation initiatives being perceived as solidarity actions, exercising the role of an altruistic partner committed to the fundamental rights of African societies; in the same way that it exempts the responsibilities of that government’s participation in the instabilities that affect the continent.
The truth is that the aforementioned Afro-Pesimist perspective justifies paternalistic attitudes and interventions, where foreign leaders decide on the national affairs of African countries to the detriment of their own autonomy, interests and needs. Moreover, Spain-Africa relations do not originate from horizontal positions; on the contrary, they continue with a colonial hierarchy that places European countries in a privileged position to the detriment of African countries. Thus, the bilateral and multilateral agreements that are established seek to obtain benefits for the partners in the North. The main objective to be derived from transnational networks is the control of migratory flows, more specifically, the definitive interruption of these flows.
The panel seeks to affirm that the theory of securitization, developed by the Copenhagen School, together with the concept of necropolitics, coined by Achille Mbembe, are mutually compatible analytical tools that explain the implementation of measures of exceptionality that control the mobility (externalization of borders and externalization of migration policies), and ultimately the forms of death, of African people. Although securitization theory has been criticized for its Western and Westphalian nature, we are interested in exploring its limits as far as African migrations to the Canary Islands are concerned. Likewise, we consider that following Mbembe’s line of thought through necropolitics opens the possibility of approaching African migrations from a holistic approach, understanding that migrations take place within the borders of the Canary Islands, and not outside them. We could say that the same thing happens with securitization processes, since they are not only articulated in Spanish territory but also in the countries of origin, in transit countries and along the Atlantic routes.
Although the national and international contexts in which the three Africa Plans have been developed have been very different, African migration continues to be managed in the same way and according to the same approach used more than fifteen years ago. Faced with the interdependence of development, migration and international relations, the Spanish government responds through the trinomial of Afro-pessimism, securitization and necropolitics. While it is true that more and more research is dedicated to covering the phenomenon of inter-African migration, there is a lack of qualitative and contextual studies. This is why the analysis we present here is an innovation within the research dedicated to inter-African migratory phenomena by grounding the critical theory of International Relations and postcolonial theory in the Canary Islands territory, proposing a holistic reading of inter-African migratory phenomena.
