Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T21:38:36.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Externalising migration control in Niger: the humanitarian–security nexus and the International Organization for Migration (IOM)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2023

Fabio de Blasis  and
Silvia Pitzalis Open the ORCID record for Silvia Pitzalis [Opens in a new window]
Fabio de Blasis*
Affiliation:
University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, Italy
Silvia Pitzalis*
Affiliation:
University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, Italy
*
Email: fabio.deblasis@uniurb.it
Email: silvia.pitzalis@uniurb.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article investigates the role of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in the global migration regime against the backdrop of the European Union (EU) border externalisation process in Niger. Over the last few years, UN agencies have been considered an essential component of the EU strategy to prevent irregular migrants from reaching Europe. Drawing on qualitative research and ethnographic fieldwork, combining empirical observation with critical analysis, we explore the ‘humanitarian–security nexus’ by focusing on the IOM's ‘humanitarian borderwork’ under the financial umbrella of the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (ETFA). While the results of purely securitarian measures in Niger may have been ‘disappointing’, the outsourcing of migration management through IOM balances the interests of the Nigerien government and the EU. By focusing on IOM humanitarian operations and assisted voluntary returns and reintegration (AVRR) programmes, the article shows the further expansion of European humanitarian borders into the heart of the Sahel, highlighting new interdiction practices, hidden forms of deportation, side effects and contestation from below.

Keywords

Nigerborder regimeAssisted Voluntary Return and ReintegrationIOMirregular migration
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Modern African Studies , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 2023 , pp. 367 - 387
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The contribution was conceived and written in close collaboration between the two authors. However, it is possible to attribute the introduction, the second and sixth sections to Silvia Pitzalis and the third, fourth, fifth sections and the conclusions to Fabio De Blasis.

References

REFERENCES

Agier, M. 2008. Gérer les indésirables: des camps de réfugiés au gouvernement humanitaire. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Ahouga, Y. 2017. ‘The local turn in migration management: the IOM and the engagement of local authorities’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44, 9: 1523–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al Tamimi, Y., Cuttitta, P. & Last, T.. 2020. ‘The IOM's Missing Migrants Project: The Global Authority on Border Deaths, in Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A., eds. The International Organization for Migration: the new “UN Migration Agency” in critical perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, R. 2017. ‘Rescued and caught: the humanitarian-security nexus at Europe's frontiers’, in De Genova, N., ed. The Borders of ‘Europe’. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 64–94.Google Scholar
Andrijasevic, R. & Walters, W.. 2010. ‘The International Organization for Migration and the International Government of Borders’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28, 6: 977–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashutosh, I. & Mountz, A.. 2011. ‘Migration management for the benefit of whom? Interrogating the work of the International Organization for Migration’, Citizenship Studies 15, 1: 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, I. 2017. ‘“We must do it gently”: the contested implementation of IOM's migration management in Morocco’, Migration Studies 5, 3: 315–36.10.1093/migration/mnx054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, I. 2018. ‘Practices and power of knowledge dissemination: international organizations in the externalization of migration management in Morocco and Tunisia’, Movements 4, 1: 47–66.Google Scholar
Blitz, B.K., Sales, R. & Marzano, L.. 2005. ‘Non-voluntary return? The politics of return to Afghanistan’, Political Studies 53, 1: 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bøås, M. 2020. ‘EU migration management in the Sahel: unintended consequences on the ground in Niger?, Third World Quarterly 42: 52–67.10.1080/01436597.2020.1784002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, F., Bachirou, A.T. & Mounkaila, H.. 2020. ‘L'externalisation des politiques migratoires au Niger: une action publique opportuniste?’, Anthropologie & Développement 51: 103–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brachet, J. 2016. ‘Policing the desert: the IOM in Libya beyond war and peace’, Antipode 48, 2: 272–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brachet, J. 2018. ‘Manufacturing smugglers: from irregular to clandestine mobility in the Sahara’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 676, 1: 16–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. 2020. The International Organization for Migration: challenges, commitments, complexities. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315744896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caillault, C. 2012. ‘The implementation of coherent migration management through IOM programs in Morocco’, in Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A., eds. The New Politics of International Mobility. Osnabrück: IMIS-Beiträge, 133–56.Google Scholar
Cassarino, J.-P. 2018. ‘Beyond the criminalisation of migration: a non-western perspective’, International Journal of Migration and Border Studies 4, 4: 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappart, P. 2009. ‘L'artifice du ‘retour volontaire’, Plein droit 2, 81: 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleton, L. & Chauvin, S.. 2019. ‘Performing freedom in the Dutch deportation regime: bureaucratic persuasion and the enforcement of “voluntary return”’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46, 1: 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleton, L. & Schweitzer, R.. 2021. ‘“Our aim is to assist migrants in making a well-informed decision”: how return counsellors in Austria and the Netherlands manage the aspirations of unwanted non-citizens’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 47, 17: 3846–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collyer, M. 2012. ‘Deportation and the micropolitics of exclusion: the rise of removals from the UK to Sri Lanka’, Geopolitics 17, 2: 276–92.10.1080/14650045.2011.562940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuttitta, P. 2018. ‘Delocalization, humanitarianism and human rights: the Mediterranean border between exclusion and inclusion’, Antipode 50, 3: 783–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuttitta, P. 2020. ‘Non-governmental/civil society organisations and the European Union – externalisation of migration management in Tunisia and Egypt’, Population, Space and Place 26: e2329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Genova, N. 2002. ‘Migrant “illegality” and deportability in everyday-life’, Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 419–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Genova, N. 2013. ‘Spectacles of migrant “illegality”: the scene of exclusion, the obscene of inclusion’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 36, 7: 1180–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Genova, N., ed. 2017. The Borders of “Europe”: autonomy of migration, tactics of bordering. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Haas, H. 2008. ‘The myth of invasion: the inconvenient realities of African migration to Europe’, Third World Quarterly 29, 7: 1305–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Hertog, L. 2017. ‘Implementers? The role of international organisations in EU funding for external migration policy’, Journal of Regional Security 12, 1: 5–26.Google Scholar
Dini, S. 2018. ‘Migration management, capacity building and the sovereignty of an African State: IOM in Djibouti’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44, 10: 1691–1705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducasse-Rogier, M. 2002. ‘The International Organization for Migration, 1951–2001.’ Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
Dünnwald, S. 2013. ‘Voluntary return: the practical failure of a benevolent concept’, in Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A., eds. Disciplining the Transnational Mobility of People. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 228–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdal, M. & Oeppen, C.. 2018. ‘Forced to leave? The discursive and analytical significance of describing migration as forced and voluntary’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44, 6: 981–98.10.1080/1369183X.2017.1384149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falaschi, V. 2016. AGAMI – Agadez Migration Project. Final Evaluation. Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
Fassin, D. 2010. La raison humanitaire: une histoire morale du temps present. Paris: Gallimard-Seuil.Google Scholar
Fine, S. 2018. ‘Liaisons, labeling and laws: International Organization for Migration bordercratic interventions in Turkey’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44, 10: 1743–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, S. & Walters, W.. 2021. ‘No place like home? The International Organization for Migration and the new political imaginary of deportation’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48, 13: 3060–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frowd, P.M. 2018. ‘Developmental borderwork and the International Organization for Migration’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44, 10: 1656–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frowd, P.M. 2020. ‘Producing the ‘transit’ migration state: international security intervention in Niger’, Third World Quarterly 41, 2: 340–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frowd, P.M. 2022. ‘Borderwork creep in West Africa's Sahel’, Geopolitics 27, 5: 1331–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaibazzi, P., Bellagamba, A. & Dünnwald, S., eds. 2017. EurAfrican Borders and Migration Management. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-349-94972-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiger, M. 2008. ‘Les organisations intergouvemementales et la gouvernance des flux migratoires’, Hommes et Migrations 1272, 1: 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A.. 2014. ‘International organisations and the politics of migration’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40, 6: 865–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A., eds. 2020. The International Organization for Migration: the new ‘UN Migration Agency’ in critical perspective. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgi, F. 2010. ‘For the benefit of some: the International Organization for Migration and its global migration management’, in Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A., eds. The Politics of International Migration Management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgi, F. & Schatral, S. 2012. ‘Towards a critical theory of migration control: the case of the International Organization for Migration (IOM)’, in Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A., eds. The New Politics of International Mobility. Osnabrück: Special journal issue ‘IMIS Beiträge’, 193–221.Google Scholar
Glick Schiller, N. & Salazar, N.. 2013. ‘Regime of mobility across the globe’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 39, 2: 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, C. 2014. ‘Perception management-deterring potential migrants through information campaigns’, Global Media and Communication 10, 3: 303–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Organization for Migration (IOM). 2017. ‘Niger 2016 Migrant Profiling Report.’ Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
International Organization for Migration (IOM). 2020. ‘Migration trends from, to and within the Niger, 2016–2019.’ Niamey: IOM.Google Scholar
International Organization for Migration (IOM). 2021. ‘Monthly results: Niger. Issue: April 2021’. Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
Jegen, L. 2020. The Political Economy of Migration Governance in Niger. Freiburg: Arnold-Bergstraesser Institute (ABI).Google Scholar
Kalir, B. 2017. ‘Between “voluntary” return programs and soft deportation: sending vulnerable migrants in Spain back “home”’, in Vathi, Z. & King, R., eds. Return Migration and Psychosocial Wellbeing. London: Routledge, 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalir, B. & Wissink, L.. 2015. ‘The deportation continuum: convergences between state agents and NGO workers in the Dutch deportation field’, Citizenship Studies 20, 1: 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluczewska, K. 2020. ‘Knowledge production at the IOM: looking for local knowledge in Tajikistan’, in Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A., eds. The International Organization for Migration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 173–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, A. 2014. ‘The politics and discourse of migrant return: the role of UNHCR and IOM in the governance of return’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40, 6: 905–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korneev, O. 2014. ‘Exchanging knowledge, enhancing capacities, developing mechanisms: IOM's role in the implementation of the EU-Russia readmission agreement’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40, 6: 888–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavenex, S. 2016. ‘Multilevelling EU external governance: the role of international organizations in the diffusion of EU migration policies’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42, 4: 554–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecadet, C. 2020. ‘The IOM's crisis management and the expulsion of Ethiopians from Saudi Arabia’, in Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A., eds. The International Organization for Migration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 271–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leerkes, A., Van Os, R. & Boersema, E.. 2016. ‘What drives “soft deportation”? Understanding the rise in assisted voluntary return among rejected asylum seekers in the Netherlands’, Population, Space and Place 23, 8: 1–11.Google Scholar
Lietaert, I., Broekaert, E. & Derluyn, I.. 2017. ‘From social instrument to migration management tool: assisted voluntary return programmes – the case of Belgium’, Social Policy & Administration 51, 7: 961–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maâ, A. 2020. ‘Manufacturing collaboration in the deportation field: intermediation and the institutionalisation of the International Organisation for Migration's “voluntary return” programmes in Morocco’, Journal of North African Studies 26, 5: 932–53.10.1080/13629387.2020.1800210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miramond, E. 2020. ‘Humanitarian detention and deportation: the IOM and anti-trafficking in Laos’, in Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A., eds. The International Organization for Migration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 245–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Missbach, A. & Phillips, M.. 2020. ‘Reconceptualizing transit states in an era of outsourcing, offshoring, and obfuscation’, Migration and Society 3, 1: 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, F. 2017. Irregular Migration and Human Smuggling Networks in Niger. The Hague: The Clingendael Institute.Google Scholar
Moreno-Lax, V. 2018. ‘The EU humanitarian border and the securitization of human rights: the ‘rescue-through-interdiction/rescue-without-protection’ paradigm’, Journal of Common Market Studies 56, 1: 119–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moretti, S. 2020. ‘Transit migration in Niger stemming the flows of migrants, but at what cost?’. Migration and Society 3, 1: 80–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallister-Wilkins, P. 2015. ‘The humanitarian politics of European border policing: Frontex and border police in Evros’, International Political Sociology 9, 1: 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallister-Wilkins, P. 2017a. ‘Humanitarian rescue/sovereign capture and the policing of possible responses to violent borders’, Global Policy 8, S1: 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallister-Wilkins, P. 2017b. ‘Humanitarian borderwork’, in Günay, C. & Witjes, N., eds. Border Politics. Cham: Springer, 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pécoud, A. 2010. ‘Informing migrants to manage migration? An analysis of IOM's information campaigns’, in Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A., eds. The Politics of International Migration Management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 184–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pécoud, A. 2017. ‘De la “gestion” au contrôle des migrations? Discours et pratiques de l'Organisation internationale pour les migrations’, Critique international 76, 3: 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pécoud, A. 2018. ‘What do we know about the International Organization for Migration?’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44, 10: 1621–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pécoud, A. 2020. ‘Introduction: The International Organization for Migration as the New ‘“UN Migration Agency”’, in Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A., eds. The International Organization for Migration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–27.Google Scholar
Raineri, L. 2018. ‘Human smuggling across Niger: state-sponsored protection rackets and contradictory security imperatives’, Journal of Modern African Studies 56, 1: 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salazar, N.B. 2011. ‘The power of imagination in transnational mobilities’, Identities 18, 6: 576–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalettaris, G. & Gubert, F.. 2018. ‘Return schemes from European Countries: assessing the challenges’, International Migration 57, 4: 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schapendonk, J. 2017. ‘The multiplicity of transit: the waiting and onward mobility of African migrants in the European Union’, Migration and Border Studies 3, 2/3: 208–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schapendonk, J. 2020. Finding Ways Through Eurospace: West African movers re-viewing Europe from the inside. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinti, P. & Westcott, T.. 2016. ‘The Niger–Libya corridor: smugglers’ perspectives’. Institute for Security Studies: ISS Paper 299.Google Scholar
Tubiana, J., Warin, C. & G.Saeneen, M.. 2018. Multilateral Damage: the impact of EU migration policies on central Saharan routes. The Hague: The Clingendael Institute.Google Scholar
Van Dessel, J. 2019. ‘International delegation and agency in the externalization process of EU migration and asylum policy: the role of the IOM and the UNHCR in Niger’, European Journal of Migration and Law 21, 4: 435–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dessel, J. 2021. ‘Externalization through ‘awareness-raising’: the border spectacle of EU migration information campaigns in Niger’. Territory, Politics, Governance <https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2021.1974535>.CrossRef.>Google Scholar
Vandevoordt, R. 2016. ‘Between humanitarian assistance and migration management: on civil actors’ role in voluntary return from Belgium’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43, 11: 1907–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan-Williams, N. 2015. ‘“We are not animals!” Humanitarian border security and zoopolitical spaces in Europe’, Political Geography 45: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verdirame, G. & Harrell-Bond, B.E.. 2005. Rights in Exile: Janus-faced humanitarianism. Oxford: Berghahn Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, W. 2011. ‘Foucault and frontiers: notes on the birth of the humanitarian border’, in Bröckling, U., Krasmann, S. & Lemke, T., eds. Governmentality. New York, NY: Routledge, 138–64.Google Scholar
Webber, F. 2011. ‘How voluntary are voluntary returns?’, Race and Class 52, 4: 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D. 2012. ‘Europeanization through the grapevine: communication gaps and the role of international organizations in implementation networks of EU external migration policy’, Journal of European Integration 34, 5: 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zandonini, G. 2020. ‘Biometrics: the new frontier of EU migration policy in Niger.’ Available at <https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2019/06/06/biometrics-new-frontier-eu-migration-policy-niger>, accessed 21 February 2022.,+accessed+21+February+2022.>Google Scholar
Zardo, F. 2020. ‘The EU Trust Fund for Africa: geopolitical space making through migration policy instruments’, Geopolitics 27, 2: 584–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar