The Europeanization of national borders

(1)

Cooperation between the European Union and Spain

on border management

(2)

i

List of illustrations

1. Frontex Missions 40

2. Critical graffiti in the streets of Ceuta 43

3. El Tarajal from the beach in Ceuta next to the fences 45 4. Women waiting to cross the border at el Tarajal, Ceuta 45

5. European sign entering Ceuta at el Tarajal 46

6. Fences between Ceuta and Morocco, Spanish side 46 7. Fences between Ceuta and Morocco, Spanish side 47 8. Fences between Ceuta and Morocco, Spanish side 48 9. Fences between Ceuta and Morocco, Spanish side 48

10. CETI Ceuta 50

11. CETI Ceuta 51

12. CETI Ceuta 51

13. The beach of Benzú, Ceuta 52

(4)

iii

Selected Abbreviations

AP Action Plan

BM Border Management

CAR Centro de Acogida a Refugiados, Centre for helping refugees

CEAR Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado, a Spanish refugee

assistance organisation

CETI Centro de Estancia Temporal de Inmigracion, the temporary reception

centre for immigrants in Ceuta and Melilla

CIE Centro de Internamiento de extranjeros, foreigners’ detention centre

CIRAM Common Integrated Risk Analysis Model

CRVM Centro Regional de Vigilancia Marítima del Estrecho

EBGT European Border Guard Team

EC European Commission

ENP European Neighbourhood Policy

EP European Parliament

ESDP European Security and Defence Policy

EU European Union

EUROMED Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

Frontex European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union IBM Integrated Border Management

ICC International Coordination Centre ILO Immigration Liaison Officer

IOM International Organisation for Migration

JHA Justice and Home Affairs, third pillar in the pillar structure of the European Union

NCC National Coordination Centre

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

RABIT Rapid Border Intervention Teams

SALVAMAR Salvamento Marítimo, the Spanish maritime rescue service

SCIFA Strategic Committee for Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum

(5)

iv SIVE Sistema Integrado de Vigilancia Exterior, the Spanish integrated system

for external surveillance of the coastlines and seas UfM Union for the Mediterranean

(6)

1

Introduction

Ceuta, Thursday 14 May 2015. “It has been a while since so many migrants were found in a ‘patera’1_{having problems at sea”, a woman told me that morning in the ‘centro de estancia}

temporal de inmigrantes’ (CETI). In the night from Wednesday to Thursday, a cargo-vessel detected 51 migrants including seven women, two of whom were pregnant. They were

navigating on their own intuition, 51 miles off the coast, without any technological tools such as GPS. After contact with the ‘Servicio Marítimo’, the agency sent its vessel ‘Atria’ to rescue the migrants and brought them to the harbour in Ceuta. According to the Spanish authorities, “if they were not localized that night and would have stayed one day more at sea, the worst would have happened to them”. The good weather conditions helped the migrants, giving them time to get closer to the shore. Exhausted and with signs of hypothermia, the 51 Sub-Saharans stepped ashore in the harbour. A team of the Red Cross Ceuta received the

migrants with three ambulances, a rescue vehicle and more than twenty professionals from a medical emergency team who handed over clothes, blankets and shoes. Furthermore, because of the number of arrivals, a special temporary medical centre was created to facilitate direct medical care.

The same morning, another dramatic rescue happened at the coast of Ceuta, in the zone of Beliones-Benzú, in which police officers from Morocco with the assistance of the Spanish Guardia Civil participated. Several Sub-Saharans tried to reach the coast of Ceuta by embarking a leaking raft to sail around the rocks at the end of the fences between Morocco and Ceuta. One of the migrants, exhausted and desperate to reach the Spanish coast jumped into the sea, but started drowning close to the rocks. An officer from the Guardia Civil reacted immediately by jumping into the water to save the man. Once in the boat, the migrant was unconscious and was brought to the hospital where he recovered.

All the migrants rescued that day were assisted by the National Police Corps in obtaining a card to enter the CETI. That morning in the CETI an employee explained it was a particular day, with many migrants arriving the same time. Special services were required to receive all the migrants. The other migrants staying at the centre were helping, carrying mattress to prepare the rooms. All was being done to receive the new arrivals to the CETI as

1_{Patera and cayuco are Spanish names for boats which are used by migrants crossing the Mediterranean to}

(7)

2

well as possible. (Echarri, 2015; Efe, 2015 b; Sanchez, interview May 2015; Bejarano

Ramírez, interview May 2015).

The way the countless migrants, such as the ones described above, who struggle to cross the sea and attempting to climb the fences between Ceuta and Morocco, shed a light on only a small part of clandestine migration routes in the Mediterranean. Over the past decades, the European Union (EU) has created a variety of border management (BM) policies in order to protect the external borders from irregular migration. The role of European BM has in turn, fundamentally influenced national border policies. Spain, a country with important external borders due to its geographical position on the Mediterranean shores, and the two enclaves in the north of Morocco called Ceuta and Melilla is a prime example of this dynamic. This thesis will look to some of the ways in which the implementation of European policies into national border controls affects and transforms these latter, looking specifically at how Spanish border management has been affected and transformed by EU border policies.

Much has been written about clandestine migration at the EU’s external borders. Authorities, journalists, academics and politicians have all engaged with this topic. This thesis takes a different approach looking at migration and border policies. It casts an eye on the relation between irregular migration and the interplay between EU and Spanish border

policies ‘on the ground’, and will attempt to illustrate the relation between these two levels of governance in practice.

Irregular migration is closely related to BM, for it is primarily clandestine migration that spurs the evolution of the field of BM, pushing a reorganization of border controls. The position of the border between the EU and Third Countries is crucial for the entrance of migrants who are looking for better opportunities within the European space. The border of Ceuta illustrates this aspect of clandestine migration in relation to BM perfectly, and will thus be chosen as an example of the process of Europeanization of national borders. The analysis presented here draws upon on-site interviews with border guards, police officers, volunteers, attorneys and local political figures, queried about the situation in Ceuta, the Mediterranean and missions in the African waters. I was also fortunate enough to be able to conduct a field visit to Ceuta, Algeciras and Málaga, the customs office in Ceuta, the fences, the harbour and the temporal emergency centre for migrants (CETI). Moreover, past personal experiences (with migrants) while living in Spain and the language I speak fluently, inspired and

(8)

3 In order to begin to analyse the influence of wider European policies on Spanish border policies, the process of Europeanization will first be conceptualized. Europeanization refers broadly to the process through which the EU affects and transforms national policy. This process also takes place in the field of BM. The first chapter will thus outline the notion of Europeanization, followed by a summary of the most important programs and policies that the EU has established in the realm of BM, in relation to migration. This will be completed with an explanation of the specific role of Spain within European policy.

The second chapter will proceed to outline the role of Spain and the development of Spanish BM and migration policies. Moreover, Spanish BM policies will be further clarified, starting from the adhesion of Spain to the European Community in 1986, which brought crucial changes in the country’s domestic policies. As in chapter one, chapter two will also highlight the most important notions of national BM in relation to migration.

The third chapter will summarize how European and Spanish BM are translated ‘on the ground’ into actual border policies practices of border control. Data collected during field work in Spain, including interviews with those working on the borders and authorities

involved with BM will be used to examine how BM functions in the field, while also highlighting the practicalities of EU and Spanish cooperation.

Taken together, these three chapters will serve to illustrate how Spanish national border policies have been profoundly affected and transformed (“Europeanized”) by

European BM. In the conclusions, the notion of cooperation will be highlighted as a central feature, as it helps to clarify the role of EU policies for Spain, as well as the role of Spanish policies for the EU. The closing analysis will point to the crucial importance of cooperation between the EU, Member States and Third Countries in facing the challenges of irregular migration in the Mediterranean, asking what Europe can learn from the Spanish experience.

(9)

4

1. The process of Europeanization

The European Union (EU) coordinates its Member States in order to develop European integration. The process of European integration covers several components of policy. Border management (BM) and the securitization of EU’s external borders are part of this

development and are of importance in the policy-making process of both the EU as well as Spain. Spain has crucial borders in their enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, although the maritime borders are also of relevance since irregular migration has increased in the last decades due to the fact that Spanish borders are easily reached by boat. Migration is affecting Spanish border security, as a result that Spanish membership in the EU causes that the protection of borders directly becomes an European dilemma too.

Domestic changes are important to maintain a stable relationship between the EU and its Member States. The EU develops BM so that the domestic situation in Spain could get affected. This process of European integration will be explained in terms of Europeanization defined by Claudio Radaelli (2004) as: “the emergence and the development at the European level of distinct structures” (Radaelli, 2004, p.3), which in terms of this thesis means

European influence on national policy. The theory of Europeanization will help to clarify the cooperation between Spain and the EU, as well as the domestic changes of BM.

The first section of this chapter will look at the theoretical approach of

Europeanization with regard to Spanish BM. Subsequently, the second section will address the changes the Schengen Agreement brought to Spanish policy in relation to the security and management of its borders. It is also of importance in that the Agreement illustrates domestic changes in the Member States and it has major relevance for the securitization of Spanish borders. Moreover, the EU has developed the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) to cooperate with Third Countries to stabilize the relationship between the EU, Member States and neighbouring countries. Hence, the third section will outline the relevance of the ENP for Spanish and European BM.

1.1 Europeanization

Europeanization is a term to describe a variety of processes of change, which is

conceptualized in a way that makes it possible to compare European and national dynamics of governance (Olsen, 2002). It indicates a process through which policies are first discovered

(10)

5 and experienced in European context and then institutionalised inside the logic of behaviour of domestic actors (Radaelli, 2004).

Europeanization signifies a problem that needs to be explained, as Radaelli calls it: the

explanandum (Radaelli, 2004). The EU changes notions of governance in EU Member States

by establishing a partnership between various authorities as part of the Europeanization process (Radaelli, 2004). Hence, Europeanization will be understood here as the emergence of new rules, norms, practices, and structures to which Member States are exposed and which they have to incorporate into their domestic structures (Börzel, 2011).

Moreover, Europeanization serves us to understand how Europe influences the

national policies of Member States (Coman, 2014) and national development give impetus to the outcomes of Europeanization itself, as well as to the effectiveness of the EU’s compliance mechanisms. The process of Europeanization is necessary for structural change, although Europeanization has remained limited to the strategies of particular actors, which leaves some national structures intact (Coman, 2014). The effectiveness of the process could thus be questioned to explain the impact of the EU on domestic policies. However, the understanding of the process is open to a variety of influences.

Member States are central governments but not completely in charge of an

Europeanization process. This means that the changes created at European level influences domestic policies (Ladrech, 2014). This should help one in forming the idea that countries with the same characteristics respond with similar strategies to the opportunities and constraints provided by Europeanization. Hence, it may contribute to the understanding of domestic policy and is a way to organise concepts (Radaelli, 2004). Europeanization thus involves domestic systems of governance and the degree to which the EU becomes a single political space. The EU influences its Member States with the result that Europeanization is a concept that clarifies the process of European involvement in domestic policies (Olsen, 2002).

DOMESTIC CHANGE

As aforesaid, Europeanization understood in terms of a process of institution-building at the European level can be used to explore how this process impacts the Member States (Börzel and Risse, 2003). Domestic change is a term given to the degree of influence of

Europeanization in the EU member states, although domestic change is not always a logical outcome. ‘If European norms and rules are largely compatible with those at the domestic level, they do not give rise to problems of compliance or effective implementation’ (Börzel

(11)

6 and Risse, 2003, p. 61). Nevertheless, the policy of border management and the securitization of Spanish borders are already complicated at the national level. Therefore the intervention of the EU in this policy field is a direct cause for domestic change.

Europeanization often covers slow processes of influence at the domestic field with uncertain results whether Europeanization has overtaken domestic policies or just added to them (Radaelli, 2004). When it has added an important dimension to domestic European politics, Europeanization is understood in terms of domestic change in which the EU is involved (Ladrech, 2014, p.15). However, the outcomes of European involvement in domestic policies could become unclear and complicated to identify, because domestic policies are influenced daily and in countless ways by the actions and legislation of the EU, due to changes in national policy prior to new European policies (Risse, Green Cowles and Caporaso, 2001). The effect on EU Member States could therefore be seen as the pursuit of national interest within the political system of the EU.

The process of Europeanization includes the adaption of EU policies at the domestic level, which change national policies as they are affected by the EU. The EU itself has evolved by way of explicit, treaty-based reforms, which also changes, if not challenges, the relationship between supranational actors and Member States, in particular national

executives (Ladrech, 2014). Specifically in the case of Spain, adjusting national policies could signify the necessity to change policies on BM in response to the externalities of EU policies arising from the increasing number of asylum seekers following tighter controls at the EU’s external borders (Lavenex and Uçarer, 2004).

EUROPEANIZATION OF SPANISH BORDER MANAGEMENT

Europeanization affects Spanish domestic politics in the protection of their borders, which supports the notion that the process of Europeanization can be used to explain the Spanish border system. The southern Spanish borders are European and thus were Europeanized after the EU started to implement BM as part of their policy-making process. Much of the debate on state reforms in southern Europe is between those who argue that domestic policies are in line with European constraints, and those who think the alliance between domestic policies and Europe are extensive, and hence major reforms are needed (Radaelli, 2004). This means that the significance of Europeanization for Spanish BM is questionable.

Where cooperation on a certain aspect of asylum and immigration policy is regulated by a bilateral agreement between the EU and the Third Country, we speak of an adaption by

(12)

7 conditionality (Lavenex and Uçarer, 2004, p.421). It is important that any domestic change on immigration policies and border security in Spain, resulting from EU involvement should therefore comply with European policies.

The geographical concept on the external boundary of Europe, as a space of territory should be politically organized. Due to the direct boundary between Spain and Morocco in Ceuta and Melilla, cross-border relations are managed through a variety of transnational regimes and institutions (Olsen, 2002). Changes in the immigration policy related to BM and introduced by the EU have implications for policies at national levels, as well as for Third Countries directly involved (Lavenex and Uçarer, 2004). In this way, Europeanization serves to clarify the process of influences by European policies in Spanish politics that triggers domestic change. Hence, the situation of the Spanish borders is directly related to EU policies, which were developed to stimulate the securitization at internal and external boundaries.

1.1 The Schengen Agreement

The securitization of internal and external boundaries was crucial for the establishment of the Schengen Agreement. On 26 March 1995, the area of free circulation set up by the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 and the Implementing Convention of 19 June 1990 entered into force. Seven countries then implemented Schengen, namely Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain (Anonymous, 1995).

Schengen was not an EU initiative and gradually came under partial control of the EU. The initiative was introduced by France and Germany, by pressure from their lorry drives. As a consequence, they signed the Sarrebruck Agreement in 1984 and were later joined by the Benelux. According to this agreement, the five countries signed the Sarrebruck Agreement concerning the Gradual Abolition of the Checks at the common borders. This accord became known as the Schengen Accord or Schengen Agreement, when in 1990 the countries signed the text of the Convention Applying the Schengen Accord. The Treaty of Maastricht

institutionalized the pillar structure, which included Schengen in the third pillar of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). With the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Schengen Agreement passed into the first pillar of the EU, the Community pillar (Angelescu, 2008).

The implementation of the Schengen Agreement started in 1995 and is based on the concept of free movement in order to enable the European working population to freely travel and settle in any EU state. The EU regards what is known as the Schengen Area as one of its greatest achievements. It is an area without internal borders, within which citizens; many

(13)

non-8 EU nationals; business people; and tourists can freely circulate without being subjected to border checks. This stimulates the facilities of freely travelling for EU citizens, non-EU residents and visitors of the EU (European Commission, n.d.). Today, the Schengen Area encompasses most EU states, except for Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Romania, and the United Kingdom. However, Bulgaria and Romania are currently in the process of joining the Schengen Area. Also non-EU states form part of the Schengen Area, which are Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein (European Commission, n.d.).

Schengen is thus based on free movement of EU citizens, non-EU residents and visitors of the EU. However, there are some exceptions whereby national authorities may create police checks at internal borders (European Commission, n.d.). The important

condition here is that these checks are valid for cases where checks do not have border control as an objective and are based on general police information and experiences, in addition to checks being carried out in a manner clearly distinct from systematic border checks and on basis of spot-checks (European Commission, n.d.). Besides these exceptions, the EU does cooperate with national authorities in cases of serious threat to public policy or internal security. A Schengen country may reintroduce border control under exceptional

circumstances. Fundamental in these cases is that other Schengen countries and the public, as well as the European Commission (EC) and the European Parliament (EP) should be informed (European Commission, n.d.). In this way, all states are directly involved with the process of securitization concerning border checks where relevant or necessary.

The Schengen Agreement created a direct cooperation between the participating countries. On signing the agreement, the Schengen states became countries that now had to work together on border security, especially at the external borders as internal borders were now opened up to EU citizens. A strict agreement was intended to ensure European security. While internal borders among EU Member States were gradually being abolished, external EU borders had to be tightened up (Angelescu, 2008, p. 52). Therefore, having abolished their internal borders, Schengen States had to strengthen the controls at their common external border on the basis of Schengen rules to ensure the security of those living or travelling in the Schengen Area (European Commission, n.d.). The emphasis was now securitization.

Therefore, the national governments had to take into account the new European policy on border security, which resulted in the change of domestic policy in BM issues. The double aim of Schengen, on the one hand eliminating the internal barriers among its Member States, and on the other hand, increasing the security at the external borders (Angelescu, 2008),

(14)

9 signifies the importance external borders achieved after the implementation of the agreement. Hence, the process of Europeanization due to the Schengen Agreement directly involved Spanish BM.

According to the securitization process on external borders, Schengen includes various aspects of border security. An example is the Schengen Border Code, that was established to ensure the cooperation among Schengen states to act as one actor towards the securitization of EU’s external borders. The Code contains several articles to establish a ‘common corpus’ on legislation to respect human dignity as well as to improve the securitization process

(Regulation (EP) no. 562/2006). It was created to govern the crossing of the external borders and facilitates access for those who have a legitimate interest to enter into the EU.

Further specifications were necessary to improve the securitization of the EU’s external borders. The Schengen Agreement therefore included some intelligence and

technological features to strengthen border protection. In February 2013 the EC proposed the Smart Border Package. The aim was to improve external BM, help in the fight against irregular migration, provide information on ‘overstayers’, and facilitate border crossing for pre-vetted frequent Third Country national travellers (European Commission, n.d.). The first examination of the Smart Borders Package was completed in February 2014. The EC initiated a proof of concept exercise along with support from the Member States and the EP, and consists two stages.

The first one includes a ‘Commission-led Technical study, aimed at identifying and assessing the most suitable and promising options and solutions. The second one contains a pilot project to be entrusted to the Agency for the Operational Management of large-scale IT Systems in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice, aimed at verifying the feasibility of the options identified in the Technical Study and validating the selected concepts for both automated and manual border controls (European Commission, n.d.).

In addition, the Visa Information System (VIS) was created to allow Schengen states to exchange visa data, in particular data on decisions relating to short-stay visa applications (European Commission, n.d.). Another technological feature was the Schengen Information System (SIS), which allows Schengen states to exchange data on suspected and on stolen, misappropriated or lost property (European Commission, n.d.). Both systems were developed in order to cooperate on matters of intelligence and security such as illegal migration,

trafficking and terrorism, and the falsification and counterfeiting of travel documents in Schengen states and other EU Member States.

(15)

10 Moreover, a special Local Border Traffic Regime was established to facilitate entry for non-EU border residents who frequently need to cross the EU external border. In addition, a common visa policy was created to facilitate the entry of legal visitors into the EU (European Commission, n.d.). This regime is essential for Spanish borders in Ceuta and Melilla. Since they are external borders, some special requirements were implemented for residents in the enclaves as well as for Moroccan citizens. In order to this achieve, cooperation between Schengen states, the EU and Third Countries was fundamental.

The Local Border Traffic Regime was established for border residents who frequently need to cross the external borders of the Union. It enables EU states to conclude bilateral agreements with their neighbouring non-EU countries so that the border residents can travel back and forth without a Schengen visa and, therefore, without any impediment to trade, social and cultural interchange in the region concerned (European Commission, n.d.).

In the Local Border Traffic Regime, the EU established Regulation 1931/2006 about laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Schengen Agreement. With this regulation, the EU attempted to develop external border control and security where non-EU citizens crossed the EU borders. It wanted to ensure that the borders with its non-EU neighbours would not become a barrier to trade, social and cultural interchange, or regional cooperation (Regulation (EC) no.1931/2006). Therefore, the regulation contains several articles to ensure special requirements for citizens of Morocco living in the area of an external border with Spain, including: entry conditions; rules for entry and exit checks; local border traffic permits; security features and technical specifications of the local border traffic permit and bilateral agreements between Member States and neighbouring Third Countries (Regulation (EC) no. 1931/2006).

A special section is included in the regulation to refer to the exceptions Spain required after assigning the Schengen Agreement. As a consequence, the general layout in this

Regulation does not affect the specific arrangements that apply to Ceuta and Melilla.

Examples of these exceptions include the current controls on goods and travellers entering the EU customs territory from Ceuta and Melilla, which shall continue to be carried out in

accordance with the Protocol Spain signed on joining the EU (OJ L 239, 2000, p.69). Furthermore, the specific arrangements for visa exemptions for local border traffic between Ceuta and Melilla and the Moroccan provinces of Tetuan and Nador shall continue to apply. The arrangements are as follows: firstly Moroccan nationals, who are not resident in these

(16)

11 provinces, though wish to enter the territory of Ceuta or Melilla, shall remain exclusively subject to the visa requirement. Secondly, Spain shall maintain checks on identity and documents on sea and air connections departing from Ceuta and Melilla to Spanish territory. Finally Spain shall also maintain checks on internal flights and on regular ferry connections departing from the enclaves (OJ L 239, 2000, p.69). To recapitulate, only Moroccan nationals who are not resident in the latter provinces and who wish to enter the territory of the towns of Ceuta and Melilla shall remain subject exclusively to the visa requirement with the validity of these visas limited to the two towns permitting multiple entries and exits (Angelescu, 2008; Segura Velo, interview May 2015). The exceptions in the regulation are vital to border control in Ceuta and Melilla in order to keep the relation with Morocco intact.

The particular Spanish case is related to the bi-annual report the EU develops, and it reflects on the stage of the Schengen security process. A recent version of the report from 27 November 2014 includes issues concerning Schengen states. These issues are about the

increase of illegal migration in the Mediterranean. Detailed information, including numbers of migrants as well as conjectures about migration deaths has been published. Concerning the information in the report, the Commission started an inquiry into allegations of summary removals from Spain in Ceuta and Melilla (COM(2014) 711 final). As a consequence hereof, the EU and its institutions are aware of the complications border security entails in relation to the Schengen Agreement, because Spain can opt out for specific regulations. Consequently, Spain has the final word of its external border in relation to Schengen. Nevertheless, when looking at the consequences of the Schengen Agreement, which resulted in Europeanization of Spanish border policy, new EU arrangements such as the ENP seem to be a further indicator of the Europeanization of national BM (Angelescu, 2008).

1.3 The European Neighbourhood Policy

The EU seeks to transform domestic structures, as shown in the process of Europeanization. Therefore, the EU tries to foster peace, stability and prosperity in its neighbourhood. The ENP was designed to illustrate the EU’s successful experiment of international cooperation (Börzel and Van Hüllen, 2014). According to the Mediterranean zone, the ENP emphasized on the former Barcelona Process and intended to offer a deeper political and economic relationship between the EU and its neighbours without an accession perspective (Whitman and Wolff, 2010).

(17)

12 The objective of the ENP is the emergence of new dividing lines between the enlarged EU and the neighbouring countries. It is based on the values of democracy, rule of law, and respect of human rights (EEAS, n.d.). In relation to human rights, the role of the ENP became fundamental for the cooperation between the EU, Morocco and Spain due to the increase of illegal migration in the Mediterranean zone. It was developed as a strategic approach to the post-enlargement situation. The redrawn boundaries between the EU and the neighbours around the external borders became essential for protection and cooperation. Therefore, the ENP draws a wider definition of the neighbourhood to embrace the Western Newly

Independent States, the Caucasus, and the southern and eastern Mediterranean states (Whitman and Wolff, 2010).

The current situation of the ENP framework consist of the EU Member States and sixteen of EU’s closest neighbours: Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine. The bilateral policy between the EU and each partner country is enriched and complemented by regional and multilateral cooperation initiatives, such as the Euro-Mediterranean

Partnership (EUROMED), which was re-launched in 2008 and known formerly as the Barcelona Process (EEAS, n.d).

The ENP is a form of policy including the element of an international project of region building with economic strength as a common feature. According to the southern

neighbourhood, the ENP has been driving various security discourses in order to cooperate on the securitization process of EU’s external borders (Browning and Joenniemi, 2008). The program was confirmed to offer deeper political and economic integration to its new

neighbours, in exchange for progress in different fields supporting democracy, the rule of law, and market-oriented economy (Whitman and Wolff, 2010).

The EU cooperates with its neighbours to achieve political association and a well-organized degree of economic integration. These goals are built on common interest and values, which resulted in the Mediterranean Union when the French Prime Minister Sarkozy raised this notion in February 2007. According to the Mediterranean Union, this plan would bring cooperation between all the countries with a coastline on the Mediterranean, outside the EU framework. In July 2008, the name was changed to the ‘Barcelona Process’ Union for the Mediterranean’ (UfM) along with ambitious and significant changes to the initial project (Whitman and Wolff, 2010; Wolff, 2007). The UfM aims to complement rather than replace existing EU policies and is expected to give a new impetus to the Barcelona Process by

(18)

13 upgrading political relations between the EU and its Mediterranean states. It does so by

increasing co-ownership of the process with a co-Presidency, and by launching regional and sub-regional dealing with energy, environment, civil protection, and transport (Whitman and Wolff, 2010, p.10). The UfM was officially launched at the Paris Summit for the

Mediterranean on 13 July 2008 (Whitman and Wolff, 2010).

ACTION PLANS

In cooperation with the UfM, the ENP established Action Plans (AP). This joint initiative requires action by the neighbours as well as by the EU. The AP’s set out an agenda of political and economic reforms with short and medium-term priorities of 3 to 5 years that reflects each partner’s needs and capacities, as well as theirs and the EU’s interest (EEAS, n.d). In accordance with EU’s external border in Spain, the EU set up an AP with Morocco. This relationship emphasizes the cooperation on democratic reform, economic modernization, and migration issues.

The first AP with Morocco was established in 2005 and a new AP was formally adopted in December 2013 (EEAS - Morocco, n.d). The AP will support the development and implementation of policies and measures designed to promote economic growth, employment and social cohesion, reduce poverty, and protect the environment (EU-Morocco Action Plan, 2013). Nevertheless, economic issues and democracy is considered to be essential for the cooperation between the EU and Morocco, but the outcome of cooperation on migration waves at the Moroccan-Spanish border remains questionable.

A sub-section in the AP contains the plans established in order to cooperate on JHA. Migration is particularly mentioned as a feature that should be improved. In order to reach development in this field, the AP outlines points such as: ensuring the effective management of migration flows; preventing and combating illegal migration to and via Morocco;

improving cooperation with regard to the readmission of Moroccan nationals, stateless

persons and nationals of Third Countries; initiating dialogue on visa issues; and strengthening border management (EU-Morocco Action Plan, 2013). However, some crucial points about how to reach these goals are lacking. It seems that the ENP is based on self-interest, in the sense that by helping its neighbours, a country helps itself (Whitman and Wolff, 2010). Therefore, the EU should further develop the creation of a well-structured cooperation plan for migration problems and border management at EU’s external borders.

(19)

14

THE SPANISH POSITION

The ENP has provided a quantitative and qualitative leap forward in relations between the EU and Morocco due to the fact that Morocco is the North African country to which the

introduction of the ENP has made the most difference. Morocco was among the first partners to sign an Association Agreement in February 1996, which entered into force on 1 March 2000 (Bicchi, 2010). Notwithstanding, according to the AP 2013, the only difficulty in EU-Moroccan cooperation is the migration issue. In contrast, some elements have resulted in progress, such as the cooperation between the EU and Morocco on the reform of BM, and the progress in bilateral cooperation with Spain (Bicchi, 2010).

The role of Spain in the cooperation with neighbourhood countries, especially Morocco could be seen as one of relative superiority. The Spanish government was not very enthusiastic about the enlargement of 2004 and the outcomes of EUROMED for its own profits. However, this perspective changed with the introduction of the ENP (Barbé, Mestres i Camps and Soler i Lecha, 2007). Consequently, Spain was introduced as one of the main actors in the Mediterranean politics (Wolff, 2007). This meant that Spain had to emphasize on the issues crucial to its own political agenda, where the contemporary program established by the EU in relation to Spain is related to liberty, security and justice (Barbé, Mestres i Camps and Soler i Lecha, 2007).

The construction of Spanish politics in relation to the Mediterranean neighbourhood improved earlier than at the European political agenda. Since 2002, an advanced policy program was created. Spain focused on the intention to influence the Mediterranean politics by organizing various summits and initiatives, and searched for other European associates. The focus lay on humanitarian issues, where Spain tried to illustrate the role of responsibility due to its geopolitical position (Wolff, 2007). One of these summits was the Hamton Court in 2005, organized by France and Spain to influence the European agenda with concrete aims to develop the strategic for migration in the Mediterranean and northern Africa. Some of the proposed projects contained the strengthening of the cooperation between EU Member States and African countries with a direct coastline in the Mediterranean (Wolff, 2007).

Furthermore, an essential outcome of this Summit was the Euro-African conference about migration and development, that led to a high amount of African and European countries starting a dialogue on the migration dilemma, with Spain as leader in these

conversations. Essential issues were development, cooperation, the fight against poverty, and the improvement of security of borders due to the migration flows (Wolff, 2007). Therefore,

(20)

15 the role of Spain consisted in the organization of Summits and leadership in governing the Mediterranean zone, before and after the construction of the ENP. Consequently, Spain’s focus was emphasized on migration issues where the EU related more to general issues in the name of justice and home affairs.

In relation to the ENP, maintains Spain the implementation of conditionality and counterbalance in the Mediterranean countries to improve Mediterranean politics and security. The cooperation with Morocco could leverage on the role Spain has within the ENP (Wolff, 2007). Morocco situates in the position of country bound to EU migration policies. Its geographical proximity, its importance due to the direct border with Ceuta and Melilla, and being a major country for transit migration, Morocco have prompted to develop a more explicit migration dimension within the aspect of cooperation with Spain and the EU (Lavenex and Uçarer, 2004). The position of Ceuta and Melilla complicated Spain’s role towards the Spanish-Moroccan cooperation, especially for border security. On the one hand, Spain placed fences, where on the other hand it needs Moroccan help to protect the borders due to the special requirements of the Schengen Agreement for the two enclaves (Wolff, 2007).

Spanish intentions to improve the relation with Morocco commenced around 2001. The establishment of the ENP introduced the aim for a bilateral relationship between Morocco and the EU concerning the Hispanic-Moroccan relations (Barbé, Mestres i Camps and Soler i Lecha, 2007). Morocco took leverage from the ENP and the renewed relationship with Spain, leading to high development and progression being the country that progressed most. Spain took the leadership in negotiations with Morocco to reach this position, including initiatives such as: supporting political reformations of Moroccan democracy and modernization;

expanding the economic cooperation including access to the European market; negotiating the transfer to the community acquis of the EU; harmonizing of common politics such as

competence and the tax system; and the integration of Morocco in European programs, networks and community agencies (Barbé, Mestres i Camps and Soler i Lecha, 2007).

Summarizing Spanish actions in relation to European strategies and Spanish-Moroccan cooperation, the ENP does not necessarily mean Euro-Mediterranean political integration, by reason of differences between the northern and southern parts of the

Mediterranean, but also because of the relaxation of economic borders and market integration. Furthermore, democratic political institutions and citizenship, and associated rights and obligations are still fragmented by the EU’s external border (Ferrer-Gallardo, 2014). Within

(21)

16 the aspect of border problems in Ceuta and Melilla, further development in cooperation is required between Spain and the EU to prevent issues among the borders that could influence the securitization in the Mediterranean zone (Browning, and Joenniemi, 2008).

Spain defends the complementarity of neighbour countries in the Mediterranean. In relation with the ENP, both Spain and the EU are reinforcing bilateral relations. Therefore, the EU and Spain tend to realize a stable and well-functioning Mediterranean cooperation. The ENP could thus be seen as helpful towards the optimization of the relationship between the EU and its Mediterranean neighbour countries (Barbé, Mestres i Camps and Soler i Lecha, 2007). However, hindrances on the outcomes and structures of the AP’s with individual countries should be developed further to reach the goals the EU has set up for the

securitization of EU’s external borders. Notwithstanding, the conclusion of the relationship between the EU and Spain is that Mediterranean politics accomplished by Spain are entirely Europeanized (Barbé, Mestres i Camps and Soler i Lecha, 2007).

(22)

17

2. Border Management in Spain

The adhesion of Spain to the European Community signified changes in their political system. Cooperation, implementation and integration were introduced. As outlined in the first chapter, the EU has set up various policies in relation to border management and cooperation with Third Countries to stabilize the Mediterranean zone. The role of Spain in these European policies has been shortly expounded. However, the development of the Spanish government in order to improve BM, securitization, and cooperation remains questionable.

This chapter will focus on the Spanish role of policy-making process of border management. It will illustrate the development of Spanish policies since the adhesion to the European Community in 1986. This date is chosen due to the general subject in this thesis on the cooperation between the EU and Spain. Therefore, the focus of Spanish governance will be outlined since 1986 and will be explained until contemporary politics. The first section of this chapter will outline a historical overview of Spanish politics in relation to border

management and migration issues. This section will be followed by an overview of Spanish policies on migration and border management, its role in Mediterranean cooperation, and Spanish perspectives on EU policy. A last section will be reflecting the cooperation with the EU and illustrate Spanish perspectives in the specific case of the Spanish enclaves: Ceuta and Melilla.

2.1 The development of migration policies and border management in Spain

MIGRATION

In this thesis the focus lies on Spanish policies, especially on the cooperation between Spain and the EU on BM and the securitization process concerning the direct relation with migration because of the issues on illegal migration along EU’s external borders. Moreover, migration has a long history being closely linked to national security issues and states have traditionally forged their national immigration policies in response to their security and economic interests (Wolff, 2012; Adamson, 2006). The management of international migration flows is an area in which policymakers are having to weigh the costs and benefits of particular policies with an eye to their overall implications for international security (Adamson, 2006). Hence, migration is a phenomenon that is closely related to globalization processes such as trade, finance, production and global economic integration. The economic processes are reinforced

(23)

18 by cheaper and more accessible forms of transportation and communication technologies, as well as an emerging global infrastructure of services that link national economies and support the formation of international migration networks (Wolff, 2012; Adamson, 2006). Conflict and violence, especially concerning the contemporary situation in the Middle East, causes forced migration and growth in human smuggling networks (Lavenex and Uçarer, 2004; Adamson, 2006).

In the southern European region, many immigrants enter states through illegal

channels with either forged papers, none at all, or being smuggled or trafficked. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the so-called irregular migrants make up thirty to fifty percent of all migration to western industrialized countries (IOM, 2013).

Spanish governance on migration issues is related to clandestine migration where Spain always faced challenges to the phenomenon of migration. The two areas in which migration influences state capacity and autonomy are border control and national identity. The ability of states to maintain control over their borders and to formulate a coherent national identity is arguably a necessary precondition for the maintenance of state security in other areas (Adamson, 2006). This is of importance because Europeanization of national borders influences national BM with the result that national governments should start cooperating. In the case of Spanish border control and Spain’s membership of the EU, migration flows on Spanish borders directly involves other EU Member States. In weak and failing states, a lack of border control significantly jeopardizes their capacity across a number of areas. Large-scale refugee flows, for example, can overwhelm a state’s capacity to provide public services and can lead to conflicts over resources (Lavenex and Uçarer, 2004; Adamson, 2006). The importance of border control is thus essential for the stabilization of the situation for both the migrants as well as for the national government.

SPANISH MIGRATION POLICIES

Spain has a relatively short history of immigration compared to other European countries. Entry into the EC in 1986 forced Spain to draw up the first legislation on immigration in 1985, la Ley Orgánica 7/1985 sobre derechos y libertades de los extranjeros en España (Zapata-Barrero and De Witte, 2007). Thereafter, four more immigration laws appeared within three years, from 2000 to 2003. Effectively, since 2000, the Spanish government has been in a continuous search for a legal framework to run its immigration policies

(24)

(Zapata-19 Barrero and De Witte, 2007). This is the result of some radical changes in Spanish migration policies in the last quarter of the twentieth century.

In the 1970s, and as a result of the economic crisis at that time, Spanish migration flows to European countries reduced and changed from character in the 1980s towards a new form of migration, which, as result of the adhesion in 1986 into the EC, urged Spain to reform its migration policy (Sánchez Alonso, 2011). The new form of migration reaching Spain was experienced as a completely new phenomenon by the Spanish government, that resulted in unstable migration policies.

The Ley de Inmigración from 1985 was an idea opposed by the European authorities and contained very restrictive legislation for foreigners. Moreover, this law became criticized due to the increase of illegal immigrants after the law was set up because of failures in border control as well as failures in the administrative process (Sánchez Alonso, 2011; López Sala, 2007; Corkill, 2001). The instability of Spanish migration policies changed into development with the new legislation Ley de Extranjería in 2000, which was the objective of various substantive amendments and was improved with the most recent law from 2009 (Soriano-Miras, 2011; Sánchez Alonso, 2011; Gómez Iniesta, 2001). The first version in 2000 signified liberalization compared to the former law of 1985, and contained a generous system for both legal and illegal migrants to access social services such as health care and education.

Concerning BM, the renewed legislation in 2003 intensified border controls with the result that this is still developing where the policies on border control were completed with mayor emphasis on bilateral agreements with various African countries. The last modification of the

Ley de Extranjería in 2009 strengthens and introduces new restrictive elements for migration.

Spanish migration policies are characterized by the formalization of illegal immigrants with changes and developments in migration law from 1986, 1991, 1996, 2000, 2001 and 2004 with the importance of the element of social services for migrants in Spanish migration policy (Sánchez Alonso, 2011). Nevertheless, the aims and outcomes of migration policies vary extensively. Several issues could explain the variety in objectives and outcomes, that illustrate the causes of inadequate objectives.

An important example for Spanish migration policies is the reason the government tried to combine migration objectives and employment policies (Soriano-Miras, 2011;

Sánchez Alonso, 2011; López Sala, 2007). From the 1990s onwards, the objective of Spanish migration politics has been inconsistent. Not only the objective to reconcile the amount of migrants in relation to employment could be illustrated as unfeasible, also the governance of

(25)

20 migration policies in general failed to create feasible objectives (Sánchez Alonso, 2011; López Sala, 2007). Firstly, the government introduced a system in 1993 to conduct migration flows towards provinces and regions that could benefit from the migrants as employees. Nevertheless, neither an organization, nor the government itself, was capable of steering the migrants towards regions in Spain in order to provide them a job and stabilize the

employment sector. The lack of information to outline the need for employees in the Spanish regions and the inertia and excess in the bureaucratic system to form legal contracts created a large difference between the objectives of migration policies and the outcomes from them (Soriano-Miras, 2011; Sánchez Alonso, 2011).

Secondly, according to Sánchez Alonso, a well-formed migration policy in Spain could be caused by ineffective instruments from the government. The objective here contains the control and management at Spain’s external borders. One of the mayor problems

nowadays is the incapacity to avoid the constant entrance of illegal migrants (Sánchez Alonso, 2011). The instruments to reduce illegal migration in Spain consist of control and an enhanced border security system. This system should be improved, along with the insufficient amount of inspectors at the borders, although not only border control should be emphasized.

The control of illegal employment and human trafficking should be enhanced to reduce illegal migration (Soriano-Miras, 2011; Sánchez Alonso, 2011). Hence, migration policy in Spain should focus more on the stabilization of illegal entrance of migrants at the Spanish-Moroccan border and the southern Spanish coastline. Furthermore, should it be in coherence with BM in order to reduce illegal migrants in Spain, which could lead to an effective administration for employment and could create stability for Spanish migration policies. Some outcomes are not as effective as predicted, however, the Spanish government has acknowledged the issue of migration as an important feature in politics. Therefore, it has tried to develop and improve its migration and border policies during the last decades in order to stabilize this situation with positive results.

2.2 Contemporary border management and migration policies in Spain

The development of migration policies in relation to BM in Spain has been developed since the adhesion in 1986. Some important evolutions should be expounded in order to illustrate the Spanish role compared to European policy. Following a recent initiative from the EU for the Mediterranean zone including the aim to structure liberty, security and justice, Spain put more effort in the objectives from European’s politics of JHA (Wolff, 2007). As a result of

(26)

21 the Tampere Summit in 1999 to structure JHA, the EU developed the impact on the daily life of European citizens. ‘This was achieved by ensuring that everybody can live and move freely and safely throughout the EU, while enjoying the same legal protection as the nationals of the EU Member State in which they happen to be’ (European Commission, 2002). Various objectives were settled, including a common security and asylum policy for all EU’s Member States.

The objectives of the Tampere policies are that not only should freedom and justice be guaranteed at an EU level but that people and businesses should be able to enjoy them in safety and security. They should also have the full protection of the law, and easy access to the law, anywhere and everywhere in the EU. The European treaties guarantee the absolute freedom of movement throughout the EU for all EU nationals, and for all others legally in the EU. This means that anyone can travel around, settle and work anywhere in the EU once they have legally entered it. One of the "milestones" of the Tampere Council was to call on the European Union to develop common policies on asylum and immigration. The goal of a common policy for asylum, visas and migration is that there should be a harmonised or common way for immigrants and asylum seekers to seek and obtain entry to all EU states (European Commission, 2002, p.3.2)

Due to the aims of the Tampere Summit, Spanish politics followed the objectives on liberty, security and justice. Essential was the presidency of Spain in 2002, which was crucial for the development of Spanish JHA. Spain organized the Euro Mediterranean Conference in Valencia, which was the beginning of several summits and initiatives by the Spanish

government to influence and cooperate with European countries to stabilize the Mediterranean zone, focusing on BM and migration (Wolff, 2007). Many of the initiatives were not new in the priorities of the Spanish government. Nevertheless, with the upcoming migration flows from the Middle East, special attention was paid to economic issues and migration (Natorski, 2007).

The model for governing immigration in Spain has always been a reactive one organized around the management of irregular migration (Moffette, 2014). From the 2000s onwards, secured calls for better border control and a hard stance on illegal immigrants marked a clear shift towards a securitizing agenda and contributed to an exponential increase in border and immigration controls (Moffette, 2007).

(27)

22

SPANISH LEGISLATION AND ACTION PLANS

According to Sánchez Alonso (2008), the most effective instrument to control illegal

migration flows is by strengthening control. In order to reach the objective by strengthening control, the Spanish government has tried and still works on improvements to stabilize

migration flows and securitize its borders. Despite some restrictive policies focused on border control, Spanish authorities admitted the importance of stabilizing illegal migration and moderating the situation for migrations that enter the country. They introduced a new law called: Ley orgánica sobre los derechos y libertades de los extranjeros en España y su

Integración Social (Ley 4/2000) which was approved at 12 January 2000 (Ortega Pérez, 2003;

Soriano-Miras, 2011). This new law became important due to the focus on integration of people from EU Member States as well as foreigners from Third Countries.

Most important was the recognition of permanent migration towards Spain, where this legislation marked the transition of a centralized norm to control migration flows from a wide integration perspective (Soriano-Miras, 2011; Ortega Pérez, 2003). This law introduced a new plan, set up by the Spanish government to take measure in four different areas, called El Plan

Greco. This was part of a global program for regulation and cooperation of foreign affairs and

migration in Spain. The plan was introduced for the period of 2001-2004, established by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ortega Pérez, 2003). It contained four areas in which it should operate: 1) Global coordination of migration from a Spanish perspective in cooperation with EU policy; 2) Integration of foreign residents and their family who are contributing actively to Spanish development; 3) Regulation of migration flows to guarantee cohabiting in Spain; 4) Maintenance of the system to protect refugees (Ortega Pérez, 2003). Both the law of 2000 and

el Plan Greco are explicit in the recognition to stabilize migration and secure integration in

Spain.

Moreover, European AP’s could be related to Spanish governance. Since the adhesion in 1986, Spain developed several AP’s concerning the Spanish-African relationship. These AP’s for Sub-Saharan Africa are also known as the ‘Africa Plan’ and focus on the control of migration flows (Saddiki, 2010). The AP from 2009-2012 contains the following objectives: support for the consolidation process for the construction of democracy, peace and security in Africa; contribution to fight against poverty; promotion to commercial relations and

investment between Spain and Africa as well as economic development in Africa;

(28)

23 Africa; and consolidation of the Spanish political and institutional presence in Africa

(Gobierno de España, 2009).

El Plan África 2009-2012 renueva el compromiso de España de construir una política global y solidaria hacia –y sobre todo, con- África Subsahariana. La política africana ha sido probablemente uno de los elementos

definitorios de la acción exterior del Gobierno durante la pasada legislatura (2004-2008), y debe traducirse en un esfuerzo sostenido a largo plazo. El afianzamiento de la democracia, la paz y la seguridad, la lucha contra la pobreza, la promoción de las relaciones económicas y el desarrollo africano, así como el establecimiento de políticas migratorias coordinadas y coherentes, todos ellos objetivos de la política exterior de España en África, sólo pueden ser alcanzados en el medio-largo plazo y sobre la base del trabajo conjunto y constante (Gobierno de España, 2009).

This illustrates the importance Spain created for bilateral cooperation with African countries. Due to its geographical position, the government presents itself as important actor in the cooperation with the African continent where migration issues play a key role.

According to the ‘Plan África’, the dialogue between Spain and the African countries should be optimized to reduce migrant flows from African countries towards Spanish territory. Therefore economic cooperation should be stimulated in order to create jobs in Africa as well as to improve the economic situation in African countries. Furthermore, attention is paid to the control and fight against human trafficking and organized crime (Gobierno de España, 2009). These aims structured by the Spanish government are all in coherence with EU policies due to the fact that the Europeanization of migration policies has become a key element in Spanish wider national governance (Saddiki, 2010).

Besides the several plans and the legislation Spain that has developed, the largest regularization process ever made in Spain was established after an agreement between the government and employer organizations. The agreement is known as the Normalisation which took place between 7 February and 7 May 2005 (Baldwin-Edwards and Arango, 1999;

Sabater and Domingo, 2012). Nonetheless, after the 2005 Normalisation, it also became apparent that traditional regularizations were insufficient to manage Spain’s increasingly complex irregular migration not only during the years of unprecedented economic growth but also during recessionary periods (Sabater and Domingo, 2012).

Spain represents a particularly interesting case study in this regard. Traditional amnesties such as the 2005 Normalisation were substituted by a continued regularization scheme, called the Settlement Program which has been in full operation since 2006 (Sabater

(29)

24 and Domingo, 2012). It was designed as a comprehensive approach to tackle irregular

migration in a manner consistent with the EU framework on immigration (Bosniak, 2007; Sabater and Domingo, 2012). The general aim from the Normalisation and the Settlement Program policies was the recognition of a continued period of residence in Spain to indicate the existence of a labour market relationship and social integration (Bosniak 2007; Sabater and Domingo, 2012). This means that Spain provided on the one hand more security, and on the other hand an integration process for migrants who entered the country in order to develop Spanish economy. Furthermore, these plans were in coherence with the African Plan to

stabilize the cooperation with North African countries (Wolff, 2007).

Besides the aims to develop cooperation, the Settlement Program and the

Normalisation indicate an excessive security plan in relation to migration. The objectives include the establishment of surveillance mechanisms at the borders, the fight against trafficking industries and bilateral agreements with North African countries (Wolff, 2007). Another objective is the repetition of the Euro-African conferences organized by Spain, France and Morocco to maintain the dialogue about the securitization of the Mediterranean (Wolff, 2007).

BORDER CONTROL IN SPAIN

Since the Tampere Summit, Spain had invested heavily in maritime border control and developed a system that is currently presented as a model for the rest of the EU (Council of the European Union, 2006). Controlling a land border could consist of physical barriers to keep people out. At maritime borders, by contrast, the primary aspect of migration control is often the detection and apprehension of entrants. The Spanish borders with Africa are very short, but have proven that the control of the maritime borders are fundamentally different and more demanding because it requires surveillance of an area (Carling, 2007).

During Spanish improvement on border management, the government approved a plan for guarding the southern borders against pateras or cayucos in 1999. This plan centred on the implementation of the so-called Integrated System of External Vigilance (SIVE), a

technologically advanced structure for detecting and intercepting pateras and other vessels, operated by the Guardia Civil (Castillo Gallardo, interview May 2015; Bejarano Ramírez, interview May 2015; Carling, 2007; Ferrer-Gallardo, 2008). The strategy of the SIVE is centred on the principles of early detection and central command (Cosidó, 2003). A system of fixed and mobile detection devices such as radars, infrared cameras, and video cameras can

(30)

25 identify a small vessel ten kilometres from the shore and estimate the number of people on board at a distance of five kilometres. Information about the vessel, its position, and course is transmitted to a central command, form where interception units as boats, helicopters and cars are coordinated (Castillo Gallardo, interview May 2015; Bejarano Ramírez, interview May 2015; Carling, 2007). It was a well-formed system, developed by the Spanish government to control the maritime borders and signified as an interesting example for European BM.

The SIVE was first developed on the northern coast of the Strait of Gibraltar and was extended in 2004 to the whole coast of the province Cádiz, and in 2005 it covered the entire Andalusian coast. It has also been developed on the Canary Islands and in 2002, three fixed detection stations were installed on Fuerteventura, using advanced radar technology that had proved its efficacy in the 2001-2002 war in Afghanistan (Carling, 2007). In relation to European BM, the SIVE could be seen in accordance with the AP’s from the ENP, as well as with the Schengen Border Code, the SIS and the VIS. All of them cover a project to stabilize migration flows at the Mediterranean and intend to control illegal entrance of migrants into the EU at Spanish territory, as well as to create free movement in the EU.

International cooperation on migration and border control can be seen as essential in maintaining a state’s capacity to regulate population flows and is therefore a vital component of Spanish national security policy (Adamson, 2006). This means that Spanish policies and European policies on migration and border management should be coherent. The EU has established a European-wide corps of border guards and a European entry visa linked to a computerized database. This is accompanied by police and judicial cooperation in coherence with the SIS (Adamson, 2006). The fundamental role Spain has in the European

policy-making process on border management and migration policies indicates the aim to adjust both European and Spanish policies. Therefore, the SIVE is based on European policies in order to create a national security environment, where the EU also uses Spanish systems as examples to implement them in European programs.

COOPERATION

Perspectives of the Spanish government commenced as concerned towards the European policies, especially the ENP. Most preoccupying for the government was the effect of the Europeanization on national policies and its relation with Arab countries (Barbé Izuel, Mesters i Camps and Soler i Lecha, 2007). However, Spain supported the ENP in order to

(31)

26 create coherence in national and European policies. The perspective of Spain towards the ENP could therefore be seen as positive although critical at some points too.

The results of the Spanish Presidency in 2002 was deemed as positive for the development of the EUROMED, taking into account the convulsed international context in the Mediterranean area (Natorski, 2007). Therefore, Spanish international collaboration improved due to the establishment of the ENP and strengthened the cooperation in the field of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Spain aimed to subordinate a strategic partnership with the Mediterranean and its neighbour countries. As a result, Spain’s position included the assurance that the new Strategic Association for the Mediterranean and the Middle East, as opposed to in the ENP, does not deviate from its own Mediterranean policy and should be an addition to stabilize migration flows and security in the Mediterranean zone (Natorski, 2007).

According to the process of Europeanization, policies on Mediterranean issues as the securitization and border protection, Spanish policies are completely intertwined in EU polices with the effect of an Europeanized policy system in Spain (Barbé Izuel, Mesters i Camps and Soler i Lecha, 2007). Therefore, Spain keeps supporting European programs in order to develop national policy. Its position towards European policies, especially the ENP, contains the support for new initiatives and its unanimity towards the EU, although it still requires a special role in European policies concerning the Mediterranean (Barbé Izuel, Mesters i Camps and Soler i Lecha, 2007).

2.3 The Special position of Ceuta and Melilla

THE FENCES

Generally speaking, the outcomes of the cooperation between Spain and the EU can be seen as positive. Spain is able to pursue its proper objectives towards migration and security among the external borders, while the EU constructs general policy programs for securitization and cooperation in the Mediterranean. In order to relate Spanish policies with European policies such as the ENP, Spanish migration policies and border management are Europeanized, although some special requirements are introduced due to the particular situation of the two Spanish cities in Morocco.

Ceuta and Melilla constitute the only territories in mainland Africa which belong to an EU Member State, and as a result, the only land border between the two continents (Castan

The Europeanization of national borders - Cooperation between the European Union and Spain on border management