Muriam Haleh Davis and Thomas Serres, eds. North Africa and the Making of Europe: Governance, Institutions and Culture (New Texts Out Now)

Muriam Haleh Davis and Thomas Serres, eds. North Africa and the Making of Europe: Governance, Institutions and Culture (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018).

Jadaliyya (J): What made you write this book?

Muriam Haleh Davis (MHD) and Thomas Serres (TS): We were motivated to edit this volume after spending the 2015-2016 academic year at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, which has a strong focus on European politics and integration. As North Africanists, we felt that it was important to think about Europe from its margins, particularly as pressing questions about the past and future of the European Union were being posed by politicians across the region. We therefore organized a series of conferences on “Europe Seen From North Africa,” which brought together scholars from North Africa, Europe, and the United States. The insights and questions raised during those conferences form the basis of this volume.

MHD and TS: 
This volume addresses current debates on the definition of European space as a cultural, economic, political, and geographical unit. While the European Union (EU) presents itself as an area of freedom, security and justice, the vision from the periphery is far less enchanted. Indeed, Europe seems to be facing two, interrelated crises: the rise of Islamophobia (and overt racism in general) as well as a pervasive disillusionment with the technocratic governance that gave rise to the European Union during the interwar period. We wanted to explore how both of these crises have common historical roots by exploring the ways in which a certain conception of Europe—as both a system of governance as well as a cultural identity—emerged out of an intimate relationship with North Africa.

J:  What particular topics, issues, and literatures does the book address?

At the same time, we wanted to go beyond the narrative of colonial legacies and investigate North Africa as a space where new conceptions of Europe are still emerging. The aftermath of the “Arab Spring” and the ongoing migration crisis have prompted new investigations of the Mediterranean space. In 2018, the Mediterranean region encourages exchange and cooperation as much as it fosters exclusion and competition. Consequently, our edited volume explores the construction of Europe as an ideological, political, and economic entity by looking at its past and present relationship with North Africa. In focusing on how European identity and institutions have been fashioned though various interactions with its southern periphery, this volume highlights the role played by Europeans in the Maghreb as well as by North African actors.

While there have been repeated attempts to analyze the continued relevance of the European Union in world affairs, we felt there were a few lacunae in the scholarship. We hope that focusing on North Africa not only provides us with a variety of political and economic contexts, but also decenters the prevailing perspective and offers a fresh optic for understanding the current challenges faced by the EU. We also sought to publish an interdisciplinary volume that would allow for historical analysis to be fruitfully put into conversation with contemporary politics, sociology, and international relations.

Read more

Originally published on Jadaliyya

A message to African and European leaders: ‘More of the same is not good enough’

In a few weeks’ time, African and European leaders will gather in Abidjan for the fifth AU-EU Summit. There are plenty of important issues for them to chew on and yet, the agenda once again stays clear of the potentially controversial topics that divide both continents. ECDPM’s Geert Laporte has a message for them. ‘We need to break the silence and the aversion to take risks if we want a stronger partnership’, he says. ‘More of the same just isn’t good enough this time around’.


The upcoming AU-EU Summit takes place at a moment when both continents are dealing with a number of major common challenges. Climate change, demographic pressures, conflicts and increased migrant and refugee flows continue to affect both continents – albeit to a different extent. The Summit also comes at a time when the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) celebrates its tenth anniversary and the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States are preparing for a complex re-negotiation process on their future partnership agreement, to be concluded in 2020.

Plenty of important things to talk about during the Summit, you would think. Unfortunately, the urgency of such topics does not seem to trickle down to the high-level policy makers and their administrations. Both continents stress their great commitment to the partnership, yet avoid to openly address the ‘elephants in the room’, fearing it would spoil the party. By the looks of it, success will again be determined by the number of participating leaders, rather than the quality of the dialogue or concrete outcomes.

Structural imbalances in the partnership

So why it is so difficult to address openly the issues on which both continents have diverging perspectives? Why is there still a deep-rooted mistrust between African and European leaders? And why is it so difficult to build the necessary political traction in the partnership?

To answer those questions, we need to go back to the origins of the postcolonial partnership. Successive Lomé Conventions (1975-2000) and the Cotonou Agreement (2000-2020) between the EU and the ACP Group of States may have been quite innovative in the previous century, but they also kept alive a relationship of dependency.

While policy declarations speak of an equal contractual partnership and joint decision-making and management, in reality the partnership has never been one of equals. The EU transfers aid money to Africa via its state bureaucracies and elites, and in return expects loyalty to the European agendas. Over a period of several decades considerable financial envelopes of the European Development Fund have created strong vested interests in Europe, Africa and the ACP-EU institutions. The EU presents itself as the “do-gooder” in Africa in a rather paternalistic way. Aid conditionalities were supposed to help keep up the pressure on African governments to undertake the necessary governance reforms and to accept the EU’s terms for new trade agreements, such as the controversial economic partnership agreements (EPAs).

But recipes of the past no longer work. Africa can choose from a growing group of potential partners. An increasing number of assertive African leaders openly questions whether foreign aid should still interfere in the internal matters of their countries. In the meantime, there is ample evidence that EU aid conditionalities and the contractual type of cooperation have no real impact on changing the course of African political regimes. This is an illusion, yet it takes time for the EU to slowly understand these new realities.

While the EU increasingly advocates for a strategic partnership beyond aid, many European and African aid bureaucrats seem to have great difficulties in doing away with the old system. Why change an outlived and asymmetric ACP-EU cooperation if it provides access and control over substantial aid resources for those who are in command on both sides of the relationship?

At a moment when the EU and ACP institutions are more risk-averse than ever, it is considered inappropriate, or even dangerous, to change old habits. That is why the EU and ACP institutions have made a deal to protect what exists and continue with more of the same. It also explains why the future of the ACP-EU partnership – an extremely important issue – is not on the agenda of the Summit. Avoiding any discussion on this matter may be a convenient approach in the short term, but in the long run it is a major strategic error.

Read more

This article was originally published on European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM)