COMMITTEE HOLDS GENERAL DISCUSSION ON PROTECTING RIGHTS OF ALL MIGRANT WORKERS AS A TOOL TO ENHANCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families today held a Day of General Discussion on protecting the rights of all migrant workers as a tool to enhance development. Participants discussed the protection of the human rights of migrant workers and members of their families and its impact on development both in the country of origin, and in the county of employment.

Prasad Kariyawasam, Chairman of the Committee, said there was an increasing feeling that in the globalized world market forces dominated in a manner that marginalized social and welfare aspects of human beings, including human rights. The questions to address were also self-evident, and this was how the implementation of the provisions of the Convention could contribute to development, in particular in the context of globalization and increased cross-border movements, and how the protection of the rights of migrant workers contributed both to their welfare and to the countries of origin and employment.

Jorge Bustamante, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said there was a certain resistance from some countries of destination to expressly recognise the respective conditions that made it necessary to demand that further protection for the human rights of migrant workers should come into existence. Unfortunately, there was no official recognition of that demand. Many of the problems of migrants had to do with issues of co-responsibility between countries of origin and of destination, and this responsibility was very rarely recognised by countries of origin.

Patrick Taran, senior migration specialist at the International Labour Office, said globalization was impelling transformation of the composition of populations in many nation States, and whether or not this was recognised and validated was fundamental to the future of governance and to social cohesion. If these dimensions were not addressed, social, economic and political exclusion of sizable groups of people present in these countries would be inevitable.

Abdelhamid El-Jamri, member of the Committee, said the most important message to be validated today would be to say that there was a need for a better application of the Convention in order to have a better impact of migration on development both in countries of employment and countries of origin. As of their departure from their home country, migrants played a role of economic, social and cultural cooperation between the home country and country of employment. This important role was not sufficiently recognised in partnerships between host and home countries.

Introducing the debate on the protection of the human rights of migrant workers and members of their families and its impact on development in the country of origin, Mehdi Lahlou of the Institut National de Statistique et d’Economie Appliquée said while the World Trade Organization and various international financial institutions were trying to arrange things to establish economic rules applying to all on for example the observation of contracts and the liberalisation of economic trade, on the other hand, there was no normalisation, and very few rules and regulations that ran parallel to trading rules and on observance of human rights, especially those of migrant workers.

The debate on this topic focused on, among other things, opportunities to implement projects in countries of origin to facilitate the return of migrant workers and their families and to enhance their socio-economic reintegration; the development of cooperation strategies to strengthen and build up social capital through the establishment of social funds for development in the most vulnerable areas which were most exposed to emigration; and a suggestion for a permanent forum wherein the actors in the field of migration could state their views and be recognised in order to propose solutions.

Introducing the debate on the protection of the human rights of migrant workers and members of their families and its impact on development in the country of employment, Ryszard Cholewinski, Independent Expert from the University of Leicester, said labour migration could be a very important factor for the development of countries of employment, whether these were developed or developing countries. Immigration could make both positive and negative contributions to countries of employment; but these effects should not be taken as a given, as integration polices and social and economic conditions determined the final consequences of migration. The human person was the central subject of development, and the indivisible notions of labour migration, development and the protection of human rights were also intrinsically connected to this idea.

The debate on this topic focused on, among other things, particular national issues including the immigration of Mexicans to the United States and their contributions to that economy and culture; the nature of migrant workers’ contributions to their host countries; difficulties encountered by migrants including corruption and racism; control and expulsion measures of illegal migrant workers which violated human rights; the need for a forum to better guide all to find long-term solutions to problems linked to migrant workers; the principle of non-discrimination and its application to the labour rights of non-documented workers, as the most vulnerable; and the provision of emergency medical services to migrant workers.

When the Committee meets on Friday, 16 December, it will conclude its third session.

Introductory Statements

Prasad Kariyawasam, Chairman of the Committee, said the idea of the general discussion was self-explanatory, and the reasons it was held were manifold, although the primary reason was that the international discussion of the rights of migrants was on the front burner, as it would touch every society in the globalizing world. The migrant phenomenon was increasing exponentially, and would touch all. There was an increasing feeling that in the globalized world market forces dominated in a manner that marginalized social and welfare aspects of human beings, including human rights. There was also the feeling that sometimes migrant workers were treated as commodities, and not as human beings. This was why the discussion would be important for all.

There was a discussion at the General Assembly on the protection of the rights of migrant workers. The relevance of the Convention to the debate was high, as States parties should cooperate in order to provide sound conditions for migrant workers and their families, as was stipulated in the text. The guiding principle for the Convention as well as for today’s debate was the principle of non-discrimination. The questions to address were also self-evident, and this was how the implementation of the provisions of the Convention could contribute to development, in particular in the context of globalization and increased cross-border movements, and how the protection of the rights of migrant workers contributed both to their welfare and to the countries of origin and employment.

There were many misconceptions about the Convention in some quarters and among States that were not party to the Convention, and it would be good to respond to these and to show States that the Convention had benefits for all involved, Mr. Kariyawasam said.

Jorge Bustamante, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, said the Convention intended to make evident a new division of the world in two different categories. No country of destination had ratified the Convention - those that had were countries of origin. This new division of the world was an unfortunate outcome, but at the same time was a reality. All wanted to make that distinction disappear, and efforts would go in that direction. There was a certain resistance from some countries of destination to expressly recognise the respective conditions that made it necessary to demand that further protection for the human rights of migrant workers should come into existence. Unfortunately, there was no official recognition of that demand.

Standards in which Member States should recognise the existence of a demand for the labour force of immigrants should be formulated. In the context of that demand, there were some relatively new practices that increased the vulnerability of international migrants, and those included the practice of self-contracting. Many instances were found in some countries where migrant workers became completely powerless by this practice, and their rights became completely unachievable.

This was something that happened in a good number of countries of destination, and had to be related to the process of interaction of factors that changed the labour market, Mr. Bustamante said. Many of the problems of migrants had to do with a co-responsibility between countries of origin and of destination. This co-responsibility was very rarely recognised by countries of origin, and special attention should be paid to this notion, as it was the rational avenue that should end in bilateral or multilateral agreements.

Patrick Taran, Senior Migration Specialist at the International Labour Office, said migration, its relation to development, and treatment of migrant workers had become issues central to evolving definitions of social identity, of governance, and of social cohesion in societies across the world. Globalization was impelling transformation of the composition of populations in many nation States, and whether or not this was recognised and validated was fundamental to the future of governance and to social cohesion. If these dimensions were not addressed, social, economic and political exclusion of sizable groups of people present in these countries would be inevitable. This made the treatment of migrants a contest between social and economic development, and social disintegration and associated economic costs.

Any regime of unequal treatment, whether for foreigners or minorities, was a recipe for conflict. Getting it right on protection and development was especially important at a moment when powerful voices and international institutions suggested that in the pitiless competition of the global economy, unequal treatment within States may not only be justified, but imperative for the economic survival of these countries. The international instruments already widely ratified provided a global legal framework largely applicable to treatment of all migrant workers and members of their families. The rule of law, embodied in these instruments, including the Convention, was the underlying guarantor of democracy and accountability that presumably were bound up with achieving development, economic welfare, and social cohesion.

There was a growing body of knowledge that demonstrated that migrants made large contributions to economic and social development in both their host and home countries. Studies amply showed that migrants filled vital jobs unwanted by natives, and that their presence, activity and initiative created additional employment, as well as making other contributions to their host countries. However, these contributions were not so highly praised, and costs loomed large in the consideration of some businesses and Governments, defensive in the face of precarious economic indicators and populations already destabilised by economic restructuring and downsizing of industrial employment.

ABDelhamid El-Jamri, Committee Member, said many events were taking place on the international level that showed that migration was a current subject, as well as a future subject, and all the socio-economic indicators showed that the twenty-first century would be the century of immigration. The most important message to be validated today would be to say that there was a need for a better application of the Convention in order to have a better impact of migration on development both in countries of employment and countries of origin. The role played by migrants in development was important, and could become even more important with the application of the Convention.

As of their departure from their home country, migrants played a role of economic, social and cultural cooperation between the home country and country of employment. This important role was not sufficiently recognised in partnerships between host and home countries. It was necessary to recognise this role, and it was also necessary to implement programmes to increase the well-being of migrants in the host countries - and the best means for this was the respect of their rights, thus the ratification and application of the Convention.

In host countries, the role of migrants had a direct effect on development. The impact of the participation of migrants in development was most visible when there was mass action in a region. The implementation of programmes that would take into account and allow these potentials to be expressed and to flourish would have significant consequences, not only on development in the home countries, but also for a better integration in host countries. A new migratory policy, in the North as in the South, based on the fundamental human rights, on a compromise on the movement of people as an alternative to such treaties as the Schengen Treaty and based on a true respect for social rights and access to citizenship would enhance the retreat of racism, discrimination, and illegal immigration.

Protection of the Human Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and its Impact on Development in the Country of Origin

MEHDI LAHLOU, Institut National de Statistique et d’Economie Appliquée, Rabat, Morocco, the keynote speaker, said that today, there was an international predominance for a debate on economic issues, especially in relation to the various international conventions and the debate on the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the agreements on economic relations. While the WTO and various international financial institutions were trying to arrange things to establish economic rules applying to all on, for example, the observation of contracts and the liberalisation of economic trade, on the other hand, there was no normalisation, and very few rules and regulations that ran parallel to trading rules and on observance of human rights, especially those of migrant workers. There was fundamental imbalance that was becoming increasingly marked between the obligation incumbent on all States to respect the international economic and financial framework and the respect and observance of the rights of persons.

Migration had existed over the centuries and aeons of human time, and things had run smoothly without any conflicts until about the middle of the 1980s. Migration was considered a natural process until economic spaces were determined, when suddenly it became a source of international conflict and difficulties. This had become even more marked at the beginning of the twenty-first century, when suddenly it had become one of the major concerns and sources of trouble internationally. Parallel to these developments and overall trend, there had been an increase in the impact of economic and financial liberalism, the signing of the agreement on world trade, and the idea that a liberalisation of trade would lead to a reduction in the imbalances between richer and poorer countries, and parallel to this there would be a rebalancing of wealth within poorer countries themselves, but what was found today was that these hypotheses which were common currency 20 years ago did not in fact come to pass, quite to the contrary.

Globalization, as experienced recently, had not led to a reduction in differences at the world level, had not produced a new balance of resources and wealth, and this could be seen in all countries across the planet. This had led for many countries to a lowering of observance of human rights and of human rights standards. A certain number of countries had derived greater benefits than had others. There had been a radicalisation of the migration issue in the context of the perception that there had been an explosion in the number of illegal migrants, and that the world had become a more dangerous place, with a hatred of minorities and a tendency to reduce social cohesiveness in some countries.

Discussion

Speakers, including representatives of Permanent Missions and non-governmental organizations, then took up various issues, raising, among other things, opportunities to implement projects in countries of origin to facilitate the return of migrant workers and their families and to enhance their socio-economic reintegration; the development of cooperation strategies to strengthen and build up social capital through the establishment of social funds for development in the most vulnerable areas which were most exposed to emigration; the dangers of exploitation in particular for women economic migrants; issues related to perceptions of illegal migrants; the importance of strengthening relationships between both host and home countries so as to promote respect for the fundamental rights of migrants and to seek ways to deal with the problems with which they are faced; a suggestion for a permanent forum wherein the actors in the field of migration could state their views and be recognised in order to propose solutions; and particular national conditions in which migrant workers, both legal and illegal, were undergoing particularly negative situations.

Protection of the Human Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and its Impact on Development in the County of Employment

RYSZARD CHOLEWINSKI, Independent Expert from the University of Leicester, the keynote speaker, said labour migration could be a very important factor for the development of countries of employment, whether these were developed or developing countries. This contribution made by migration and migrant workers had been recognised in a number of recent reports and initiatives. Immigration could make both positive and negative contributions to countries of employment; but these effects should not be taken as a given, as integration polices and social and economic conditions determined the final consequences of migration. The way migrants were treated determined whether their contributions were successful or not. The human person was the central subject of development, and the indivisible notions of labour migration, development and the protection of human rights were also intrinsically connected to this idea.

Effectively implementing the Convention could be a tool for the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families. Inter-state cooperation was an important part of promoting safe and lawful conditions for international migration. The protection of all migrants, regardless of nationality and status, was a priority for many different bodies, and it was important to underline this, as the Convention on Migrant Workers, unlike other Conventions, had not been widely ratified, and this was why the broader human rights issue was important in this context. As far as employment was concerned, the Convention was unequivocal, and it indicated equal treatment for all nationals and non-nationals, regardless of their status. There were important rights in the Convention which enabled migrant workers to strengthen their employment rights, including the right to organise.

An important right which also had impact on integration of migrants was the duty of States to facilitate family reunification. The respect for cultural identity of migrants was also included in the Convention, which recognised the need to both retain one’s culture and also learn the language of the country of employment. Enjoyment of political rights was one of the few exceptions made in international law between citizens and non-citizens, and the Convention deferred to State sovereignty on this question. However, States had the obligation to consider the establishment of procedures and institutions to take into account the aspirations of migrants, and this was quite a forward-looking approach that was significantly understanding of the needs of migrant workers. The Convention did not support irregular migration, considering it as an undesirable phenomenon.

Discussion

Speakers, including representatives of Permanent Missions and non-governmental organizations, then took up various issues, raising, among other things, issues related to the ratification of the Convention by France; particular national issues including the immigration of Mexicans to the United States and their contributions to that economy and culture; the nature of migrant workers’ contributions to their host countries; difficulties encountered by migrants including corruption and racism; control and expulsion measures of illegal migrant workers which violated human rights; the need for a forum to better guide all to find long-term solutions to problems linked to migrant workers; the principle of non-discrimination and its application to the labour rights of non-documented workers, as the most vulnerable; and the provision of emergency medical services to migrant workers.

Concluding Comments

FRANCISCO ALBA, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for the first debate, said the discussion and the statements heard had been very enlightening, and sometimes very complex, and there was always a danger that something might be neglected in rounding up. There were six or seven important points that had been raised during the debate. The first point was what was happening with human rights was similar to what had been happening with migration in general, which proved positive for everyone involved. This potential had not been fully realised. Observance of human rights brought benefits, not only for countries of origin. There was a sort of virtuous circle. Another thing that was clear was that it was difficult to comment only on the country of origin or of destination. Work done to benefit the human rights of migrants turned out to benefit the countries of destination.

The concept of shared or common responsibility or partnership had also been raised, showing that there was a clear need for greater international cooperation in this context, as this was key not only in the development process but also for human rights in general. Globalization had had unequal effects. One strategy that shared responsibility applied to was convergence in the economic, social and cultural rights for all countries and peoples. A fourth point was one that frequently criticised the fact that migration was seen by many parties from the perspective of viewing migrants as productive capital or factors of production, and emotional appeals had been made pointing out that migrants were first and foremost human capital, implying that education and training were essential, as were improved services such as health. The gender perspective should be used to address the fact that women were independent migrants, and had in their own rights become breadwinners for whole families.

Regarding the direct participation of migrants in discussions of their needs and requirements, this was an important idea. Their participation should be achieved through the acquisition of certain political rights, where this was appropriate. The current trend in several developed countries to subcontract had been raised. Human rights were cross-cutting, and could not be looked at just in the context of one country.

ARTHUR GAKWANDI, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for the second debate, said the subject of migration was often discussed in the context of the contributions made by migrant workers to their countries of origin, in particular financial transfers, and this often ignored that migrants brought abilities and skills to their countries of employment, and enriched that country by their cultural background, contributing to the development of the country where they worked through these. However, new thinking was emerging regarding the nature of the contribution of migrant workers to their host countries.

The evolution of norms would help migrant workers to integrate better and have their role in their host countries enhanced, and this required the elimination of discrimination by giving them access to social security benefits. Workers should be able to retain their cultural identity and to participate in the political life of their host countries, playing a role in major political decisions in their host communities. By interpreting the provisions of the Convention in a broader human rights framework, this would enable migrant workers to reach their full potential.

Human rights belonged to people and not to Governments, and therefore discussions between Governments and international agencies which tended to not include migrant workers would not fulfil their expectations as they would not be able to recognise the true needs and situation of the migrant workers. There should be greater participation of the people, and the protection of rights would help migrant communities to realise their true potential in contributing to the economic and social development of their countries.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CMW05004E