Migrant rescue as organized hypocrisy: EU maritime missions offshore Libya between humanitarianism and border control

Date01 March 2019
DOI10.1177/0010836718780175
AuthorEugenio Cusumano
Published date01 March 2019
Subject MatterArticles
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836718780175
Cooperation and Conflict
2019, Vol. 54(1) 3 –24
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0010836718780175
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Migrant rescue as organized
hypocrisy: EU maritime
missions offshore Libya
between humanitarianism
and border control
Eugenio Cusumano
Abstract
In November 2014, Frontex started its Southern Mediterranean border monitoring operation
Triton, followed in June 2015 by the Common Security and Defence Policy anti-smuggling
mission EU Naval Force Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR Med) ‘Sophia’. Both operations’ outward
communication has placed considerable emphasis on the conduct of maritime search and rescue.
Still, this commitment was not matched by consistent action. Triton and EUNAVFOR Med have
conducted a relatively limited number of search and rescue operations, prioritizing border control
and anti-smuggling tasks. This article explains the gap between the European Union missions’
humanitarian rhetoric and an operational conduct primarily focusing on curbing irregular migration
as a form of organized hypocrisy. Decoupling talk and action allowed Triton and EUNAVFOR
Med to reconcile the conflicting expectations arising from European governments’ willingness
to reduce migrant arrivals and the normative imperative to act against the loss of life at sea.
However, the European Union missions’ organized hypocrisy had several negative externalities,
hindering effective management of the humanitarian crisis offshore Libya.
Keywords
EUNAVFOR, Frontex, maritime security, migration crisis, organized hypocrisy, search and
rescue, Triton
Introduction
Between January 2014 and November 2017, at least 13,000 migrants died at sea while
trying to reach Italy, making Europe’s maritime Southern borders the deadliest in the
world (International Organization for Migration, 2017; UNHCR, 2017). European states
and European Union (EU) approaches to large-scale migration across the Southern
Mediterranean have stemmed from a combination of security concerns and humanitarian
Corresponding author:
Eugenio Cusumano, Leiden University, Doelensteeg 16, 2311 VR Leiden, The Netherlands.
Email: e.cusumano@hum.leidenuniv.nl
780175CAC0010.1177/0010836718780175Cooperation and ConflictCusumano
research-article2018
Article
4 Cooperation and Conflict 54(1)
imperatives. In October 2013, in response to several tragedies at sea, the Italian Navy
started the large-scale search and rescue (SAR) operation Mare Nostrum (Patalano,
2015). In November 2014, after the interruption of Mare Nostrum, Frontex (now
European Border and Coast Guard) launched the border monitoring operation Triton
(Frontex, 2014a). In June 2015, Triton was complemented with the Common Security
and Defence Policy (CSDP) military operation EU Naval Force Mediterranean
(EUNAVFOR Med) ‘Sophia’, aimed at countering illegal migrations by disrupting
smuggling networks (European External Action Service (EEAS), 2017a; 2017b).
Existing scholarship forcefully criticized these missions as attempts to curb irregular
entries and reinforce control over EU maritime borders, thinly veiled by a humanitarian
fig leaf (Andersson, 2016; Pallister-Wilkins, 2017; Tazzioli, 2016). Neither the public
communication strategies nor the operational conduct of Triton and EUNAVFOR, how-
ever, have been examined, compared and explained systematically. How do EU maritime
missions seek to reconcile the contradictions arising from the coexistence of border con-
trol mandates and humanitarian imperatives?
Triton and EUNAVFOR’s outward communication has placed considerable emphasis
on the provision of SAR. This commitment to rescue migrants, however, was not fully
reflected by the two missions’ operational conduct. Both Triton and EUNAVFOR have
conducted a relatively limited number of SAR operations, prioritizing border control and
anti-smuggling tasks. This article explains the gap between EU missions’ rhetoric and
action as a form of organized hypocrisy. Organizations facing contradictory demands
from their political masters often respond to these conflicting pressures by decoupling
talk and action. This should especially be the case for the agencies tasked with conduct-
ing EU external policies, which suffer from the uneasy coexistence of the normative
commitment to be a ‘force for good in the world’ and the diverse material interests of its
member states (MSs).
This article introduces the concept of organized hypocrisy in the study of the EU’s
external action by conducting a structured, focused comparison (George and Bennett,
2005: 67–72) between the rhetoric and operational conduct of operations Triton and
EUNAVFOR from their inception until June 2017. These missions are not just cases of
intrinsic importance in studying EU responses to maritime migrations. The high politi-
cization and increasing securitization of migrations, the very different positions
adopted by MSs and the high media salience of deaths at sea make Triton and
EUNAVFOR an ideal source of insights into the role of organized hypocrisy in EU
external relations. Moreover, this case selection helps explore the conditions under
which organized hypocrisy is more likely to occur. Although they were both launched
in response to large-scale migration from Libya, Triton and EUNAVFOR are con-
ducted by different actors and belong to two different EU policy areas. Frontex opera-
tions such as Triton are civilian border policing missions pertaining to the Justice and
Home Affairs (JHA) policy area, where Council decisions are based on qualified
majority voting (QMV). EUNAVFOR Med, by contrast, is a CSDP military operation
launched in accordance with the intergovernmental method, requiring Council una-
nimity. Hence, examining these two cases provides preliminary insights into whether
organized hypocrisy is influenced by the involvement of certain types of actors and the
resort to specific decision-making systems, or primarily derives from the contentious-
ness of policy issues such as maritime migrations.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT