CÁLCULO DE LA ISÓPTICA 1 ISÓPTICA VERTICAL

Based on Barnett and Duvall’s (2005) taxonomy of power presented above, the following will apply realism and social constructivism in an analyzes of how the EU and the AU exercise power in international relations and how it affects African refugees that seek asylum in Europe.

Compulsory power

It can be argued that the EU takes advantage of its financial position in the partnership with AU regarding issues relating to migration. As mentioned previously the EU has agreed to be financial responsible for nearly all the costs that is related to the outcomes of these agreements. It is reasonable to assume that this have had a substantial impact on the development of the agreements. The EU would most probably not provide financially support that does not serve the organization’s best interests. In this manner the financial element gives the EU a stronger position to influence the outcomes of the agreements. Likewise it will be more difficult for the AU to gain approval on a provision if the EU does not agree. In this sense it can be understood that EU’s economical strength and stability gives the organization a natural power in the relationship with the AU. It gives the EU the possibility to force through provisions that AU not necessarily otherwise would agree with. In this context it can be understood that the EU exercise compulsory power in negotiations over these issues with the AU. Consequences imply a skewed relationship between the EU and the AU, a relationship in which it is difficult to achieve a foundation for agreements on equal terms.

Interpreted from the realisms power politics, the actors with most power gains more benefits. In international relations the EU is acting on behalf of member states with much power and material recourses while the AU on the other hand has member states characterized by underdevelopment and poverty. In this sense is EU`s exploitation of material resources is an expected outcome of the differences in the two international organizations composition of member states.

Nevertheless, financial resources are not the only subject of threat which the EU can utilize in partnership with the AU. Adheres to the perspective of social constructivism would argue that EU`s strong rational legal authority also imply the ability to create shame. As mentioned previously the EU has taken advantage of this position and created an international awareness towards the importance of combating illegal and irregular migration to the extent that it has become a widely acknowledged goal on a global level. Consequently are any objections in danger of being repressed by other international actors, a response that could lead to a shameful experience. In this sense, if the AU would counteract the goal of combating illegal and irrational immigration into Europe, the organization could also risk ending up in an undesirable situation. This can be understood as the AU being more or less forced to agree

with the EU with regards to this specific goal. This can be understood as shame becomes EU`s threats to gain approval from AU in areas that serves EU`s interests.

Institutional power

EU holds a naturally powerful position in international relations when negotiating who should be allowed to enter the borders of Europe and who should not. This is not a direct power act, but an outcome of interactions with other actors in the context of specific issues of concern. In partnership with the AU concerning issues related to African refugees possibility to seek asylum in Europe, the EU has a constitutional advantage in that it is the EU that decides who is allowed to enter the organizations territorial. The EU has expressed this power through the immigration policies. The organization further utilizes the immigration policies to set the agenda for cooperation between the EU and the AU.

The EU operates with two approaches with regards to the management of illegal and irregular migration. One is to prevent illegal and irregular immigrants from reaching the Schengen borders through visa regulations and strict controls at the external borders. The other approach is focused more on the countries of which the EU receives illegal immigrants. By improving the situation for the population in these countries, the intention is that this will have a preventive effect on the decision or need to migrate. One way in which this is accomplishes is by providing financial aid. Triandafyllidou and Lundquist argue that such a combination is unfortunate because it enables the EU to use development aid as an incentive tool to achieve agreements that benefits the organizations own interest (2010, 30). This can be understood to create a dependency relationship between the two organizations.

Both compulsory and institutional power is exercised through interaction between the EU and the AU. Structural and productive power on the other hand expresses the effects of power in social relations. The following will demonstrate how has the ability to use its autonomous position to process more influence than the AU with regards to the situation of African refugees and the protection of human rights in the process of seeking asylum in Europe.

Structural power

The EU use several classifications through their immigration policies in which structural power is exercised. The classifications can be seen as measures that the EU utilize in order to reach their main objectives in relation to the immigration policies, namely to regulate the

immigration flow into the Schengen area. Nevertheless, the same classifications also have a crucial impact on the subjects of the classification which in this context is African refugees’ possibility to seek asylum in Europe.

One of the outcomes of EU`s immigration policies is a defined distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Legal immigrants are immigrants that enter the Schengen area with a legal permission, meaning immigrants that fulfil all the requirements for entry presented in chapter 1.3.2 and 1.3.3. Those who do not fulfil these requirements, but still enter into the Schengen area without legal documentation are referred to as illegal immigrants. This distinction in itself determines different rights for legal and illegal immigrants with the most obvious one being the possibility to enter Europe. Legal documentation to enter Europe does not only require enough and correct information, but rather a valid purpose for entry. Consequently, this excludes some groups of migrants from having the opportunity to enter the Schengen area legally with the current EU immigration policy. As proved above this also applies for refugees aiming to seek asylum in Europe as asylum seekers do not meet the requirements to obtain a valid visa.

With regards to the conditions that have to be met in order to enter the Schengen area, the EU distinguish between “visa required nationalities” and nationalities in which visa is not required. All African nations are on EU`s list of visa-required nationalities and must therefore submit a visa application at the external borders. In this sense EU’s categorization serves as a direct obstacle for African refugees to seek asylum in Europe. However citizens residing in six of the African countries, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Nigeria, D.R Congo and Ghana, must also apply for visa by transit. Worth noticing here is the fact that that these selected countries is also considered six of the most unstable countries on the continent. An article by Nordby and Vevstad (2011, 26) asks whether it can be ethically justified to increase the visa requirements from countries where peoples’ need for protection is considered higher.

By categorizing refugees as illegal immigrants, it can be argued that the EU forces refugees who aim to seek protection within the Schengen area to act in violation of the regulations. This can be seen as the EU acting upon a “self-fulfilling prophecy”. The measures that the EU establish with the purpose of combating illegal immigration instead have an opposite function where illegal entry is the only option for certain groups of migrants.

Refugees and asylum seekers are vulnerable in the sense that circumstances have forced them to leave home. These are external circumstances in which most refugees themselves have no influence. If they don’t migrate, their lives are in danger. Seeking protection from persecution becomes first priority for survival. Yet, the escape from the current situation might lead to new dangerous situations. Every year refugees resort to illegal pathways into Europe despite the risk involved. The article “The Human Costs of Border Control” concludes that as the EU legislation at the external borders is being restricted, the number of deaths among migrants trying to cross the borders increases (Spijkerboer 2007, 134) UNITED recently published a list of 14037 documented deaths on refugees trying to reach Europe (2011). However there is reason to believe that the number of actual deaths is significantly higher (Castles, Miller 2009, 156). The North African states have become the gateway to Europe for illegal migration from sub-Saharan Africa. From there, crossing the Mediterranean Sea to Southern Europe can be extremely dangerous and also here results in numerous deaths every year (Castles, Miller 2009, 156). Spijkerboer concludes that new methods to ensure reliable statistics have to be established in order to consider this issue in a perspective of human rights (2007, 139).

Structural power can be understood as a way to control information. The ability to control information is by social constructivism considered one of the main sources of power in international organizations. The examples described above with regards to how the EU implies distinctions and categorizations seem to be justified in that it is necessary for the existence of the organizations immigration policies. The justification seems to be given despite the consequences it implies for some groups of migrants such as refugees. Barnett and Finnemore describe the implementation of structural power as the most powerful sources of power for international organizations (Barnett and Finnemore, 1999, 710).

Productive power

In distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration, the EU also determines the meaning of being an illegal immigrant. It can for instance seem as if EU`s definition of refugees as illegal immigrants has created assumptions regarding the underlying motives refugees have when seeking asylum in Europe. Even though illegal crossing of borders are internationally accepted as long as the purpose is to seek protection from persecution, refugees are not given the benefit of the doubt. Those refugees who have succeeded with reaching within the Schengen borders still have to convince the personnel at the border about a “well-founded fear” for persecution in order to not be returned. In fear that their own story will not qualify,

falsified identity documentation and well-formulated designed stories have become a common practice (Moorehead 2005). Their fear for not being granted asylum, might even lead asylum seekers to present a false story even when their real story would be more than sufficient. Also these asylum seekers will be returned if their dishonesty is revealed (Moorehead 2005). Moorehead emphasizes in the article “Necessary lies” how the reputation of this practice has undermined refugees’ credibility (2005). The mistrust that has emerged towards immigrants’ motives for seeking asylum has led to tendencies of xenophobia. It can be argued that the EU is taking advantage of this situation when justifying restrictions at the external borders with the need of increasing the internal security of the Schengen area from external threats (T. E. EU 2009).