Kenan Malik is right that this shameful episode of @MSF being forced to stop its life-saving activities in the Med has hardly been mentioned. However, some caution needed about use of ‘EU’. /1 theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The headline refers to EU ‘obsession’ with migration but the article principally concerns the actions of Italy. ‘The EU’ therefore appears to be a shorthand for ‘European countries’. /2
Of course, most European countries (and all those in and north of the Med) are in the EU or applying to be. But when we use ‘the EU’ in this way, it points to the actions of the institutions in Brussels. /3
The EU does have some law and policy-making power in migration but less than people probably think. Migration is high in the agenda because it has become so dominant in domestic politics of the member states (though not in the same way) and hence to Europe-wide agenda. /4
But we have to have to be careful in delineating actions of states (whether individual or collective) and the EU (meaning the instituons). Why? Because it allows governments and others to shift blame for their own actions. /5
I do not cast the EU institutions as blameless in the pursuit of ‘fortress Europe’: far from it. My current research looks at the emphasis on new instruments of governance that might be effective but which are potentially detrimental to human rights, especially refugees. /6
But I do plead for clarity in what we are talking about. We see a huge misrepresentation of what the EU is when it is automatically conflated with the actions of one or more member states. /7
This is particularly prevalent in the UK but not exclusively. The EU (again, contrary to assumptions) cannot prevent the actions of states in areas where it has limited power: and operations in the Med certainly fall into the crossroads of national, EU and international law. /8
In other words, let us judge the activities and policies of the EU rather than use it as a shorthand for actions of Europe or European states. /END
