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”

Materials that suddenly become “critical” when Europe discovers it needs them for its green and digital transitions. Officially, they are essential inputs for strategic industries and clean technologies. Unofficially, they are the reason development cooperation has taken a sudden and passionate interest in the mining sectors of partner countries.  

Features include: 

• Lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and rare earths upgraded from commodities to geopolitical priorities 
• Resource extraction disguised as a development partnership 
• Local value addition discussed enthusiastically, usually after the extraction contracts 
• Strategic autonomy for Europe, development opportunities for everyone else. 

Example: 

“The EU’s new partnership aims to support sustainable development while ensuring secure access to critical raw materials.” 

Translation: 

“We need your minerals, but this time we’ll call it a win-win”

After private-sector infrastructure projects are already built, the EU uses this “comprehensive framework” to justify them retroactively. Can often appear so holistic that nobody is sure where it starts, where it ends, or what it actually means in practice. Officially, it combines infrastructure investment with regulatory reforms, capacity-building, skills development, democratic values, gender equality, sustainability, transparency, and pretty much every other positive concept available in EU policy documents. 

Features include: 

• Infrastructure financing bundled with a complimentary package of policy advice  
• A convenient mechanism for attaching EU values to private-sector investment projects 
• Several mentions to “enabling environments”. You’d think it means democratic and civic space, but it refers to “soft” investments to attract the private sector. 

Example:
” First we build the railway, then design the framework to prove it was the right investment all along” 

Translation:
“This project made us money, so we pursued it. Now we need to come up with reasons why it was a good idea”