Article: Border Externalisation

Border Externalisation and the dodgy deals of Fortress Europe

In the article on Global Apartheid we have already touched upon the ways in which Europe maintains global inequality by controlling movement of people globally through passport systems. The effectiveness of passports is strengthened through border externalisation. It’s no secret that Western countries spend billions of euros and dollars to constrain migration flows of what they consider to be ‘undesirable migrants’ – particularly people from the Global South who decide to seek chances in the Global North.  For countries within the European Union, this predominantly means spending buckets of (EU taxpayer) money to fund border externalisation tactics and policies. And what, exactly, are ‘border externalisation’ tactics and policies? 

In broad terms, border externalisation concerns a series of EU policies that centre around the shifting, outsourcing, and selling of control over borders and migration to non-EU states,  private companies, and international organisations operating outside of EU territory in order to stop people setting foot inside EU territory. In other words, through these border externalisation deals, the EU is paying states to stop freedom of movement as far as the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa.  externalisation policies characteristically maintain the segregation of Global Apartheid by stopping and controlling migration well out of sight and far away from EU countries’ actual physical borders, while economically benefiting the Global North. 

One way in which borders are externalised is through outsourcing the task to private companies. For example, from the 1980s onwards it was no longer possible for people to travel to countries without first providing a specific document or visa. Contracts with carrier companies (like airlines, bus, train, and ferry companies) were made, laying out that if they failed to enforce this policy and let a person travel who did not have the right documents, they would be sanctioned, no longer able to operate services into destination countries as easily, and their businesses hurt. This is very effective for the EU: carrier companies play by these rules to avoid financial costs or penalties to their operations. 

The most striking example of border externalisation is the EU’s trend of entering into dodgy deals with non-EU countries.

What are these third country EU deals, and why are they so dodgy?      

As the visa regime blocks safe and legal ways of travel into the EU for people from the Global South, those wanting or needing to travel to the EU have little choice but to migrate through alternative pathways. Through entering into deals with non-EU countries that are located near the EU, or through which there are busy movement routes, the EU is essentially paying for those non-EU countries to physically prevent, dangerously push back as well as forcibly detain people on the move so that they don’t take or complete their irregular journeys into the EU. As well as dragging other countries into the EU’s violent policies, this also destroys freedom of movement within countries/regions, even when that movement has nothing to do with the EU. 

One example is the EU’s 2017 deal with Libya, through which the EU funded the so-called Libyan Coast Guard to intercept people coming to Europe via the Mediterranean. This means they circumvent the rule of non-refoulement by pushing boats back before people have even reached the physical border. Despite mounting evidence of  people on the move being tortured and beaten in detention camps and prisons after being intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard, and the UN’s finding that crimes against humanity were occuring, the EU continues to send money to Libya year after year. In 2023, the EU also paid 100 million euros to Tunisia to stop African migrants coming to the EU, despite clear evidence of state-warranted racism and violence against migrants in Tunisia, where reports had been made of  EU-bound migrants being driven out to the desert and beaten, left there to die.  

Despite preaching human rights and justice, the EU often ignores blatant human rights violations to make these deals, and ignores the consequences to rights and life that they cause. Consider the case of Morocco: despite widely reported persecution of LGBTQIA+ people and considerable evidence of inhumane conditions faced by migrants in detention facilities, in May 2021 the EU (Spain) paid Morocco 330 million euros to ‘combat irregular migration’ and fortify the border, and is due to send another 500 million euros to Morocco by 2027. And let’s not forget the infamous 2016 EU-Turkey deal, where the EU paid a whopping 6 billion euros to Turkey for it to do the dirty work of controlling undesirable migration into Greece. And now, the EU’s new Migration and Asylum pact reinforces the EU’s reliance on states beyond its borders to manage migration, stepping into further deals with Albania, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey. 

Beyond deals with neighbouring countries, the EU expands control to countries far outside. The EU Trust Fund for Africa of 2015 is a good example of this, wherein numerous African countries were integrated in the externalisation of the EU border through linking  migration control requirements  to development aid and participation in trade agreements. Additionally, surveillance systems such as EUROSUR, which were originally operating in maritime border zones, are now employed in African countries to track movement - showing the EU is interfering in states globally to enforce its own border regime.

All these deals and fundings mean that EU troops, arms, and money are spread across of North Africa, which you can see in the map below:



And yet, the EU constantly escapes accountability for the human rights abuses, and crimes against humanity, that come out of its global externalisation policies. Establishing EU accountability is extremely difficult as the human rights abuses happen outside EU territory – and this is another key reason why externalisation policies are so well loved by the EU. It is incredibly difficult to hold the EU or member states accountable for this, and difficult to attribute responsibility when many different parties are involved. Externalisation is thus perceived as more effective than for example fortification or deportation, because the EU can be held responsible for those  Externalisation deals are shady, shameful, and substantively against the human rights that the EU pretends to represent. 

Despite the EU’s attempts to avoid legal responsibility, those looking can see these deals make the EU orchestrators of human rights abuses. The EU exercises effective control outside its own territory in countries with which they make deals, and it is therefore co-responsible for the harms that take place within these non-EU spaces. By maintaining externalisation policies, the EU resorts to violent structures to maintain their own wealth and exacerbate global inequality in a way which benefits them - whilst destroying freedom of movement globally and upholding a system of global apartheid. It also shifts the narrative of border security beyond the sovereign nation-state, and instead transforms it into a European issue rooted in deterrence and frames migrants as a threat to the very idea of Europe.

Further reading

- How Europe externalises migrant detention beyond its shores
- Expanding the Fortress
- EU Border Externalisation and Security Outsourcing: Exploring the Migration Industry in Libya
- A “European” Externalisation Strategy? A Transnational Perspective on Aid, Border Regimes, and the EU Trust Fund for Africa in Morocco

Looking for ways to resist externalisation? 

- Refuse to sit in or board a plane when you suspect a deportation is happening
- Be critical of language such as “smuggling networks”, “tackling illegal migration” etc. - these are often terms used to criminalise migratory routes and to justify meddling in freedom of movement outside of the EU
- Push the legal ways of entry - marry someone for papers, help someone get a VISA, or distract a border guard! It might not change the system but it’s a form of resistance.