The Spain-Gambia circular migration MoU: Between mobility hopes and criticism

by Rossella Marino and Mustapha Sallah

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on circular migration has been recently ratified by Spain and The Gambia. With its underlying neocolonial and neoliberal aspects, the agreement functions as a tool of migration control. The scheme has produced disparate reactions among Gambian citizens, including resentment at being obliged to work abroad rather than at home and criticism of the Gambian government’s general incompetence. However, many have high hopes of being selected for this regular migration opportunity. As soon as the application procedure opened, hundreds of young Gambians stormed the dedicated offices to obtain application forms. Overall, the agreement and the debates surrounding it once again demonstrate how Africans have to play the game of global neoliberal economics for their survival while being aware and critical of its exploitative politics.

Right-wing politicians’ anti-migrant propaganda blames migrants for the social, political and economic woes of the West. To this, mainstream parties and international organisations such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) reply with the refrain that migration has to be safe, orderly and regular. This rights-based approach, which emphases the need to regulate migration for the benefit of migrants as well as sending and receiving countries, is based on the conviction that the death and suffering of undocumented migrants can be fixed through international cooperation on migration. This is additionally connected to the view that most migrants would not remain in host countries if they had the chance to work abroad in a cyclical manner.

This approach is driven by a specific politics. Rather than recognise that illegalised migration is rooted in colonialism and the hierarchies of humanity advanced by the West, it constructs this migration as a regulatory issue. Furthermore, it does not acknowledge the role of racial capitalism in the creation and continuation of illegalised migration but simply advocates for the institutionalisation of exploitation through its regulation. As this regulation hinges on the development of international treaties facilitating (circular) migration, it depends on and reinforces the Global North’s neocolonial influence over the Global South. Most racialised citizens of Global South countries cannot access regular migration pathways because of this neocolonial hierarchisation favouring Western lives. Therefore, they generally appreciate the opportunity to work abroad provided by such agreements. The depoliticising emphasis on the benefits of migration over its historical and political roots characterises neoliberal migration management, which, for all the abovementioned reasons, is ultimately a paradigm of migration control.

MoU and neocolonial migration management

We see these dynamics unfolding in the circular migration agreements that the West African country of The Gambia has entered recently. The Gambia is the smallest country on mainland Africa, with a very young population that has significantly embarked on the illegalised migration journey commonly known locally as the ‘backway’. The European Union (EU) has heavily invested in The Gambia to control its citizens’ mobility since a democratic government took office in 2017, but its humanitarian and development programmes have largely proven ineffective. Consequently, emigration rates have remained substantial, and European countries such as Germany have continued threatening Gambians abroad with deportation. This has led to a standoff between the Gambian government and the EU, which concluded with the former lifting its deportation moratorium due to sanctions imposed by the latter.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, on a diplomatic tour in West Africa in August 2024, announced that his government would strike a circular migration agreement with The Gambia. “This new initiative aims to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration that benefits both our countries and our citizens,” Sánchez said, emphasising that workers are needed for Spain’s aging society. As the leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, Sánchez’s statements reflect the neoliberal approach to migration introduced above. First, they reify the sedentary bias allowing people to move as long as they return back to where they are from once their engagement is over. Second, they obscure the neocolonial aim of exploiting a racialised workforce for Europe’s economic future. More broadly, Sánchez’s tour came to appease the Canary Islands, where frustration was growing with the government’s inaction towards an increase in irregular arrivals.

In October 2024, the Gambian National Assembly ratified the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Spain. Hon. Baboucarr O. Joof, the Gambian Minister of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration, and Employment, explained that the agreement, which is non-binding, has a renewable duration of one year. Before departing, seasonal workers will sign a contract connected to a four-year work visa. Once the contract terminates or expires, the worker commits to returning. The Minister also stated that registered and licensed private recruitment agencies would recruit the workers under the supervision of the Department of Labor’s Empowerment Management Services Unit.

Some parliamentary interventions illustrate why The Gambia would pursue such a deal. Hon. Belay G. Tunkara linked the agreement to the everyday reality of young people dying due to irregular migration, while Hon. Suwaibou Touray highlighted the importance of channelling remittances towards national development. Other lawmakers emphasised the need for the government to prevent the workers from absconding in Spain. This discourse reveals that Gambian lawmakers do not openly address the coloniality of such agreements. Instead, they interpret them as antidotes to undocumented migrants’ deaths and suggest to police Gambian emigrants into compliance rather than addressing the structural injustice influencing their actions.

Critical perspectives from The Gambia

The Facebook page What’s on Gambia is a digital platform with more than half a million followers where news about The Gambia is shared and discussed. In November 2024, it reported that the Spanish government had discovered that some private recruitment agencies had started charging interested Gambians thousands of dalasi with false promises of participation in the MoU’s employment scheme. In response, the Gambian government made some clarifications on the recruitment mechanism behind the MoU, stating that the Public Employment Services Unit of the Department of Labour under the Ministry of Trade is the sole coordinator and facilitator of the workers’ selection.

The post by What’s on Gambia, featuring the Spanish government’s statement and the Gambian government’s clarification, received many critical comments. Gambian readers wished the youth could focus on developing their own country rather than going abroad, voiced concerns about the conditions the workers would face and questioned why employment opportunities were not offered to Gambians who had already arrived in Spain through the backway. Despite this public outcry, sources inside and outside the country reported that some communities, families and individuals were mobilising financial resources, hoping to be selected for the scheme by paying the right actors.

In February 2025, the Gambian government released details of the selection procedure. Candidates must have experience in fruit-picking and -handling, possess a clean criminal record, be in good health and commit to returning home when requested. These requirements align with neoliberal migration management, as they place the responsibility for productivity and compliance on the individual migrant. According to the relevant press release, the selection process will be free of charge. Shortlisted candidates will be interviewed by a panel composed of Spanish officials and diplomats as well as the Spanish employer, reflecting the neocolonial influence underlying the agreement.

On 7 February, Hon. Baboucarr Ousmaila Joof, Minister of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration and Employment, clarified that only 50 Gambians would be selected to participate in the scheme. That was after a large number of Gambians had already visited the dedicated offices to collect application forms. Regular citizens, activists and commentators promptly voiced their concern and disappointment. According to activist Yahya Sonko,

“[h]ad the government properly informed citizens, the chaotic scenes at the Ministry of Trade could have been avoided. Most of these youths believe the government and Spain are offering opportunities to thousands of Gambians. If they knew the actual number Spain agreed to, they might lower their expectations”.

Commentators at InsideGambia.com asked critical questions, including

“The ministry already knew that the Spanish Government only required 50 Gambians to start, why would they distribute thousands of forms nationwide causing a mass influx of youths with their hopes higher to the point of scaling fences to access them? Secondly, how are they going to deal with workers’ rights should their rights be abused in these countries?”

Activist Abdoulie O Bah authored an uncompromising post on his Facebook page titled “Institutionalized Failure: The Gambia Government Has Abandoned Its Youth”.

Conclusion

The example of the circular migration MoU between Spain and The Gambia shows that the trope of safe, regular and orderly migration appears nicer than the far right’s open rejection of migration, but is as rooted in neocolonialism and neoliberal exploitation. Frustrated Gambians see the Spain-Gambia MoU as a rare opportunity to work abroad with the necessary documentation. They, therefore, resent the fraudulent and unreliable attitude of opportunistic recruitment agencies and their government, respectively. Furthermore, they wish for young citizens to be trained to develop their own country rather than enriching others. However, they flocked to the Ministry’s offices in large numbers to obtain an application form. Unfortunately, the sad truth soon became clear: a mere 50 workers would be selected for the scheme. The agreement and the controversies surrounding it are yet another proof of Africans having to navigate global neoliberal economics for their survival, while remaining aware of and critical of the exploitation originating in Europe and facilitated by some Gambian private and public actors.