COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS HOLDS EVENT TO MARK THE TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CONVENTION
The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families this afternoon held a panel discussion to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
Opening the discussion, Francisco Carrion Mena, Chair of the Committee on Migrant Workers, noted that the history of humanity was the history of migration and mixed migratory flows. In the recent refugee crisis, some developed countries had failed to remember their past, and the fact that their own citizens had been migrants in other countries. Political will was needed to ensure the rights of migrants, and now was the time.
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that migration was among the defining human rights issues of this era. Noting that the Convention was now more relevant than ever, he expressed concern regarding the very low number of ratifications to this vital text – 48, the second lowest of all human rights treaties. No major destination country had ratified the Convention. A clear and honest vision of the need for migrant labour in destination countries, with commensurate channels for regular migration at all skill levels, would assist greatly in preventing the exploitation and other dangers faced by so many people seeking to live a life in dignity.
Hubert Rene Schillinger, Director of the Geneva Office of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, said that although the Convention was in force since 2003, it had not received the attention it deserved. It was important to remind all States of the internationally accepted standards and their moral obligation to adhere to those standards.
Robert J. Vitillo, Head of Delegation for Caritas Internationalis and Attaché at the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the Convention on which they focused today resulted from a multi-year process. There was a need for greater justice, equity, non-discrimination and respect for human dignity in confronting present day experiences by migrant workers and their families.
The opening statements were followed by two panel discussions. The first panel discussion focused on the “Current Trends in Violations of Migrant Workers’ Human Rights,” and was addressed by Michele Levoy, Director of PICUM – Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants; Mustafa Qadri, Gulf Migrant Rights Researcher from Amnesty International; William Gois, Regional Coordinator of the Migrant Forum in Asia; and Diego Lorente Perez de Eulate, Director of the Centro Derechos Humanos Fray matias de Cordova, Mexico, all of whom spoke of the urgency to resolve migrant workers’ needs in various regions of the world. In the ensuing discussion, Ecuador, Bangladesh, the Arab Commission for Human Rights, Members of the Committee on Migrant Workers, and Argentina took the floor.
The second panel discussion focused on the “Challenges for States and Promising Developments in Responding to these Trends.” It was addressed by Peter Sorensen, Ambassador and Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations Office at Geneva, Cecilia Rebong, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Jorge Lomonaco, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva; and Manuela Tomei, Director of Conditions of Work and Equality Department of the International Labour Organization. A Member of the Committee on Migrant Workers, China, and the non-governmental organization Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales took the floor.
The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families will conclude its twenty-third session on Wednesday, 9 September, after adopting its concluding observations and recommendations on Cabo Verde, Guinea, Seychelles and Timor-Leste.
Opening Statements
FRANCISCO CARRION MENA, Chair of the Committee on Migrant Workers, extended a warm welcome to all participants of the event marking the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. The history of humanity was the history of migration and mixed migratory flows, either because of war, hunger, intolerance, religious fanaticism, or failure to respect rights, or natural disasters, or thirst for power, or lack of economic rights. Human beings had always migrated from one region to another, and those migratory flows were inevitable. Over the past few weeks, all had been shamed to see how thousands of human beings had perished fleeing violence and hunger. Politicians and authorities, in particular in Europe, had been helpless to react to this flow of people who were trying simply to survive with their families. Some developed countries had failed to remember their past. Mexico had received thousands of Spanish nationals fleeing the Franco dictatorship. The United States, Brazil, Peru, and African countries had welcomed thousands of other migrants from the European countries. The names of Obama, Sarkozy, Bachelet, Kirchner, Rusev, were all the fruit of migration and mixed migratory flows. They were all together in the same boat called Earth. They had to ensure that this was a better place for everyone. The best way to resolve the problems connected with migration was to ratify the Convention. Political will was needed, and now was the time.
ZEID RA’AD AL HUSSEIN, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that migration was among the defining human rights issues of this era. There were opposing voices which saw migrants’ rights differently. It was in these situations that the human rights international rights framework showed its relevance. Agreed international norms and standards provided the framework and limits for these often difficult and fraught discussions. The expert views and analysis of the treaty bodies, in this case notably the Committee on Migrant Workers, provided a sound basis upon which those advocating for the rights of migrants – such as himself – could work. He thanked the Committee for its intellectual leadership on the issue of migrant workers, rights, and gave two examples. In their interpretations of the Convention, the Committee members had notably emphasized the requirement to protect migrant domestic workers under national labour laws, and rejected the criminalization of irregular immigration – two very significant areas in which more thoughtful policies would profoundly benefit millions of vulnerable people.
Even with a clear view of the rights that migrant workers enjoyed under international law, the international community faced enormous challenges in their drive to make sure that migrants and their families fully enjoyed their human rights during their journeys, and in schools and workplaces across the globe. The rights of migrant workers were frequently, indeed routinely violated. These abuses were intensified when their immigration status was irregular. The current migration crises across the globe from the seas around South East Asia and Australia to the Mediterranean and the deserts of the United States and Mexico highlighted the fundamental importance of the Convention, as a robust and agreed international legal framework for the rights of all migrant workers and their families in countries of origin, transit and destination. After a quarter-century, the Convention was now more relevant than ever. And yet, there was a very low number of ratifications to this vital text – 48, the second lowest of all human rights treaties. No major destination country had ratified the Convention. Gaining new ratifications remained a priority. The juxtaposition of this landmark twenty-fifth anniversary with today’s dramatic and accelerating migration crises underscored the urgent need to begin a more honest discussion about the obstacles to ratification of the Convention. A clear and honest vision of the need for migrant labour in destination countries, with commensurate channels for regular migration at all skill levels, would assist greatly in preventing the exploitation and other dangers faced by so many people seeking to live a life in dignity.
HUBERT RENE SCHILLINGER, Director of the Geneva Office of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, said that although the Convention was in force since 2003, it had not received the attention it deserved, especially in target countries of migration, such as his own home country, Germany. Countries feared that the Convention would place restrictions on Governments with regards to their migration policies. There seemed to be a perception that it would become more difficult or even impossible to take adequate countermeasures against illegal migration once the Convention was ratified. This twenty-fifth anniversary should thus be used to actively go against this erroneous perception. Instead, and in particular at a time when the world was facing a major, if not unprecedented surge in migration, they had to highlight the importance of an internationally recognized legal instrument that demanded a guarantee of certain fundamental rights for all migrants. Many observers saw the current migration crisis in Europe as a watershed. Almost everyone seemed to agree that a “business as usual” approach to migration policy would not suffice. However, this was where it all ended. It was important to remind all States of the internationally accepted standards and their moral obligation to adhere to those standards, even if they had not formally ratified a particular treaty.
ROBERT J. VITILLO, Head of Delegation for Caritas Internationalis and Attaché at the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the Convention on which they focused today, resulted from a multi-year process, which had started in 1972 with the alarm expressed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council at the unauthorized transport of labourers to some European countries and at the exploitation of workers from some African countries “in conditions akin to slavery and forced labour.” The Convention had been drafted in 1990, however, between 1990 and 1998, only nine countries had ratified it. In 2005 UNESCO had noted that the Convention did not propose any new set of rights that would be specific to migrants. Mr. Vitillo highlighted relevant developments as well as hindrances related to the Convention, reminded the participants of the relevance of the Convention at the present time, and noted that no amount of visionary thought and planning could have anticipated the complex and exacerbating migration-related issues and challenges more recently being faced on a daily basis.
Panel I: Current Trends in Violations of Migrant Workers’ Human Rights
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Director of the Human Rights Treaties Division of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, opened the floor.
MICHELE LEVOY, Director of PICUM – Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said that over the past 16 years, in the European Union’s common migration policy a gradual shift from the initial goal of “equality for all residents” to a security approach to migration had taken place. Highlighting the picture of the three-year old boy washed upon the shore that had alarmed the world, she stated that the lack of regular channels for migration led to increased risks and loss of lives. Regular migration possibilities needed to be looked into. The second issue that Ms. LeVoy focused on was that the security focus on migration was leading to multiple human rights violations, including the detention of children. The severe psychological impacts on detained children, even if for short periods of time, were dire. This was an opportunity to have a clear definition of what these child rights were. Lastly, she said that when there was a security approach to migration, this translated into restricting social services, especially for irregular migrants. This was also one of the main reasons why there were no ratifications – because the Convention granted emergency health care to migrants. A move was needed from a security-dominated to a more rights based approach. Terminology was crucial.
MUSTAFA QADRI, Gulf Migrant Rights Researcher from Amnesty International, said that migrant workers across the Gulf States remained inadequately protected. Perhaps worst of all were the thousands of women, mostly from Asia, who were subjected to labour and sexual abuse without any remedy. Real action had not occurred. Much of the global attention of migrant workers had focused on Qatar. The United Arab Emirates had also received attention. Today marked an opportunity to highlight these abuses and enact change. He concluded by reflecting that they should all pause today to think about the Convention, but also about the need for continued energy and cooperation to ensure that migrant workers in Gulf Cooperation Council countries and across the world were given the human rights protection they deserved.
WILLIAM GOIS, Regional Coordinator of the Migrant Forum in Asia, said it was time to act – they could no longer keep having discussions. Bilateral agreements had to be done away with. Contracts of migrant workers traveling to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries had to be recognized within the countries of destination. A full understanding of what was in the contract was something that migrant workers had to fully understand. Domestic workers needed a day off. It was not accepted that the time off was when they travelled with their employers. With the ILO Convention C189 it had to be recognized that domestic work was work. It was imperative on countries to ratify this Convention. It was important that this practice stopped. Where was the sovereignty of a State when private individuals could determine when migrant workers could come and leave, and where private actors could hold migrant workers hostage?
DIEGO LORENTE PEREZ DE EULATE, Director of the Centro Derechos Humanos Fray matias de Cordova, Mexico, spoke about the situation of migrant children from the northern triangle area (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras), stating that this was a real crisis affecting children. This was an area in which poor legal systems, poverty, lack of education, school dropout rates, high murder rates, and a high level of abuse of the rights of children, all contributed to the reasons why there was a high level of migration by children. There were also high levels of abuse by receiving countries, such as the United States and Mexico, where the numbers of arrested and deported children without a due process of law were in the tens of thousands.
Interactive Discussion
Ecuador said that in its region, it was the first country to accept refugees. Ecuador stressed the need that States sign and ratify the Convention and blamed the lack thereof on the lack of political will. Bangladesh said that there was a need for a sustainable institutional platform in order to ensure that the current situation they faced and the needs of migrants were not addressed in an ad-hoc basis. The Arab Commission for Human Rights called upon other events to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Convention, in order to step up ratification, and asked what would be the best way to act from a strategic level.
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Member of the Committee on Migrant Workers, said that it was impossible to fully implement the Convention of the Rights of the Child unless the provisions of the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families were fully implemented, as they were inextricably linked. There was a need for a holistic approach, as all human rights were interlinked. PRASAD KARIYAWASAM, Member of the Committee on Migrant Workers, stated that the death penalty was the biggest threat that migrant workers faced today. Argentina said that it was vital that migratory policy provided respect for migrants: policies based on border control and restrictions were not effective and condemned thousands of migrants to marginalization and fed into the business of trafficking.
MICHELE LEVOY, Director of PICUM – Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, in response to the question on the ratification of the Convention, stated that a study had found that there were no legal obstacles to ratification in the European Union. It was mainly a lack of political will. All European Union countries had ratified all the human rights treaties except the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. So there was no legal argument in the European Union, it was political. This was a political and not a migrants’ crisis. A good strategy for trying to influence this was that many other actors were involved, including from civil society. The main statements were that “we apologize” or “we are ashamed.” It was also unrealistic not to take into consideration that there was a need for labour workers, and that Europe was an aging continent. Both of these factors should fuel support for migrant workers’ rights. Finally the role of the media had to be acknowledged. The use by the media of the word refugees and their refusal to use the word migrants was not a good trend. Finally, they needed to look into regional schemes.
DIEGO LORENTE PEREZ DE EULATE, Director of the Centro Derechos Humanos Fray matias de Cordova, Mexico, appealed for greater ratification of the Convention as well as follow-up procedures. There was no point in ratifying a treaty if a State did not follow up on it and if it did not integrate the treaty into its legislation. Thus a follow up procedure and procedures for holding States accountable were needed. He also drew attention to the use of the word “crisis.” He concluded by congratulating the Committee and all those involved in it.
Panel II: Challenges for States and Promising Developments in Responding to these Trends
PETER SORENSEN, Ambassador and Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva, focusing on the challenges, said that the crisis gripping Europe was less about migrant workers than about people in need of protection. This raised certain different obligations, but it never removed the obligation to uphold human rights. The European Union policies and actions were rooted in the European Union’s commitment to the promotion and protection of the human rights of migrants. The challenges faced in the unprecedented crises were huge. In August, over 80,000 migrants, refugees and asylum seekers arrived in Greece. Fewer than 6,000 arrived in the same month in 2014. Each day, about 3,000 reached Greece by sea. It was the sudden sharp increase that marked the crisis. Mr. Sorensen assured the participants that there was no absence of activity and preparation of new, operational actions and proposals. He reminded that the European Union leaders had committed themselves to mobilize all efforts at their disposal.
CECILIA REBONG, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the Philippines, as a major country of origin, and as one of the first State parties to the Convention, reaffirmed the distinct importance of Convention and expressed her frustration that its ratification was moving so slowly by other countries. She focused on the particular area of responses to challenges, and promising developments adopted by the Philippines. These included the belief that possession of appropriate and proficient skills for the work abroad was the best protection against labour exploitation at the individual level; pre-departure and post-arrival human rights orientation; the requirement of all departing overseas Filipino workers to participate in an Overseas Workers Welfare Administration Fund; the requirement of local recruitment agencies to secure medical insurance prior to deployment; the active engagement of bilateral partners in negotiations and conclusions of bilateral labour agreements; and other developments.
JORGE LOMONACO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that one seventh of humanity were migrants. Over 40 per cent of these were women. International migration played an important role for some countries. Between 2030 and 2040, developed countries would lose their populations and migration would not be enough to offset this loss of population. Fortunately the international community had made a number of efforts. Some of Mexico’s practices, which had had positive outcomes, included the following: Constitutional reform as well as reform of other laws; the development of a National Development Plan; family reunification and unaccompanied minors were priority areas; a multidisciplinary approach to the protection of human rights of children and adolescents; a strategy for the care and prevention of migration of minors with the aim to coordinate various shelters; and a joint programme on the protection of migrants in transit, with the joint participation of the International Organization for Migration, six European agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other participants.
MANUELA TOMEI, Director of Conditions of Work and Equality Department of the International Labour Organization, said that all had been deeply affected by the recent distressing images that appeared in the media of migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers and others who were driven across borders due to conflict, economic strife or natural disasters. The scale of mixed migration flows towards Europe was growing. UNHCR’s latest report for 2014 said that almost 60 million people were forcibly displaced, which made it the largest number ever recorded. The crisis was more about lack of solidarity, and lack of cooperation as well as basic human compassion. At present, migration governance was highly fragmented and this situation had to be addressed. Factors that would help address this were working together more effectively. It was also important to adopt global standards such as the 2030 Development Agenda, in order to bring about fairness. It was not enough to ratify the standards, but to see what the obstacles were towards ratification. There was incompatibility between national legislation and obligations arising from international standards. There was also weak enforcement capacity and lack of clear guidance. The world was facing global crises, which required a common response and shared responsibility. They could no longer focus on short-term measures, but needed to engage in long-term solutions that tackled the root causes. The way forward was a comprehensive approach to governance, based on three pillars: creating decent work at home; multilateral responses needed to be grounded on international standards and common values; and fair, safe and regular channels of migration that met real labour market needs at all skill levels.
Interactive Discussion
ABDELHAMID EL JAMRI, Member of the Committee on Migrant Workers, inquired with regards to the figure that had been announced yesterday, that the European Union would host 120,000 refugees. How was this number established? There were 4 million refugees, so could the European Union do more in face of the drama? Second, with regards to the ratification of the Convention, various debates had been sparked over the past few years, which led to conclude that rights were already acquired by migrants in Europe, so that did not need to be an obstacle. Third, during the situation prior to the massive number of migrants seen today, there had been talk of a hermetic border at the Mediterranean, meaning that once a migrant crossed the Mediterranean, he or she would never go back. However now it was known that there were possibilities of development in home countries. So could there be more tolerance in light of this? Finally, regarding the issue of migration on the international agenda, it seemed like a catalogue of recommendations that could be cherry-picked by States. This was not conducive to cohesive approach.
China said that all were watching the present crisis in Europe. The root causes needed to be found. The rights of these people had to be respected. Open inclusive thinking was needed to maintain the rights of these workers. Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales said that key measures in formulating policies were ratification of the Convention.
PETER SORENSEN, Ambassador and Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva, in response to questions, said that migration was a global issue. Regarding the refugee crisis happening currently, he could not state why the number that would be accepted by the European Union was as it was. It had to be recognized that the European Union was still being built and it had the right to have its guarded system. There was increasing cooperation with the United Nations.
CECILIA REBONG, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the debate should be reignited. The post-2015 Development Agenda would tackle the issue of migration, but would the targets be enough? Was migration a security, economic or humanitarian issue, or a human rights issue, or a combination of all these? In the United Nations they say mainstreaming, but was this really a problem or an issue? Which United Nations agency should handle this?
JORGE LOMONACO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that there were the three c’s in Spanish: knowledge, trust, and understanding and awareness of the phenomenon. It was true to say that migration had a positive contribution to make to the countries involved. Solidarity needed to be shown.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Director of the Human Rights Treaties Division of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, concluded the discussion by thanking all participants.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CMW15/016E