The EU’s art of keeping people on the move as far away from Europe as possible while keeping legal responsibility at arm’s length. Officially described as partnerships with third countries to manage migration; unofficially, paying others to do Europe’s border control. 

Features include: 

• Borders relocated far beyond EU territory  
• Development aid replaced by migration enforcement funding  
• Legal accountability outsourced, democratic oversight lost   
• Human rights concerns acknowledged… then delegated 

Example: 

“The EU insisted it wasn’t closing its doors—it was simply building the capacity of neighbouring countries to improve migration management.” 

Translation: 

“The EU signed a new migration agreement, while reports of arbitrary detention and human rights abuses in the partner country piled up.”

When development cooperation is transformed from a tool for poverty reduction into a reward – or punishment – programme for migration control. Officially, aid and partnerships should support shared objectives. Unofficially, cooperation is increasingly measured by how quickly a government agrees to take back deported nationals and militarise its borders.  

Features include: 

• Threats of cutting aid rebranded as “policy incentives”  
• Aid budgets repurposed persuasion tools to promote migration control  
• Partner countries free to choose their own policies, provided they choose the ones Europe wants 
• High risk of deportations and human rights violations  

Example: 

“The country was encouraged to strengthen cooperation on returns in order to deepen its partnership with the EU.” 

Translation: 

“Nice development programme you’ve got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it… but surely nothing will, so long as you reduce migration to the EU”