Konferenzbericht (PDF-Dokument, 3 MB) - SID

Wissen wandert
There is a need for migration – in African countries – to
be mainstreamed within the development pro-cess and
not only seen and treated as a security concern. In this
respect there are some positive movements. For in-
stance, in recent years the majority of African countries
(with Senegal and Cape Verde as the first two) have
integrated migration into their development strategies
through their Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.
Nonetheless, there still is room for a proper political
agenda on migration in many countries that is counter-
balanced by the requisite political awareness on the
importance of migration for development. Even though
we see greater political willingness to tackle mobility
questions, this willingness/action seems to be more in
response to European pressure rather than internal
strategic considerations. There are also too many wild
cards that make it difficult to have serious and coherent
policy options – these range from lack of data and statis-
tics on movements, remittances to lackadaisical efforts
to understand why people are moving in the first place.
Perhaps we can also question the number of policy
initiatives that have been developed, some which are
built on what some people would like to believe (such as
skilled professionals will sooner or later return home)
and „package‟ solutions within the circular migration
framework that might ultimately prove to be as risky as
they are controversial. For instance, you have the ac-
cords between Senegal and Spain that allow for a num-
ber of individuals to be given the right to work in Spain
for a limited period of time. These individuals are flown
to Spain on special flights, are for the duration of their
stay lodged by their employers and at the end of the
work period, flown back to Senegal. All this happens
under the control of their Spanish employer. This kind of
treatment opens up many more questions about the
nature of the entire arrangement, the rights of the em-
ployees and their freedom.
The search for a better policy framework to address the
questions (and perceptions) that emerge is a function of
knowledge migrates
the extent to which both Europe and Africa are able to
have (and sustain) a serious and honest conversation on
the problem and seek to address the driving forces that
cause such movements in the first place and not merely
the outcomes of such driving forces. It is also about
African institutions, governments and policy makers
engaging in trying to clarify what is in their own (national)
interests and then build on this in their negotiations with
Europe. Policies that are dictated by the stronger partner
or that are put in place in asymmetrical conditions are
unlikely to succeed and can only be resented by those
who have to implement them and those who are subject
to them. It is also about Europe having a candid conver-
sation with itself to make clear to its public the dynamics
and realities of its own labour markets and demograph-
ics. To the extent that this is successful then policy-
making processes need not be hostage of negative and
exclusionary social dynamics that are the fruit of the
futile politics of „an identity under threat‟. Finally, the
taxonomy and lexicon used needs to be as clear and
unambiguous as possible. Let us not hide behind „migra-
tion and development‟ schemes that are in reality
schemes for the repression of migrant movements and
limiting the freedom of movement of Africans towards
Europe. There is hardly any „development‟ in such
schemes and they will only increase hostility and ulti-
mately undermine relationships between the peoples of
Africa and Europe.
39