23rd August 2010
Migration: Challenges in an Intercultural World
Caux Forum on Human Security, July 16, 2010, Caux Switzerland
Panel 3: Living Sustainably: Meeting the Challenge of an Intercultural World In the coming decades, climate change will force many millions to migrate from their homelands. How will we develop appropriate international migration policies? How can we ensure social cohesion as countries become increasingly diverse in their cultures. Introduction It is a pleasure to finally be able to attend the annual Caux Forum. In this regard, I would like to warmly thank Mohamed, Cornelio, and John for their invitation to attend this most interesting and valuable ‘summit’ in the Swiss Alps. The majestic scenery that surrounds us will no doubt help us to openly and creatively address the challenges we face as an international community, and develop the ideas and will to improve the human condition. I also appreciate the opportunity of speaking to you this morning on the subject of international migration policy. I do so wearing two hats; one as a Special Advisor to the Secretary General of the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), and the other as a Senior Fellow at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD); both located in Geneva. I will also draw on lessons learned during my time as Canadian Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, as well as my experience as a former Commissioner on the UN Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM). The agenda for this panel poses two specific questions, so let me offer you a few thoughts on both, in an effort to stimulate an engaging and lively discussion. International Migration Policy First, let me address the issue and challenge of developing an international migration policy. Towards this end, what is the global context for such an endeavor? Well, migration is certainly not new. It has been a constant part of mankind’s reality. Humans have always been on the move — within and across national borders. However, today’s globalized world has greatly facilitated and intensified this human movement to historic levels. And the traffic is not about to go away or slow down. On the contrary, global migration is most likely to become an even more pronounced feature of our existence. For example, just consider the most conservative of estimates in the climate change debate, where tens of millions of people will be forced to move from their homelands as a result of the impending environmental degradation. And where will these people go? How will they be received? Who is preparing for this mass exodus?…….. As well, unlike the old world, where the movement of peoples was predominately from North to South — the model of sending and receiving countries — in today’s world, people migrate to, from, and transit through all nations. Developing and developed alike. Indeed, whether by choice or by force, global mobility is a reflection of our global times. It is a global phenomenon. It therefore demands and requires a global approach and response, if we are to effectively develop workable policies and solutions. Yet, if we are to be provocatively frank, at best, our responses to the forces of international migration have largely been national. Moreover, the sad reality is that all too many countries do not have a comprehensive domestic migration programme. We really do not formulate and enforce international migration policy. In other words; : There is no one multilateral body with overall responsibility for migration. : Unlike the World Bank, IMF, WTO, ILO, WHO, WIPO, Human Right’s Council, etc., for example, that manage financial, trade, labor, health, intellectual property, and human rights policy respectively for the greater good, the task of delivering global migration management lies between the cracks of our current international institutional architecture (notwithstanding the good work of agencies like the UNHCR and IOM). : Ministers responsible for migration, unlike their other colleagues responsible for an array of global portfolios, do not have a single, regular meeting to attend in their calendars, where they could discuss and share concerns with fellow Ministers of Migration from around the world. : There is no formal forum where governments, with or without the assistance of the private sector and civil society, come together to discuss shared migration challenges and take collective actions when and where necessary. Why is this? I suppose we all can site different reasons for this reality. But the leading culprit that most stakeholders point to is the desire for national governments to keep the reigns of migration policy under their tight control; to avoid ceding any domestic sovereignty, in the pursuit of a more sustainable international approach. In this rigid and rather stubborn stance, governments may be moved by labor, emotional, cultural, ideological, or xenophobic considerations and insecurities — but whatever the motivation, they fight to keep migration policy close to their national vest. And yet many would argue —- myself included —- that to a significant degree, because of the pace and technology of our globalized village, national governments are losing the ‘migration battle’ to migrants themselves, to employers, to recruiters, and yes, to smugglers. All these actors, for good and bad reasons, are acting and moving, in spite of governmental edict. Indeed, a patchwork of uncoordinated national strategies, addressing a global phenomenon, is not a winning strategy. Both migrants and nations are the losers. And thus, adopting an international strategy would, in part, help countries reclaim migration policy. It would allow them to bring in a more effective and orderly management of the migration policy file. It would also help them build more confidence with their own citizens, in the knowledge that they would be part of a global effort, as imperfect as that plan might be, rather than standing alone. In our ever interdependent planet, ‘going it alone’, is fast becoming the exception. Countries recognize that they need to work collaboratively with one another on shared challenges; challenges that do not respect borders, nor carry passports. Leaders and citizens alike, know that there are issues where they simply must cede some national space, in return for a global solution that is in their national vested interest. As Hilary Clinton said, “it takes a village”. She was right. However, when it comes to international migration, ‘going it alone’, is still the rule! There is a huge vacuum in both vision and leadership, in terms of how we should better respond to the forces of global migration. Therefore, if we are to develop sound migration policy at the international level, we must shift our governance gearbox. We must incrementally move the stick shift from the current position of independent, uncoordinated national efforts to a position of shared, international strategies. I also deliberately used the word ‘incrementally’, because this is no easy feat. Nor will it be accomplished over night. This shift will be a step-by-step approach: : We will need to build on our national, bilateral, and regional experiences and best practices. : In considering how to create new opportunities for governments and civil society to come together to discuss and take collective action, we may have to start in informal mode. : We will need to engage Ministers responsible for migration, as well as Parliamentarians. : We will need to involve the private sector, especially when one considers the global mobility of bor. : We will need to enlist civil society to better work and partner with governments on improved forms of migration management, and they will need to find the confidence of not viewing the word, ‘management’, as a dirty word. : We will also need to ensure that international migration gets onto the crowded radar screen of the UN. Indeed, there is much work to do. But we should not let that intimidate us from beginning the march. We need to start thinking and acting now. Thinking and acting globally, that is. In this spirit, with the facilitation of ICMC in Geneva, we have launched last year an international initiative to create an informal space for a broad and senior array of migration actors to openly discuss the elements and processes for how we can best develop an international framework for migration policy. It is conducted under Chatham House rules and thus far, it has been a remarkably constructive and engaging process. We have organized roundtables in Geneva, Vienna, Brussels, New York, and Washington. Others are in the planning stages. Bilateral meetings have also been held with government officials, and the Heads of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the International Labor Organization (ILO), the UN Development Program (UNDP) and UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). We have held working sessions with officials to the UN Secretary General, UN Ambassadors in Geneva and New York, as well as having reached out to business and civil society leaders. In the Fall, with the cooperation of the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU) in Geneva, we will be hosting a migration roundtable with politicians from around the world. We also will organize a meeting of Ministers responsible for migration, from both developing and developed countries, so that they may begin to share together, the migration burden and opportunity that they currently shoulder alone. ICMC is only one organization. While it has over 60 years of experience in more than 40 countries around the globe, we have our limitations, naturally. But we are determined to make a contribution and a difference, because it is clear that the status quo is unsustainable. There is a better way, and we would enthusiastically welcome your support and advice along the way. We have recently published an interim report, entitled ‘Connecting the Dots’. I have brought a few copies with me, for anyone who is interested in learning more about the project. Social Cohesion Secondly, how do we promote social cohesion between the waves of new migrants and the citizens of their new, adopted countries? When I was Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, I had two over riding policy and political responsibilities: i) One was to establish the annual target levels of migrants; and ii) ensure that migrants were being integrated into the heart of Canadian society. This is why I call a migration policy a ‘two sided coin’. Not only must you do both, if you want a successful outcome, but from my perspective, the integration component is the more important of the two. To be again provocative — which seems to come naturally, I’m afraid — if a government and a country is not prepared to make a legitimate effort at facilitating an integration process for migrants, they should not have allowed and invited them into the country in the first place! In this regard, social cohesion is an accommodation between the newcomer and the existing citizen. As a result, if one does not work hard in making that accommodation, then you place the migrant and your community and country at some risk. A policy of systemic differences, isolation, and/or segregation does not work. If one denies migrants, who are settling in your country, with the same rights under the law, or prevents them from having full access to citizenship, voting, education, health care, language skills, and the other basic amenities, then these seeds of discontent will only produce a harvest of social tensions and inequalities that will serve to undermine the national fabric of your society — without even mentioning a generation of migrants that will be less successful, less contributing, and less loyal. Migration must be harnessed as a nation-building force; not a force for division and weakness.Thus, to build a migration policy that has social cohesion as one of its primary goals, creating a transparent, fair, and progressive migration programme is central. But how you actually treat those migrants, after they have entered your country, is indispensible. In short, in my estimation, a migration policy without a strong and credible integration component, is a failed migration policy. And in this regard, while it is so against the Canadian DNA to promote ourselves, I do believe that our Canadian model of migrant integration is second to none. It is not perfect. Nor was it achieved from the out start. Instead, it has evolved and deepened over the years. It has been nurtured by governments of different political stripes, and it has been sustained by the support of Canadian citizens. In the process of inviting migrants to our shores, we have found that a thorough integration approach is a wise and mature investment. It is also the right thing to do. After all, we are not talking about the movement of goods, services, or capital. We are dealing with human beings. When people ask me why Canada is seemingly getting migration ‘right’, my answer always includes a reference to our conscious effort at getting integration right, and the power that this has on the destiny of migrants and our country. It is for me, the secret ingredient to our relative migration success.But we should not keep it a secret. Why we hesitate to tell and share this story with the rest of the world is a mystery to me?! This is, after all, a story worth promoting. Let me stop here. I would now welcome your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. ………………………………… Ambassador Sergio Marchi is a Special Advisor to the Secretary General of the International Catholic Migration Commission and a Senior Fellow at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, both headquartered in Geneva. He formerly served as Canadian Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, and as a Commissioner on the UN Global Commission on International Migration.