23rd August 2010
An Article; Global Migration: In need of a Global Response
For a Global Governance Publication, Geneva, Switzerland, August 23, 2010.
Abstract
Migration is a global phenomenon. It touches all corners of the globe, and is quickly rising on the political and policy radar screens of developing and developed countries alike. It challenges our leaders, and it riles many of our citizens. And migration pressures and emotions are not about to fade away. On the contrary, the forces of globalization and climate change, ensures that the issue of human mobility will continue to be a prominent reality of our times, and demand an effective strategy.
Yet, to date, our responses remain largely national and even then, most nations do not have a comprehensive domestic migration policy or program. This presents the international community with a formidable policy gap; a vacuum that demands a response — a global response. And there is no easy or simple fix.
However, because time is not on our side, I believe that we need to immediately think about how the international community can and should respond, and then impress upon our leaders the need for them to act with appropriate urgency, and to do so collectively.
In this spirit, and in cooperation with the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), based in Geneva, last year I had the privilege of launching and leading an initiative entitled, ‘Conversations, on the Global Governance of Migration’.
In a modest but committed way, our aim was to facilitate an informal, international dialogue among many different migration actors in an effort to explore and better understand the different elements — both process and policy‐related — that would need to be incorporated in any effort to build a framework of global cooperation and collaboration on migration policy.
This article outlines the rationale and need for such an initiative; some key questions; our initial findings; and the future mileposts of this ‘journey’.
Global Migration: In Need of a Global Response
Introduction
“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
This old and popular French proverb captures well how our world does migration policy today.
Our world has undergone historic change. It has become an interconnected global village, aided and abetted by a technological revolution. And the prolific movement and migration of peoples has become a definite sign of the times.
Ours is also a world where, increasingly “going it alone”, is fast becoming the exception. The old way of doing business. Today, most issues that cross national borders tend to galvanize an international response and strategy; burdens and opportunities are shared by a host of governments and institutions. Matters of international trade, labor, health, human rights, security, intellectual property, climate, for example, are all managed by some form of global governance.
However, despite it being a global phenomenon, migration is the exception to the rule. In fact, for migration policy, “going it alone” seems to be the golden rule. Where national responses continue to trump globally shared ones, and where many nations still do not even have a comprehensive domestic program to deal with migration issues.
Yet, there have been numerous reports and calls over the years urging us to alter, or at least complement, our course. The Willy Brandt Commission in 1980; in 1993 the Commission on Global Governance; the launch of the New International Regime for Orderly Movement of People in 1997; the Berne Initiative in 2001; the Commission on Human Security in 2001; the Social Dimension of Globalization in 2004, and the most recent, of which I had the pleasure of being a Commissioner, was the Global Commission on International Migration in 2005 — all these initiatives made a convincing case for a more cooperative and collaborative global approach to the management of international migration.
However, these reports have all faced the same regrettable fate — they have all been disregarded and left to languish on our book shelves.
Globalization Marches On
If a single or series of commissioned reports were not going to prove convincing, then one would have thought that the historic forces that have shaped our modern times would have compelled us to amend our ways and habits;
- An ever shrinking world.
- A process of unrelenting globalization, that has brought unprecedented change and movement of goods, services, capital, and people to all corners of our planet, at unprecedented speeds.
- An increasingly integrated international economic market place, which places an ever higher premium on labor mobility.
- A world community where migrants now arrive from, travel to, or transit through, every single nation — big and small, rich and poor. Where indeed, migration now touches all lands and all peoples.
- Where man-made crises and tragedies increase and aggravate this human movement — both forced and voluntary — within and across national borders.
- And, where Mother Nature also does her unfortunate best to ensure that different peoples are forced to be on the move in search of a more sustainable land and home.
These are the times we live in. A world ripe with great opportunities, yet one mixed with great turbulence, as well. And migration is not about to fade away. On the contrary, the forces of globalization and climate change ensure that global migration will surely intensify; generating increased emotional responses from citizens, and demanding greater attention from our political leaders.
Moreover, in tackling international problems, our leaders must recognize that they can neither talk about the forces of international trade and investment, nor the challenges of world hunger, disease and terrorism, nor the dangers posed by climate change, nor indeed, about global migration and development—and then proceed to deal with them in an isolated fashion.
The imperative to act in more cooperative, interrelated, and coherent terms has become painfully evident. Indeed, the global response to the current global financial and economic crisis—the establishment of the G‐20, and its close engagement with such multilateral bodies as the WTO, World Bank, and the IMF—perhaps best typifies the paradigm shift that needs to take place in political governance.
Yet, on migration policy, we persevere with largely national strategies. But, are these really strategies? Do they adequately address the increasing levels and changing patterns of international migration or, do they now act more like straight-jackets? Do these strategies expand our options with which to address the needs of human mobility on a truly global level, or do they narrow our policy toolbox? Personally, the answers are rather obvious.
While national governments may still find comfort in these straightjackets for reasons of politics and sovereignty, we actually need to openly assess the reality on the ground as it is, and change mindsets and approaches accordingly.
Simply put, establishing an international framework for migration policy-making is not principally about governments ceding or losing authority. The reality is that under an accelerating era of globalization, employers, smugglers, migrant networks, agents, and individual migrants themselves, have already take things into their own hands, irrespective of national government policies on admission. While governments may have won a number of battles against unauthorized migration, what about the larger, ongoing ‘war’ for better control of who enters, leaves, transits, and remains in their territories? For instance, how did 12 million undocumented individuals, enter the US? And why does this movement continue almost unabated, despite the current conservative measures and thinking being applied to immigration policy?
In other words, an improved migration management internationally — one that shares both the burdens and the fruits — is really about countries and governments reclaiming sovereignty and control, and exercising it collectively — to the advantage of both States and migrants alike. I believe this to be a central ‘hidden’ truth, which requires candid and thoughtful reflection. Its ultimate acceptance has the potential to be a ‘game-changer’, when it comes to the discourse of how to better manage migration among the family of nations.
In addition, improving and establishing new governance measures is not the challenges of just some governments, or the well-to-do nations. To be successful, the approach must be an inclusive one. All nations must be involved because the new reality is that they are all touched, in one way or another, by migration. They therefore all have a vested interest in developing a better, and more coherent and holistic policy response.
To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, it will take a village — a global village.
Having said this, I do not underestimate for one moment, the formidable task that this represents. I never have, whether as Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, or as Ambassador to the UN and WTO in Geneva, or as a Commissioner on the UN Global Commission on International Migration. To be sure, we need to think and act prudently. However, we should at least find the courage to raise the right questions; questions that we know need asking.
For example;
- In the face of migration’s globality, are national responses sustainable?
- How can we shift policy gears, so as to better meet the needs of today?
- How and where can governments and multilateral agencies enhance their collaboration and cooperation?
- What are the essential elements with which to construct an internationally integrated framework?
- And in this framework, how and where can we retain national flexibilities?
In other words, how can countries help one another to find mutually reinforcing international measures, with which to more effectively address their respective migration pressures locally?
‘Conversations’
These were some of the very questions that we, at International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), started with. Indeed, they were the ‘seeds’ that harvested the Conversations initiative.
We wanted to make a modest but committed contribution, by facilitating a process of open and constructive discussion, with an extensive array of senior migration actors, about ways in which we could create better governance, as a response to the global phenomenon of migration. The hope was to help stimulate a deeper public discourse, facilitate the development of a number of relevant benchmarks and options, and eventually encourage decision makers to take up its cause with appropriate urgency.
Conversations was launched in late 2009. As a first phase, it was Geneva-based and consisted of two partnered Roundtables; one-on-one meetings with several key Heads of Agencies (IOM, UNHCR, ILO, UNITAR, UNDP) most involved with the migration dossier; discussions with UN Ambassadors; and input from a variety of individual stakeholders.
Discussions were informal, followed Chatham House Rules, and were largely driven by three concerns:
i) Evaluating the current level of migration governance, and how these efforts could be improved and deepened.
ii) Entertaining new and realistic ideas and proposals which would serve to create a more globally unified response to migration challenges?
iii) And, determining what kind of follow-up action and initiatives would be necessary for advancing this process?
Connecting the Dots
Our Report, ‘Connecting the Dots’, is a summary of the participants’ responses in this first phase, and the discussions that their thoughts animated.
Participants engaged openly and enthusiastically, and we remain most grateful to all of them for their lively, candid, and creative views and assessments. They provided us with a rich menu of issues, observations, and additional questions, which deserve further and thoughtful consideration.
We tried to capture all of the salient contributions and weave them into a coherent story line, including the divergent strands, so as to accurately capture the full flavor of the discourse. You may down load a copy of the report from the ICMC website, at: www.icmc.net
At the risk of not doing justice to the full narrative of the Report, let me draw out some of the highlights and themes of what participants advocated during a very stimulating set of conversations;
Regarding the Broader Context:
1. Participants felt that migration was very much a reflection of our times, and thanks in part to the process of globalization, the movement of people within and across borders, will continue to increase.
2. Nations can no longer be divided into strictly “sending” and “receiving” countries. Today, migrants are leaving from, arriving to and transiting through, all developed and developing countries. In that sense, we’re all in the same boat.
3. As an issue, international migration will only gain in political and policy importance.
4. Yet, despite migration’s global reach, its governance remains almost entirely national, thus creating a significant gap and vacuum.
5. Participants felt that global challenges demand global solutions. And for many of them, it was not a question of whether a discussion of global governance of migration goes forward, but rather when and how.
6. At the same time, discussants did not underestimate the formidable task that this represents for our international community. Trying to mobilize, develop and agree upon a global undertaking is never an easy task, regardless of the issue involved. Practising and succeeding at multilateralism, in an increasingly multi-polar world, is not a simple undertaking. Witness, for example, the 9 year struggle of the WTO’s ongoing Doha Trade Round, or the recent Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen.
7. The objective of Conversations (as well as for the participants) was not to necessarily propose a “super” agency, notwithstanding that such an option might well be considered by States one day. Rather, the focus was on perceptions of the value of global governance itself, and any actions or commitments that seemed practical to pursue in the short to medium term, whose effect would improve the management of global migration.
In Taking Stock of Current Governance Structures:
8. Participants agreed that better approaches were needed to organizing contemporary migration.
9. Timing was seen as an important factor. Given the existing and potentially new challenges on the horizon, it was felt that governments need to move with appropriate urgency. Participants felt that we do not have the luxury of inaction.
10. There was also an immediate attention to the words, ‘global governance, and a concern that the term could be potentially viewed as a “loaded” or “intimidating” term by some governments and/or agencies. Further reflection on a more neutral expression would be helpful and welcome.
11. It was also thought that a good part of this “fear” is the assumption that this would immediately involve or, will inevitably lead, to the creation of a new, supranational agency.
12. The other part of the “fear” equation, of course, is the reluctance on the part of most governments to cede sovereignty over migration matters. However, participants asked directly: what if governments took the time to calculate their net benefits, if migration were to be subjected to global cooperation and collaboration, just as is done with so many other global issues?
13. The principal underlying assumption was that a shared and coordinated international approach would be of benefit for all parties concerned: for the ability of States to better manage migration, for improving the confidence of their citizens, and for migrants themselves.
14. A more effective global approach would also embrace a “bottom-up” approach, as well as extending outwards, both national and regional processes, and not just new tools.
15. Participants identified five pillars which currently intersect to provide what one participant labelled as “soft” governance: i) national policies and programmes; ii) bilateral, regional, and global dialogues; iii) supranational structures and cooperation (e.g. the EU); iv) multilateral agencies; and v) international legal frameworks. But to date, participants believed that the sum of the parts had not resulted in coherent global governance.
16. It was thought that a set of broad migration principles could assist and guide the development of international governance measures. In this regard, the Report of the Global Commission on International Migration, had articulated a set of six such principles that people thought were still relevant and helpful.
17. Participants made repeated references to “sharpening” and “better utilizing” existing tools, which spoke to the need for ensuring that agency mandates are well aligned.
18. It was felt that the migration ‘issue’ could be a more central component of the UN agenda, including in the work plan and priorities of the UN Secretary General.
19. A number of key contradictions which form part of the migration discourse were identified, furthering the need for a clear vision of, and leadership on, migration policy.
20. With respect to some of the specific, existing processes:
Ø The Global Migration Group was viewed as a disappointing underachiever, and participants offered a number of recommendations for reform and improvement.
Ø The Global Forum on Migration and Development was regarded more positively, notwithstanding a number of limitations. There was a strong disposition that the next Forum in Mexico, later this year, needs to shift from a purely “talking” mode into a more “active” mode.
Ø The substantial increase in regional consultative processes in recent years was noted, and despite the differences in focus and outcomes, it was generally believed that there was considerable scope for closer collaboration and cooperation.
In Looking to the future with a different lens:
21. A variety of ideas and observations were expressed.
Ø On conceptualising governance, these included:
§ developing a shared vision for migration, and mobilizing the political will and leadership to move on migration internationally
§ an improved institutional framework is required, complete with normative foundations and coherent regional processes
§ finding common drivers/platforms that would assist in broadening migration governance
§ articulating and documenting the specific advantages that would benefit countries from adopting an international framework to migration policy-making
§ establishing a constructive public advocacy campaign that would help focus on promoting the importance of global governance for migration, with political leaders, policy makers, targeted media and the public. In this regard, it was also suggested that the migration-serving community could be strengthened and better organized
Ø On building governance, recommendations included:
§ building on bilateral and regional agreements and processes
§ establishing coherent and comprehensive migration policies at the national level, including better integrating migration issues into countries’ foreign and developmental policies, and supporting capacity building efforts towards this end
§ creation of a formal and permanent international Forum that would regularly discuss migration policy, and take the appropriate collective actions
§ the holding of a regular, international meeting of Ministers responsible for migration, thereby providing the space and opportunity for them to engage with colleagues from around the globe on legislation, regulations, practises, and experiences relating to migration policy.
§ creating more opportunities for Parliamentarians to discuss migration related issues, in an effort to formulate better strategies for engaging their respective citizens
§ encouraging national leaders to be more engaged on migration policy, and providing the leadership and direction for their ministers, as well as for their respective delegations in multilateral agencies that deal with migration
Ø With respect to intergovernmental and other migration actors, recommendations included:
§ improved governance must incorporate a much better capacity and commitment to engage in long term planning, as well as nurture improved, inclusive partnerships with civil society and the private sector
§ reinforcing the “rapprochement” of better cooperation between the leading migration agencies
§ specific improvements to the functioning of both the GMG and the GFMD, including enhanced collaboration between the two entities
§ a more active and strategic engagement on migration issues by the UN Secretary General, as well as clarifying the mandate of his Special Representative on Migration
§ efforts to ensure that the next UN High Level Dialogue, scheduled for 2013, is an interactive, results-oriented dialogue, and not just a series of independent statements. In this regard, the early appointment of a Special Chairperson, that would report directly to the UN SG and oversee the preparations and execution of the meeting, was viewed as central to achieving such an outcome.
In Assessing Where ‘We’ go From Here:
21. The participants heartily welcomed and encouraged ICMC to continue its work on the governance process. They urged that efforts be made to reach out to additional stakeholders, with the objective of enhancing the public discourse and sustaining some much-needed advocacy and momentum on this front.
22. Accordingly, a good number of concrete proposals building on the first phase were suggested, and these are noted in the report.
23. As a follow up, based on this input from participants and in a continued spirit of partnership, ICMC plans to immediately move into a second phase which will consist of the following six priorities:
i) circulate this report among all the participants and through them, to their respective networks. Beyond this, we will also share the report with other relevant migration stakeholders, in an effort to further broaden the public discourse on the issue of governance.
ii) hold additional roundtables with a variety of different migration actors in capitals like New York, Washington, and Brussels, as well as in developing country capitals.
iii) continue with meetings of UN Ambassadors in Geneva, and explore the feasibility of doing the same in New York. Our next Geneva session is for the coming week.
iv) organize an initial meeting/retreat for a critical mass of Ministers responsible for migration, from both developing and developed nations.
v) work with and support the Mexican Chair of the next GFMD.
vi) secure donor support to deepen and broaden these and subsequent activities for engagement.
Moving Forward
Since publishing ‘Connecting the Dots’, additional roundtables and government meetings have been held in Brussels, New York, and Washington, including an engaging session with UN Ambassadors in New York. These new outreaches have enriched the process. They served to consolidate key viewpoints, offered new variations of these viewpoints and finally, provided entirely new thoughts and suggestions.
In continuing this ‘journey’, our context is the timetable facing political and policy makers as they prepare themselves for the 2013 UN High Level Dialogue on Migration, in New York, as well as contemplating what follows (if anything) the final (of six) Global Forum on Migration and Development, to be held in Morocco, in 2012. Accordingly, we would like to offer them the benefit of our ‘Conversations’; to provide an agenda of thoughtful and realistic findings and recommendations that could serve as a relevant and representative reference for their deliberations.
In this regard, we are committed to a number of additional mileposts. These include:
Ø Roundtable meeting(s), and related bilateral meetings with government officials in a developing country capital and region
Ø A Business Forum (in the planning stages)
Ø Engaging Parliamentarians ( planned for October this year, with the Inter Parliamentary Union, in Geneva)
Ø A Dedicated Forum with Civil Society
Ø Continuing the Ambassadorial informal meetings in Geneva and New York.
Ø Participating in the November GFMD, in Mexico, and hopefully at its final two successors.
Ø Drafting and circulating the 2nd report of Conversations, at the time of the Mexican GFMD.
Ø Organizing a Ministerial Retreat.
Ø Hosting a concluding Conference, and publishing a Consolidated Report of Findings and Recommendations.
As we undertake this work, we need to recognize and accept that the very phenomenon of migration is both fascinating and challenging. It has always been so, and likely always will.
Migrants are dreamers and entrepreneurs. They seek a different and better life, and they are fully prepared to take considerable risks in achieving their quest. In many cases, first generation migrants unselfishly sacrifice their own quality of life, in an effort to secure improved prospects for their children, and grandchildren.
Migrants also come from all corners of the globe, and they often seek and seize opportunities in very different lands. In doing so, they conquer past adversities and reinvent themselves. At the same time, they also help to renew societies. The diversity of peoples, experiences, and ideas creates invaluable creative energies and capital, which contribute to the nation building processes of their new, adopted countries.
However, there is also a darker, more dispiriting side to the migration reality. Despite passionate desires, many people do not get the opportunity to migrate. Some that do find it a disappointing and underwhelming experience. Others use the migration process for untoward purposes, while all too many profit unscrupulously from the human desperation that migration aspirations generate.
To be sure, migration remains largely an opportunity — for both migrants and nations. But as a deeply emotional reality, it is also packs fears, perceptions, and insecurities that can create anxieties for people of all backgrounds, from all lands.
For all of these reasons and contradictions, I remain absolutely convinced — grounded by the participants who have animated our ‘Conversations’ process— that establishing an international regime of coordinated actions would inevitably help nations to maximize the opportunities that migration offers, while better addressing the challenges that accompany it. That by working together, we will avoid the shortcomings of going-it-alone.
We need to honestly think things through. In that assessment, let us retain and reinforce what is working well, while being candid and courageous where realities and pressures demand that we rethink and rebuild.
Recently, I saw an advertisement in the Financial Times that caught my attention. The large caption blared out: “A risk tamed, is a reward captured!” In a way, the ad captures the essence of marshaling and building an international approach to migration policy.
Indeed, it’s about managing and taming risks, while capturing and reaping the rewards.
But in order to accomplish this task, it will require nations to share and cooperate with one another, for the greater public good. It will require leaders and policy-makers to think and act globally, in an effort to win and consolidate locally.
In the end, it will require providing the global vision and leadership that global migration demands.
…………………………………………
v Ambassador Sergio Marchi is Special Advisor to the Secretary General of the International Catholic Migration Commission, in Geneva. He is also a Senior Fellow with the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, and teaches in the International Relations Department at Webster University, both headquartered in Geneva. He formerly served as Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Canadian Ambassador to the UN and WTO in Geneva, and as Commissioner on the UN Global Commission on International Migration.