Commission for Social Development                          

Forty-second Session                                       

10^th Meeting (AM)

BETTER MANAGING MIGRATION KEY CHALLENGE FOR TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY,

SAY SPEAKERS IN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DEBATE

With more and more people leaving their homes in search of a better life for themselves and their families, top United Nations officials and national social policy experts gathered today to discuss a key challenge for our world in the twenty-first century:  finding ways to better manage migration.

Devoting its annual consideration of new and emerging issues to the social aspects of international migration and migrants, the Commission for Social Development held its first-ever panel discussion on the matter, taking up the Secretary-General’s challenge to jump start the United Nations dialogue on ways to “manage the movement of people across borders far better –- not just for the sake of those who move, but for the sake of the countries they leave behind, those they travel through, and those they migrate to”.

While applauding the Commission’s move, Johan Scholvinck, Director of the Division for Social Policy and Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, reminded delegations that the issue of international migration and migrants was neither “new” nor “emerging”.  Migration “was as old as humanity”, he said, and over the years the General Assembly had been considering the possibility of an international conference on the subject, and that body’s latest relevant resolution called for the convening of a high-level dialogue on international migration in 2006.

But, regardless of how the migration debate was labelled, today marked the first time that an intergovernmental body would address the issue in a substantive way, he continued.  International migration had also taken on an increasingly important position in the work of the United Nations, and the Secretary-General had identified it as one of the world body’s chief priorities in the new century.  He had also recently backed the establishment and recent launch in Geneva of the new Global Commission on International Migration.

Also responding to the new challenge, the International Forum for Social Development, a DESA initiative, had devoted its third meeting last October to international migrants and development.  Jacques Baudot, Coordinator of the Forum, said it was clear that continuing the migratory status quo was undesirable.  And while the current forms of bilateral and regional cooperation should certainly be strengthened, they might not be enough, particularly since a world economy characterized by an increasingly free circulation of capital, goods, technologies and information would have difficulties maintaining strong restrictions on the movements of people across national borders.

He said strengthened international cooperation should proceed one step at a time and lead to a progressive understanding of the modalities of an “orderly regime” for international migration.  Stakeholders should, therefore, consider a social perspective focusing on, among other things, status and mobility of migrants, their social integration, and the relation between migration and poverty. 

Geronimo Gutierrez, Vice-Minister for North America, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, said in order to begin laying out a normative migratory framework, the overall negative perception of migrants must be addressed.  In large part, it was up to the global media to reverse that perception, chiefly by highlighting the undeniable ways in which migrants enriched societies in their new home countries.  The United Nations family of agencies must also work to demystify migration.  Other important issues were the absolute necessity for reliable information on migration, and the need to consider the issue from a social perspective.

Within such a perspective, clear priorities should be, among other things, access to jobs and safe working conditions, secure and safe legal status, and access to social service for migrants.  He went on to say that, while current international trends seemed to foster migration, they had also led to a tendency to stiffen immigration controls and regulations in some countries.  Therefore, a fair and balanced discussion between the major sending and receiving countries about shared responsibility was needed.

For his part, Jan O. Karlsson, Co-Chair of the Global Commission on International Migration, said one way to establish a normative framework for migration was to bring to it out of the regulated decision-making process and try to respond to the challenge in an independent manner.  The field of migration seemed to be one in which the distance between decision-makers and those who really knew about the issue was the largest.  As the Minister for Migration in Sweden for some 20 years, he had learned that there was a wide gap between those who decided and those who knew.  One of the Commission’s tasks was to bridge that enormous gap.

Regarding the public perceptions of migration, he said a small minority was angry with governments for not being generous enough with migrants.  Another minority was angry with governments for letting people into their countries at all.  The huge majority, however, was ambivalent to the whole phenomenon, largely because most migrants did not cross national borders.  Much migration took place without passing a border.  He said the Global Commission would try to give governments and the United Nations a toolbox of instruments to benefit from the advantages of migration, both from an individual and collective level.

Participating in the discussion that followed were the representatives of Ireland (speaking on behalf of the European Union), Zambia, Mexico, Cuba, United States, China, Indonesia, El Salvador, Benin and Ghana.

The representatives of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICTFU) and Franciscans International also spoke.

At the top of the meeting, the representative of Benin introduced a draft resolution concerning observance of the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family.

The Commission will meet again at a time to be announced.

Background

The Commission for Social Development met this morning to begin its consideration of emerging issues, trends and new approaches to issues affecting social development:  international migration and migrants from a social perspective.  [For further background information on the session, see Press Release SOC/4636 of 3 February 2004.]

The Commission was also expected to consider a draft resolution on the celebration of the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family and beyond (document E/CN.5/2004/L.3).  By the terms of that text, the Economic and Social Council would recommend that the General Assembly decide that the follow-up to the tenth anniversary of the International Year be an integral part of the agenda and the multiyear programme of the Commission’s work until 2006.  It would also urge governments to continue to take sustained action at all levels concerning family issues, including studies and research, to promote the role of families in development and to develop concrete measures to address national priorities to deal with family issues.

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would recommend that all relevant actors, including governments, research and academic institutions and civil society, develop strategies and programmes to strengthen the economic and sustainable livelihood of families.  It would also urge that more inter-agency cooperation and a wide range of activities be undertaken by the United Nations system in the area of the family.  Regional commissions would be encouraged to further promote the exchange of experience and to encourage coordination of efforts among regional intergovernmental organizations.

Also according to the text, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to, among other things, give appropriate consideration to the tenth anniversary by preparing the observance of the International Day of Families on 15 May 2004 and by taking appropriate steps to promote the celebration of the tenth anniversary of the International Year.  He would also be requested to continue using the United Nations Trust Fund to support national actions that directly promote the objectives of the International Year in developing countries, especially in the least developing countries.  He would also be requested to incorporate a capacity-building component in the family programme to assist governments in integrating family-related programmes into national development strategies.

Introduction of Text

NICOLE ELISHA (Benin), introducing the text, said the discussion had intensified on the matter in the past four years and had gained much momentum.  The international community was sensitized to the issue and the prospects for the celebration were promising.  What came next?  What happened to the family programme within the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) beyond 2004?  The draft resolution provided grounds for action.  The operative paragraphs of the text called for greater inter-agency cooperation, called on regional commissions to establish regional working groups, and called on DESA to continue carrying out its mandated objectives for the International Year. The Secretary-General was also called upon to take appropriate steps, including incorporating a capacity-building component into the family programme.

Panel:  International Migration and Migrants

In an introductory statement, JOHAN SCHOLVINCK, Director of the Division for Social Policy and Development, DESA, said that while the Commission was set for its fist-ever consideration of international migration and migrants today under its “emerging issues” agenda item, the trend was neither new or emerging.  Migration “was as old as humanity” and, over the years, the General Assembly had been considering the possibility of an international conference on the subject, although that had been largely of a procedural nature.  At any rate, the Assembly’s latest resolution on the matter called for the convening of a high-level dialogue on international migration in 2006.

But regardless of how the migration debate was labelled, today marked the first time that an intergovernmental body would address the issue in a substantive way, he continued.  International migration had also taken on an increasingly important position in the work of the United Nations, and Secretary-General Kofi Annan had identified it as one of the world body’s chief priorities in the new century.  Also responding to the new challenge, the International Forum for Social Development, a DESA initiative, had devoted its third meeting last October to international migrants and development.

He said the Secretary-General had also recently backed the establishment of a new global commission on international migration, and had subsequently been present this past December for the launch of the Global Commission on Migration in Geneva.  That was an independent, non-United Nations body, which all hoped would help the international community take cooperation to a new level.  The Secretary-General has said that he hoped the group’s final report would help build a framework for greater cooperation among States to manage migration for the benefit of all.

In closing, Mr. Scholvinck, recalled the Secretary-General’s recent message on International Migrants Day, last 18 December, that all must remember “the people at the heart of the issue -– the migrants themselves”.  That message had also stressed that many people migrated under duress, endured perilous journeys and faced uncertainty and hardships in their new home countries.  Many were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse by unscrupulous smugglers and traffickers.  And on top of all that, they were vilified in certain societies and even denied their rights in the name of national security.  But despite all that, the vast majority of international migrants contributed greatly to their new societies and many sent back remittances to support the economies of their home countries.

JACQUES BAUDOT, Coordinator of the International Forum for Social Development, presented the findings of the third meeting of the International Forum that took place last October in New York on the topic, “International migrants and development”.  While movements of people across borders and continents were not new, some features of the present situation deserved special notice.  International migration was increasingly diversified.  In terms of the North-South division, people moved from the South to the North, but also within the North, within the South and from the North to the South.

International migrants constituted a very heterogeneous population, he continued.  There was the growing minority of emigrants who were sought for their skills and also the growing majority of emigrants who were seeking a place to live and work.  That majority contained the many victims of international migration.  The distinction between emigrants in search of work and emigrants in search of asylum was increasingly difficult.  Also, a growing number of women were migrants in their own right, seeking work opportunities and not simply moving abroad for “family reunification”.

International migrants were not homogenous either in terms of their intentions or expectations, he continued.  While the “long-term” migrant still existed, an increasing number of international migrants were looking for short-term stays.  The result of the growing complexity of international migration was that the information used to understand the phenomenon often lagged behind a rapidly changing reality.  There was agreement that continuing the current trends was undesirable.  Although the current forms of bilateral and regional cooperation should be strengthened, they might not be enough, for a number of reasons, including the fact that a world economy characterized by an increasingly free circulation of capital, goods, technologies and information would have difficulties maintaining strong restrictions on the movements of people across national borders.

He said the human suffering involved in migratory movements was enormous and intolerable.  Rather than contributing to the building of a world community animated by openness, tolerance and solidarity, international migration seemed to feed exploitation, discrimination, racism and conflicts.  International migration was a global phenomenon in both its positive and negative aspects.  Strengthened international cooperation should proceed step by step and should lead to a progressive understanding of the modalities of an “orderly regime” for international migration.  The effects of migration on the fabric of societies were best captured by a question:  Were migrants a source of enrichment or impoverishment of the societies concerned? 

Five domains regarding the issue could be subjected to greater international cooperation through a social perspective, he said.  They included:  status and mobility of migrants; their social integration; the relation between migration and poverty; the contribution that a social perspective on migration could make to the building of an “orderly regime” for international migration; and the participation of migrants in such a regime.

GERONIMO GUTIERREZ, Vice-Minister for North America, Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said managing migratory flows and protecting migrants were two of the top issues before the international community today.  The world faced a paradox:  it was clear that the phenomenon of international migration would continue, but, with populations ageing in some regions and other unprecedented demographic shifts underway, there appeared to be profound disagreement on whether it was a good thing or a bad thing.

Initially, it would be the overall negative perception of migrants that must be dealt with, he continued.  In large part, it was up to the global media to reverse that perception, chiefly by highlighting the undeniable ways in which migrants enriched societies in their new home countries.  The United Nations family of agencies must also work to demystify migration.  Other important issues were the absolute necessity for reliable information on migration, and the need to consider the issue from a social perspective.  Within such a perspective, clear

priorities should be, among other things, access to jobs and safe working conditions, secure and safe legal status, and access to social service for migrants.  

He went on to say that, while current international trends seemed to foster migration, they had also led to a tendency to stiffen immigration controls and regulations in some countries.  Therefore, there needed to be a fair and balanced discussion between the major sending and receiving countries about shared responsibility.  He added that a debate had also emerged over whether social issues must be promoted over or in conjunction with human rights protections.  “The rights of migrants themselves must be at the heart of everything”, he stressed, adding that experience had shown that when global actors had lost sight of human rights protections, the losses had been high.

Turning to the situation in his home country, he said that Mexico, with its 4,000-mile border, was a sending, bridging and receiving country.  Mexico was, therefore, working on two axes -- protecting those that had struck roots within its borders, and protecting those Mexicans living abroad.  The Government also had to consider policies to address those two issues.  Around 10 per cent of the population lived outside the border, mostly in the United States.  The average age was 32 and most left the country seeking employment.  He added that the number of Mexicans in some areas of the United States radically changed the lives in those regions, which reflected the social dimension and importance of migration.

He went on to say that two-thirds of Mexican migrants were undocumented, bereft of security and citizenship status, lingering at the lowest rungs of their recipient communities.  There was a need to better understand the circular nature of migration, as many wanted to leave their countries for only a short time and then return home.

Much more light must also be shed on the attitudes of recipient and host country he said.  In that regard, the international community was at a crossroads and it must extend every effort to build a migratory framework that was fair, comprehensive and multilateral.  He reiterated the call for an international summit on the issue, reminding the Commission that open and honest dialogue between recipient, receiving and bridging countries was necessary, because building a normative framework where all accepted migration would be difficult.  He was troubled that it appeared that authorities, governments and international organizations were out of step with international reality.  Recognizing that migrants truly enhanced and enriched societies in their new homes would be a great step towards solving many of the challenges of migration.   

JAN O. KARLSSON, Co-Chair of the Global Commission on International Migration, asked why an independent commission on migration was necessary.  Countries around the world envisaged a number of problems, challenges and opportunities linked to migration.  Regarding international cooperation, the status quo was neither possible nor desirable.  International migration was, by definition, an international phenomenon.  Governments thought they could regulate migration in their own countries.  Seen historically, the issue of migration was similar to the issue of trade in the middle of the seventeenth century.  Cromwell had thought that Britain could regulate all imports to the country.  That thinking had resulted in a war with Holland.  It had taken hundreds of years to understand that trade had to be regulated in unison.

That paradox prevailed in the field of migration, he continued.  One way to establish a normative framework for migration was to bring to it out of the regulated decision-making process and try to respond to the challenge in an independent manner.  The field of migration seemed to be one in which the distance between decision-makers and those who really knew about the issue was the largest.  As the Minister for Migration in Sweden for some 20 years, he had learned that there was a wide gap between those who decided and those who knew.  One of the Commission’s tasks was to bridge that enormous gap.

Regarding public perceptions of migration, he said a small minority was angry with governments for not being generous enough with migrants.  Another minority was angry with governments for letting people into their countries at all.  The huge majority, however, was ambivalent to the whole phenomenon, largely because most migrants did not cross national borders.  Much migration took place without passing a border.

International migration, he said, was most common at both ends of the social spectrum.  There was, on the one hand, the migration of highly qualified people, and forced migration on the other.  Migration could be seen as both a virtuous and a vicious circle.  Seen as a virtuous circle, brain drain led also to brain gain, in the long run.  An example of a vicious circle was the fact that most of Benin’s educated health workers were employed in France.  Border control was only one part of border management.  The most well guarded borders did not stop people from moving.  Building dams was difficult.

He said the Global Commission would try to give governments and the United Nations a toolbox of instruments to benefit from the advantages of migration, both from an individual and collective level.  Migration in itself was neither positive nor negative, and it reflected both a push and pull factor.  The time had come to bring migration into a normative framework.  While it would be impossible to solve the problem in 18 months, the Global Commission could, among other things, enhance the debate on the issue.  All the countries represented in the room where, to some extent, recipient, transit and sender countries.  If the sterile partition were overcome, success might be possible.

Dialogue with Panel

When the floor was opened for discussion, the representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, highlighted the Union’s actions to establish a unified migratory policy, particularly with plans to promote and ensure social cohesion among its States members.  He queried the panel on several issues, including on barriers to social cohesion and social integration and on dissemination of information to incoming populations about social conditions.  The representative of Zambia said that he had not heard any recommendations about the role of the international financial institutions or regional banks in the migration issue.

Responding, Mr. KARLSSON said that one of the issues that must be addressed was identifying perspective channels for migrants.  There was also a need to find a common approach on how to handle individuals -- similar to the guidelines set out in the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of refugees as individuals.  On barriers to integration, he said migrants entering a country would not solve the problem of poverty or social cohesion unless all other social development polices were working to that same end.  Likewise, remittances sent to home countries could not reverse poverty there if those governments did not have poverty reduction strategies as a generally priority already.

On the role of non-governmental organizations, he said public institutions alone could not address social cohesion issues.  Governments, therefore, must ensure that non-governmental organizations were given the opportunity to play their important role within countries.  He said there were no recommendations thus far on the involvement on the international financial institutions, but he was certain that the Bretton Woods institutions were working to integrate migration into their plans and programmes.

Mr. GUTIERREZ said that since it was clear that populations moved in search of better employment opportunities, international financial institutions could establish programmes to address the issue of jobs and ways to better use remittances sent to home countries.  Those funds must be seen as private resources, he added.  Border issues also needed to be addressed -– in the new century, borders had been completely redefined.  There must be an attempt, therefore, to improve new information technologies.  On barriers to social integration, he said that for Mexico the main hindrance was status.  Once that sensitive legal issue was addressed and the rights of migrants were assured, migration could be seen as a “virtuous circle” rather than a “vicous” one.

In a second round of questions, the representative of Mexico asked how the Commission for Social Development contributed to the international debate on migration.  Perhaps it could consider the impact of migration on families. 

Cuba’s representative said that for a better evaluation of the social impact of migration, it was necessary to strengthen international cooperation in order to bring order into migration flows and to understand the root causes of migration, such as poverty.  Unilateral certification processes must be eliminated.  In dealing with such a sensitive issue, it was important to respect the human rights of migrants.  Regional cooperation in fighting illegal trafficking in migrants was needed.  He noted that United States legal adjustments applied only to Mexicans.  Cuba’s Government, in July 1999, had proposed a cooperative agreement to come to grips with trafficking in people, which the United States had rejected.  He asked if the panellists could go into greater depth on how the issue should be addressed by recipient countries.  Also, how was it possible to improve the effectiveness of the public sector? he asked. 

The representative of the United States said the United States was proud to be a country of immigrants.  It was the hard work of immigrants that had made the nation prosperous.  The United States had clearly defined opportunities for migrants.  The United States also had clearly defined rules and regulations immigrants could use to become citizens.  Legal and humane migration could contribute to the prosperity of all countries.  In that light, United States President George W. Bush had proposed a temporary workers programme to match willing workers with willing companies.  The United States was deeply concerned about smuggling in persons.  Regional dialogue was the most effective way to advance policy on migration.  Given the large range of interests and priorities

among Member States, what kind of concrete activities did panellists envisage engaging in under a normative framework?  The United States remained sceptical of such an undertaking given the situation of limited resources. 

Responding, Mr. Karlsson said it would be important for the Commission to consider the impact of migration on families.  In many sending countries the predominant share of migrants were women with children.  Regarding racism in recipient countries, the Commission would not limit the fight against racism to recipient countries only.  Regarding the problem of the public sector, it would stress how to find techniques and possibilities to turn vicious into virtuous circles.  Limiting mobility would not be a realistic option. 

Regarding the question from the United States representative, he said it was his understanding that one of the Commission’s efforts was to see that a functioning normative framework on all kinds of migration be established.  A normative framework existed on how to handle forced migration, which had provided norms that no country could ignore.  The signals from the Secretary-General were that the Commission should try to foster the creation of a normative framework.  That would not happen without the eager assistance of Member States. 

Mr. Gutierrez said there were many ways the Commission could contribute to the debate.  Understanding in greater detail the social factors of migratory dynamics would help to demystify certain perceptions and confirm others.  Understanding the root causes of migration could contribute to stripping away the myths associated with migration.

Regarding Cuba’s comments, he said the problem lay with involuntary migration.  It was necessary to focus efforts on ensuring that migration was voluntary and that the possibility of leaving and returning legally existed.  The issue of xenophobia was directly related to the issue of social inclusion.

Regarding the question of the United States, he said he understood that there was scepticism on the idea of developing a universal framework.  One of a nation’s greatest powers was the right to define who could enter, and to monitor migration flows in that light.  For decades there had been much discussion on how much a sovereign State could lose by achieving a freer exchange of goods and services.  The migration discussion contained a similar set of questions.  Many strides had been made in understanding the issues.  There were common denominators within the community of nations regarding migration.  It was worthwhile to seek such common denominators.

Following that, the representative of China said that it was important to open channels that would discourage illegal migration.  Developed countries must, therefore, provide resources for capacity-building in the developed world.  What sort of measures could be used to increase awareness of the positive role immigrants played? he asked.  How could effective international cooperation be enhanced?

The representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) wondered how more stakeholders could be involved in the process.  The representative of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICTFU) said there should be a focus on the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and urged the Commission to consider the normative framework for those rights set out by the International Labour Organization (ILO).  The representative of Indonesia wondered about the links between migration and development.

In response, Mr. KARLSSON said that the feeling had emerged that migration could be seen as a “win-win” situation, but the benefits of the phenomenon could not be reaped without global cooperation and a normative framework supporting individual migrants.  He said that recent efforts by the European Union and the United States were a step in the right direction and those States, along with Canada and other recipient countries, must work harder to address social cohesion and integration.  On migration and development, he highlighted enhancing the relationship between diasporas and host countries, strengthening cultural exchange and enlisting assistance from diasporas during conflict negotiations as some of the ways the links between the two could be enhanced.

El Salvador’s representative noted that, while migratory populations were vulnerable, certain subgroups were particularly vulnerable.  She asked for recommendations on how to improve the effectiveness of migratory policies to protect those groups.

Mr. ELMIGER, Commission Chairman, summarizing a question from the representative of Benin, noted that for African countries it was necessary to focus on the possibility of strengthening and providing access to certain conditions locally.  Africa did have wealth. 

A representative of Franciscans International stressed the need for non-governmental organizations to have continued participation in the Commission’s work on migration.  Current international agreements allowed for the movement of goods and services, but not people.

Ghana’s representative addressed the issue of brain drain. Ghana, for example, was not seeing any dividends from the transfer of its health workers to developed countries.  Ghana had no way to compete with the conditions of service offered by developed countries. 

Mr. Karlsson said the Global Commission’s session would be accompanied by regional consultations.  One of the main issues would be the situation of many African health sectors due to the brain drain issue.  The Commission would also deal with the question of women and children.  It was important to involve all stakeholders in creating a framework. 

* *** *