[MUSIC PLAYING] Hello, and welcome to FEPSTOCK, the podcast of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies. I am Maynard Vasconyana. I am FEPPS Head of Communication. And today, we're going to speak about migration. And we are going to do it with Otilia Anna Manganitze. Welcome. Thanks for being here. I'm going to introduce you briefly. So Otilia works for the Institute for Security Studies based in South Africa.
As the head of special projects in the office of the executive director, you are a legal expert analyst and strategist whose work promotes human security, peace, and justice. And Otilia is also a member of the Progressive Migration Group, which is a network of experts from Africa and Europe. And I stress this because it's not always the case that African experts are included.
And this network was launched a couple of years ago by FEPPS and also by the Frederick Everdeen Stistoo, the EU office. And the goal of this network is to promote a closer cooperation between the EU and countries of origins and transit with the ambition of changing the narrative and formulating innovative proposals. And you can compliment me if I forgot something important, of course. My first question, Otilia, is about the new pack.
Because in fact, you authored as part of this Progressive Migration Group, your author of one policy brief on the new pack, on migration on asylum for those who are following us. Let's remember that the new pack was approved, adopted after years and years of negotiations last spring by the EU institutions. And in your policy brief, you focus also on the viewpoint of the African countries, which as I was saying, is not often taken into consideration.
So my first question is, what is your opinion about the new pack? And what will be the consequences of its implementation in the African countries? Right. Very important question. I'll say when talking about migration, but when talking also about European migration policy, because really the new pack is the instrument that's going to inform how the EU as a whole, but individual EU member states deal with the question of migration.
You rightly alluded to the fact that it took a long time for them to get to this new pack on migration. And part of it has to do with the fact that migration is often a very emotional topic. It's one that's been quite politicized also within the European discourse. But it's one where parties don't necessarily agree. So in their process, they had to find places where minds meet. So where's the problem with that?
The problem is the one particular area that basically takes center stage in the new pack is this focus on irregular migration. So these are people that move across international borders either because they have been forced out of their countries, out of conflict, war, or climate change, or climate impacts, or those that do move voluntarily, but do not do so with a visa or even with a passport.
So the new pack in the way that it's framed the need to secure Europe's borders, the need for more efficient ways of dealing with asylum procedures, or even around migration regulation, it's focused on the 5%. It's focused on the individuals who do not follow the regular channels. What that does is it overshadows the full migration scheme. In your intro, you referred to African countries of departure and transit.
But part of what the new pact ignores is that Africa is also a continent of destination itself. It ignores the fact that some of the issues that Europe has to contend with are issues that African countries are already dealing with and from whom they could have learned a little bit more.
But importantly, it also takes away this idea of a sovereign continent, which is Europe's neighbor to the South, by, for example, pushing, if I can be blunt in how I say this, pushing Europe's borders beyond Europe into North Africa and the Sahel. I see.
And it was a question for Laitet, but since you mentioned, what are these lessons, if you can give us a few examples that Europe could learn from Africa, because as you were rightly pointing out, and if I recall correctly, a third of the world's refugee population is hosted by African countries, right? And most of the major migration in Africa happens inside Africa and not from Africa towards outside. So I'll talk about these two things separately.
So first, I'll focus on the voluntary migration aspect. So 80% of people that voluntarily move, or African people that voluntarily move, do so within the African continent. They prefer to move to neighboring countries. And there's many reasons for that. It's cultural ties, it's linguistic ties, it's proximity to home, so the ability to be able to go back home when you want to really informs people's decisions to move.
The second category of people are people that are forcibly displaced. So these are people where either because of ongoing situations of violence, conflict forms of persecution, have no choice but to leave their homes. If they could, they would have stayed. We see this, for example, in the ongoing conflict in Sudan, or in countries in the Lake Chad Basin that have been impacted by violent extremism, where people are forced out of their homes and seek refuge elsewhere.
Where do most of these people go? Again, they go to their neighboring countries. So countries like Uganda and Ethiopia host way more refugees than several European countries combined. Ethiopia, for example, that has its own internal conflict, has to deal with refugee flows coming from South Sudan and Sudan, as well as Somalia. Neighboring Kenya, likewise, has a number of refugees, including from Ethiopia. And this is the case also for Uganda.
But this is not unique to the Horn of Africa. In Southern Africa, we find countries like South Africa, Zambia hosting a number of refugees coming from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, from Burundi. Why am I going through the range of countries that are dealing with refugee flows, precisely because they have had to deal with hosting refugees with far less resources, with far less infrastructure to do so, and having essentially to make a plan if I can be blunt.
So when, for example, Europe's policy position is to say, we are overwhelmed by the number of refugees, my immediate response is always just on the numbers alone before you go into the very specifics of individuals' conditions, just on the numbers alone. Countries like Uganda, like Ethiopia, are hosting more refugees.
And they're having to process asylum seekers much quicker in order for them to be able to ensure that the kinds of tensions that we see between host communities and those that they are receiving do not flare up. What does this mean? I'll use one example. It means that in Uganda, for example, in addition to their refugee reception, they also allow asylum seekers and those that have been granted refugee status to farm.
They allow them to be able to do economic activity, because if they didn't, it would be on the Ugandan government or on UN refugee agency to be able to provide that economic support. So by ensuring that people work, this contestation to say refugees or migrants come here and they impact our services gets limited because these are people that are in fact doing economic activity.
While pending their asylum processing, but then once they get their refugee status and the requisite documentation, they are able then to do so further afield within those countries as well. So this is, for example, a lesson that Europe could learn, no, in the sense of often it's very difficult for those who arrive to Europe to work, even if they want to. But it's just this step, it's even when they're seeking for asylum. So there's three lessons.
The one lesson is around recognizing that people that are forcibly displaced in 2024 are very different from the people that were forcibly displaced in, for example, 1950, when the UN Convention on Refugees was adopted. You're looking at different categories of people, some of them professionals, who ideally would have wanted to stay home but couldn't. So allowing access to the market is part of it. The second is an integration issue.
It's people going into communities where they might not necessarily be of the same culture or custom and having to be able to adjust within that space. The third lesson is perhaps the hardest lesson for Europe, which is that, yes, border countries will be the ones that receive the people on entry. This means, for example, South Sudanese will likely go to Uganda first, because this is a neighboring country, likewise towards Ethiopia.
But in the spirit of burden sharing, if I can use that phrasing, it is not only for Uganda and Ethiopia to host South Sudanese refugees. So you find South Sudanese refugees being hosted in countries as far afield as Zambia and South Africa as well. So the lesson there is, yes, there will be countries by proximity where people will be able to enter first. However, if they are the only countries who bear the responsibility of hosting, this can really be a strain on their own services.
So those countries further afield that may not share a border with the countries where people are fleeing from can also be able to balance this out. This is consistent with the refugee convention. It's consistent with the global refugee framework as well. And I think that is part of the conversation that still needs to be had.
And I know this is a difficult conversation not only for Europe, but even on the African continent, because African countries also say, but how can we be assisted to be able to better deal with the influx of people coming into our countries? And the lesson that Europe can learn is with far fewer resources, far less developed infrastructure, other countries are doing it. Thank you.
I also want to ask you about the narrative, because currently the European political debate unfortunately is dominated by this toxic, very negative narrative around migration, sometimes based completely on this information or even lies. In the best case scenario, focusing only on the negative aspects of migration, so the challenging aspects, which of course they are, but there is much more.
So I want to know what is your perception from as an external viewer, let's say, since you're based in South Africa of these developments and the rise of the far right and this toxic narrative, which is getting more and more popular. So there's a global wave shifting towards the right or even towards the far right, which in many ways is quite unfortunate. Why does migration find itself in the storm? It's because migration is something you can put a face to.
You can attribute migration to people on the move. So what is at the center of the discussion is really to criminalize the people that are on the move over migration itself as a concept, because people can then say, if it weren't for the migrants, I would have a job.
If it weren't for the migrants, I would be able to access a hospital without queuing or my taxes would be better distributed, because you're able to attribute it to an individual or individuals that in your mind can be gotten rid of. So fundamentally, it is a competition for resources. But why does it get popular in communities? It gets popular in communities because a lot of the messaging is around identity.
It's about saying we are a particular group of people, and when we have people coming from other regions, this impact the integrity of our identity. Well, Europe as a continent is a continent that is built on migration. In fact, it's a continent that is built on internal conquest. So before you even go to people from other continents coming into Europe, the way in which statehood has been shaped in Europe has really been based on that as well.
I mean, you only need to look at those countries that do have royal families and their lineages to find, for example, that you can have a king and queen of the United Kingdom of Danish and Greek origin, or you can have in Spain likewise. But I'm not saying this to say this is a bad thing. I'm saying there has to be a recognition that a lot of the ways in which states have been built is through movement. How do you counter narratives that are so centered in toxicity?
You look, or rather let me rephrase, you leverage the benefits. When you actually look, when you do a cost-benefit analysis, if you can do it in that way, you find that a lot of the benefits of migration far outweigh the risks. I have to stress there are risks. But if you're able to effectively manage the benefits, you can then be able to address some of the risks following the right process.
If the risk is criminality, you address criminality regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator. Because unfortunately, whether a crime is perpetrated by someone from the Middle East or someone from Western Europe, what you need to deal with is the criminality itself over the individual. Then you can be able to actually identify what are your key challenges. Let's say it's crime, it's violence, or it's access to resources. You address those issues.
On the positive side, you look at how migrants have been integral in the construction of cities. And I'm literally talking here about two forms of construction. Literally the bricklaying that has built cities, but also in the way in which cities have taken shape. Some of the more vibrant cities on the European continent are cities that would not be as vibrant, but for forms of migration. We're having this conversation in Brussels, for example.
You need to go to Paris or London or even smaller cities like Luxembourg, where you find that the industries, be it banking, be it in education, be it in arts and industry, are industries that actually rely a lot on skills from elsewhere, while also leveraging the skills back at home or in country. So it can be counted, but I won't lie and say it's easy. It's quite a difficult task to be able to say to someone.
look to the bright side, particularly if that is someone who is directly impacted or if it's something that is affecting their community. But there are so many glimmers of hope in the way in which we've been able to shape the world, not just Europe, mind, but the world through migration and through people on the move.
So if I'm getting it right, the strategy from the left and the progressives should be to try to impose a different kind of narrative based on the benefits on the bright side, as you were saying. And it is an inclusive conversation. It is a conversation that recognizing that there is so much more that we can gain in diversity than in adversity. Sorry, I'm using words that have the same set of letters. Yeah. For for but really that is part of it.
But it's also it's to put it simply, it's show and tell because it's very easy, right, on the on the other side of the argument to be able to use one scapegoat to use that as the basis on which your narrative is shaped on the progressive side. It's not just you and I are talking now, but it goes beyond you and I talking and it is about demonstrating what this really looks like in real terms on our streets, whether in the cities or even in rural areas, what benefit comes with migration.
And some of it can just be as simple as having a paella in Brussels that you otherwise wouldn't have if Spanish people had not moved towards this this beautiful city. And besides the stressing the benefits, should we because I feel tempted to repeat over and over, but I don't know if I'm being too pragmatic here that we do need migration in Europe. To meet our demographic and our economic labor market challenges because Europe's population is aging.
So I find that this is maybe the first argument when trying to convince someone who is in the completely opposite side, not seeing migrants as a threat. So I feel tempted to say, OK, like we have to hammer over this over and over that we do need migration. But you also need to look at the sectors in which we find a lot of those sentiments playing out. So it's you and I can sit here and agree that based on demography alone, Africa is a growing continent.
We have a median age of 19, for example, Europe on the other hand is an aging continent over 40 as the median age across most of Western Europe. That does not necessarily counter the argument of a farmer who, in fact, is still farming and has to do so through retirement because they do not have any other means of production or to earn an income. The point I'm making here is you can have that higher level exchange around what does Europe as a continent need.
But migration or the debate around migration is very much one and lost in the personal right. So the biggest statistics matter for the way in which we analyze the dynamics, but it is appealing to communities directly that is able to address this. How do you deal with, for example, the need for skilled technicians if you simply do not have them because they are aging out where you are? When you address that problem by saying, actually, we're just going to import people, right?
It becomes a conversation that suggests that whether it's Africans or Asians are only here for their labor. So if you then see an African, I don't know, having a drink on a Tuesday afternoon and not in the office, suddenly someone will say, no, no, no, but you're supposed to come here and you're supposed to be working. You're supposed to be building a road. And that creates another point at which this discourse can be toxic.
So yes, balance the very real need for Europe to be able to have people that work in particular sectors as needed. But also respond to the very human face of this discourse. A lot of the communities in which we see these tensions are communities that do not have. These are communities themselves that rely on the state for services, social or otherwise.
So it's not going to be an easy while we're bringing in people for labor when you're talking to people who may say, but I'm the one who wants to work. For example, so you have to balance it out. You have to look both on the pragmatic side, as you say, but you also have to recognize that you are effectively dealing with very human arguments about whether it's their way of life, whether it's questions of integration.
But like I say, it's very important to not take the human out of this conversation, because fundamentally the thing that steers the migration debate is the fact that people can put a face to it. So going back to the example of the European farmer that you were mentioning, what would be the narrative in this case or the argument to try to convince with this human point of view that you were saying?
Look, we've seen, for example, in the north of Italy, incidentally, that a lot of farming communities, particularly those that are farming tomatoes, really do need that additional labor within their farms. So the farms are not being taken away from them. And I think that is where the discourse gets a little bit messy, because people assume that an entry of new people means this is being deprived of me.
It is to show and tell, basically, what happens when your farm is more productive as a result of having more people as part of your as part of your team. And a lot of them get it, let me be honest. But the thing with populism or the thing with with populist rhetoric, it's is very easy to catch on. And it often spreads quite quickly. It's only when you then stop and observe around you that you realize maybe it wasn't completely accurate.
A good but perhaps a difficult exchange to have when I'm in Brussels is what happened with Brexit, where populism really informed a lot of people's decisions on whether to vote for the UK to leave Europe. Currently, the new UK administration is engaging in bilateral exchanges with European countries, but also with an EU to find a pragmatic way in which the UK is not in the EU, but really is in the EU.
Because a lot of the hurdles that they have faced as a result of Brexit are hurdles that can really only be solved by realigning in different ways with their immediate neighbor to the south. Yeah, Brexit is a good example. Indeed, we could be talking about Brexit for hours, but now let's let's stay with our topic. I wanted to. But do you think there is lack of courage among the progressives of people who are in favor of migration to say they need migration or the benefit of migration?
Is it that or fear that many more may come as some claim? I don't think so. I mean, the kinds of conversations and maybe let me take us back to the Progressive Migration Group that I'm part of, which includes African and European experts. A lot of the tough and very clear language around instruments that are ultimately not conducive, even to Europe's development, are coming from our European counterparts. And I think it's not so much courage that is lacking.
But I think it's also sometimes when you look at how the new pact ended up being adopted, it's sometimes putting your hands up and saying, OK, we've had this conversation over and over again. What can we settle on? What can we agree on? And I think less it's less about the courage and more about the conviction.
Right. And I think within the broad church, if I can call it that way of the Progressive Group, you do find some people who see arguments one way or the other and are trying to balance, obviously, their own interests, but more broadly, how these align with principles that inform their engagement.
And I would say whether it's at the European Parliament, whether it's at commission level or whether it's at national level, it is really in these communities where we need to be hearing those voices a lot louder. So it's not that they're not saying it. It is to say sometimes, because the other side can be a little bit louder sometimes, that that actually impacts people's decision making. Thank you. And going back slightly to the new pact.
In your policy review and also in the recommendations by the Progressive Migration Group, you speak about the fact that the development aspect is not being taken into consideration or is not sufficiently exploited. What for those who are not that familiar with this topic, what do you mean by that? If you could explain, please. Right. So I come from Africa. Africa is a developing continent. It's a continent that is still essentially being built.
Yes, we've got sprawling cities, but we also have a very real need for better infrastructure within the built environment, but also telecommunications and also greater access to electricity, for example. And what we are seeing, at least for the African continent and equally the message from the EU and engaging with the EU is that migration bears a lot of potential for improved development, not only of the African continent, but also of Europe.
It's a question around better trade, better integration of communities, and the ability then to be able to efficiently and equitably exploit existing resources. Now, much of the conversation around migration has focused more on the security aspect. But this security aspect, which is as important perhaps, often then overshadows the need to be able to actually stimulate greater mobility for development.
Short answer then is when you look at how the Schengen zone or the European economic community has been beneficial to how Europe has been able to develop itself, including countries of different economic levels, right? That is precisely what I'm saying, that for Africa likewise, the kind of system and process that exists within the European community would also be very beneficial to Africa's development.
And if Africa is more developed, it's less likely that people would leave and seek to take very dangerous journeys to make a better living en Sué, because a better living will be at home. Thank you, that's quite clear. We are arriving to the end, but I wanted to ask you if this toxic narrative that we were mentioning a while ago continues, is there a risk that at some point Africans prefer to go somewhere else in the world, not Europe, because they don't feel welcome?
We're already seeing it, right? So those that want to move through regular channels at the moment, the barriers to entry keep getting higher, even just to visit. When you look at the Schengen zone's rejection rate for visas and the amount of money that is made because whether you get your visa or don't, you don't get reimbursed, right? So the amount of money that people are spending for Schengen visas is such that those that are able to afford those visas would look elsewhere.
We're seeing an increase of Africans going towards the Gulf countries, particularly in the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We're also seeing people going further Eastern Asia as well. And we're seeing people exploring channels to go towards the Americas, because those that do want to move will. But if they see that they're not able to do so in ways that are more efficient going towards Europe, they're going to explore other options, which brings us back to a question you asked earlier.
What does this mean for Europe when Europe needs actually people to come to Europe, not only for labor purposes, but for trade, for business? To be able to actually purchase a lot of the goods in Europe, what happens if all those people decide, actually, I'm going to take this elsewhere. This is going to have an impact on the growth of the European economy. And we are already seeing this.
And I think part of the part of the conversation that needs to be had is if you are going to have legal pathways for people to access Europe, then you must make sure that those barriers are not so high that people then those that have the means to then make a decision. Do I want to apply for a visa to live in Europe or can I get a visa to live in the UAE? And we're seeing more people shifting towards the East and not towards the North. Thank you. And the very last question.
And now it's, I promise, is the end. Is not on migration because you, besides being member of the Progressive Migration Group, you're also a member of the Feminist Foreign Policy Progressive Voices Collective, also by FEPPS and the FES, you're part of this expert network. So if you can briefly explain for those again who are not that familiar with the topic, what is the feminist foreign policy and what is the added value it brings. Right.
So fundamentally, a feminist foreign policy is about inclusivity. It's about recognizing that people, everyone needs to be on an equal footing.
The reason it is framed as a feminist foreign policy is because we've seen that foreign policies have often ignored the very particular dynamics or issues affecting women, whether it's issues related to sexual and gender based violence, whether it's inclusion in political decision making, or even on the very direct impact, for example, of climate change on women led households.
So a feminist foreign policy recognizes these very specific gender dynamics, but with a vision that ultimately you have an inclusive approach to the way in which you deal with foreign policy. You're also awake to the very real realities of women in the world. And let's be frank, women, girls account for 51% of the world's population. So any country, any space that doesn't have a feminist or inclusive foreign policy is really developing a foreign policy only for 49% of their people.
Thank you. That was an excellent way to conclude this interview. Many thanks for your time. And for those who have arrived until the end, follow FEPS Talks podcast in Spotify, YouTube, other podcasts and media platforms. And thanks for listening or watching us. Thank you. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) you