COMMITTEE ON PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS DISCUSSES PROMOTION OF CONVENTION AND REPORTING STATUS

The Committee on the Protection of Migrant Workers this afternoon discussed ways to promote the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and the status of reporting by States parties.

Introducing the discussion, Prasad Kariyawasam, Committee Chairperson, said there was an urgent need to increase ratification of the Convention. There were only 34 States parties so far, and there had been no new ratifications during the past year. The other six core conventions had over 100 States parties. Moreover, once seven more ratifications were adopted, that would trigger the expansion of the Committee by four new members. He suggested that the Committee hold a day of general discussion, with participation of outside experts, to brainstorm ideas for promoting the Convention.

Many Experts embraced the idea of a day of general discussion as a means of promoting the Convention. An Expert pointed out that migration itself had been labelled a “problem” by many developed countries, and there was a need to address the related hostility of those countries towards the Convention. An Expert said they ought to organize regional seminars on the rights of migrant workers in States not members, with support from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or even other treaty bodies – through the holding of joint seminars. A more updated document on the whole issue and the challenges to be faced, with a topical twist, such as migration in the post 11 September 2001 world, could also draw interest to the real need for the Convention. An Expert, noting that the International Labour Organization (ILO) allowed States not parties to their Conventions to report, wondered if the Committee could explore that practice.

A representative of the International Catholic Migration Commission felt that in the past couple of years the discussion on migrants’ rights had become more widespread and, although the debate had not completely changed, greater importance had been accorded to the topic. He welcomed the idea of a day of general discussion on the value of migrant labour, which was a practical link between migration and development. There was a similar link that could be drawn, beneficially, he felt, between the issue of trafficking and that of irregular migration. The practical value of the Convention for States could thus be highlighted.

A representative of the ILO recognized that this was a moment of crisis in the migration debate. The High Level Dialogue on Migration and Development and the documentation prepared for that Dialogue represented something of a stalemate to a rights-based approach to migration and to the protection of migrants. It had been a disappointment that primary background documents, prepared by the Secretary-General, had not even called for increased ratification of the Convention. In his view, it appeared that the debate on migration was being taken out of the UN framework.

As the importance of migrant labour – both documented and undocumented – for the major economies increased, there was more explicit opposition to the Convention on the part of the host countries – and not just in the West, but in southern Asia as well, the ILO representative said. How to solve this resistance was not clear. Advocacy played a very important, if not a critical role. In that connection, he observed that the steering committee had been relatively dormant over the past year – that included NGO membership. Conceptually, he felt that the issues of regulated migration, the protection of migrant workers, and economic development and social cohesion, had to be packaged together and presented holistically in order to attract more ratifications.

The Chairperson recalled that the real problem was not simply extending ratification. The key was to get receiving, resource-rich countries to become part of the Convention. That would be the best guarantee for ensuring the rights of migrants.

A representative of December 18, an NGO, said that national and federal parliamentarians could also play a role in promoting the Convention. She also pointed out that the rights of undocumented migrants, which were specifically laid out in the Convention and which had been singled out as the sticking point for many States not wishing to join, should be addressed in the day of discussion. It should be made clear that the Convention did not promote illegal or undocumented immigration. Finally, she felt that States not parties should be invited to the day of discussion, to encourage them to join and to perhaps clarify some issues of concern.

On the issue of lack of reporting, the Chairperson said that only four reports had been received so far, and that 25 initial reports were overdue. That affected the credibility of the Committee, in particular with regards to obtaining funding from the UN for its work. Reporting was as important as advocacy of the Convention. Indeed, they were linked, as a lack of reporting was not an encouragement for other States to join. He suggested that the secretariat could redouble their efforts to send out written reminders to parties of their obligations, possibly meeting with the Permanent Representatives in Geneva. Also, States parties could be invited to a meeting at the next session of the Committee in April to discuss the status of reporting. Committee members could also assist by encouraging their own countries to report.

An Expert noted that States should be made aware of the benefits of reporting, as living up to their obligations was one manner of advocating the Convention.

When the Committee next reconvenes in public, on Friday, 3 November at 3 p.m., it will adopt its concluding observations on the initial report of Mexico before closing its fifth session.

For use of the information media; not an official record


CMW06008E