I found an article from the Telegraph that sheds light on how European countries are trying to force specific African nations to take in thousands of refugees and if they won't or can't...they will likely lose aid that will have potentially devastating consequences. The migrant crisis is one of the bigger signs of the blowback that has been the destabilization of the Middle East by Western forces. Specifically countries like Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq which is where the vast majority of migrants are coming from and those are the countries that have seen the most military involvement from outsiders.
The first little paragraph says it all. The countries that are being forced into this policy are already mostly poor outside of Nigeria. It says that African states that take in migrants with be "rewarded," but the fact that the author places this in parenthesis means that any monetary reward will likely come with extreme cons as well. The rewards include billions of euros that will be transferred to African countries however given the state many of these countries are in...it's hard not to view this as an extreme waste of money in Europe's attempt to place the burden of this crisis onto countries that were not involved in destabilizing the home countries of these migrants to begin with.
If African countries do not cooperate then sectors such as trade, education, climate change and agriculture could be severely impacted by the loss of aid. This simply shows how Europeans still to this day keep their former African colonies under their control via foreign aid and the ability to control African economies.
So we see the countries that will be impacted by this. Libya is a failed state, but I understand that since some of the migrants are trying to get into Europe via Libya that it makes sense to get whatever government is functional there to cooperate to stem the flow of migrants. You see though, that's the problem right there. Libya is a failed state because NATO bombed it and turned it from a successful nation, to a haven for terrorists. The U.S. media and even some in New Media often overlook this not-so-small detail because it forces the cheerleaders of that 2011 intervention to acknowledge how bad of an idea it was and how it clearly did more harm than good. Even Obama has come out recently and stated Libya was his biggest blunder.
Niger, Nigeria and Ethiopia haven't been bombed by NATO, however they were also not involved in the toppling of foreign governments either. It's amazing how the culprits of this problem are trying to put the burden of fixing the problem onto countries that never had a dog in the fight to begin with. The chart to the right shows you specifically that Nigeria is a very small source of these migrants. The vast majority of the migrants are from countries that have been destroyed due to U.S. and European intervention. It's easy for the European Union to claim that just because they're throwing some money at African nations, then that will somehow be an answer to all the problems that will certainly arise when they start taking in migrants. First and foremost, there's no timetable as to when these migrants will be able to return to their homeland due to the violence still being ongoing in those countries. Secondly, will this transfer of migrants continue on and on whereby the EU will simply turn Africa into a dumping ground for people they don't want? So they can continue warring and toppling governments with no end in sight and Africa becomes saddled with a large population of people they will barely be able to take care of due to the fact that many of these countries like Niger and Ethiopia are already struggling.
- EU Tells Africa: Accept Deportations or Lose Aid - The Telegraph