On 23rd November 2021, the Global Research Forum on Diaspora and Transnationalism (GRFDT), the Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA), the Cross Regional Center for Refugees and Migrants (CCRM), International Institute for Migration and Development(IIMAD) and Metropolis Asia-Pacific (MAP) jointly organized a panel discussion on the Objective 7 of the Global Compact for Migration. The session was moderated by Mr. William Gois, Regional Coordinator of the Migrant Forum in Asia and attended by three prominent panelists and various other experts who presented their ideas on the topic “Address and Reduce Vulnerabilities in Migration”
The failure of states to implement right-based governance
The moderator began the session by asking how we can bring the change that is necessary for a much more justice-oriented kind of governance program on migration. He gave a glimpse into the previous discussion that concluded how our response in migration governance are not nuanced in ways that involve the institutionalized and weaponized forms of discriminations along race, religion and nationality. Reflecting on the objective of the panel “Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration”, Gois critically examined various shades of reducing vulnerabilities and probed into the reason why member states have used the word “reduce” and not other alternatives. For him, vulnerabilities are much constructed by the member states who as duty bearers fails to implement a right-based governance approach. He drew a typical example of vulnerability by stating how allowing market forces to dominate the recruitment process result in irregular channels of migration and leads to xenophobic narratives about migrants. Gois then turned to panelists to have a deep look into the emerging issues of broader discussion on vulnerabilities and review some of the policy governance options.
Balancing the rights of migrants and sovereignty of member states
Aron Gebremariam is a migration and development specialist and has worked with the Commission for Africa and with International Organization for Migration in Gambia. He pointed out progressive developments in the GCM document with regard to recognizing access to business services and recognizing migratory status as a positive factor in reducing vulnerabilities.
He also pointed out certain low points i.e., the document has not addressed root causes in terms of expanding legal pathways for regularizing migratory status of irregular migrants. GCM also fell short of completely avoiding forced repatriation as the document qualifies it as ‘arbitrary’. Therefore, Aron says that GCM had treaded a unique balancing act by keeping human rights of the migrants at the center of the discussion while simultaneously respecting the sovereignty of member states. Answering moderator’s question whether states would be willing to bear the costs of basic services of the migrants at a time welfare states are facing resource constraints and also opposition from domestic forces, Aron highlighted why there is no evidence to support that migrants are consuming disproportionate resources from natives.
“The evidence suggests that migrants are actually contributing a lot more than non-migrants. If you look at the global GDP, the figure for 2020 is that migrant’s contribution to the global GDP is about 9 percent of total GDP while the number of international migrants only account for a little more than three percent”: Aron Gebremariam
Further, for him, it is not primarily a question of resources, but of human rights and administrative and legal procedures that expel and detain irregular migrants. Aron also answered a question on regional configurations at African level that are looking at right-based approach to migration. He listed a host of institutional processes such as the Regional Consultative Processes on Migration (RCPs) that have played a very critical role in expanding our understanding of south-south migration dynamics and gave practical example of what can be done when there is an alignment of objectives in interstate dialogues. Though very effective in creating a political climate facilitating the GCM objective, he states that contrary to Intergovernmental Authority on Development(IGAD) that has resulted in policy developments in the form of regional free-movement protocol, the former has remained as a programmatic approach rather than a policy process. Aron however does not miss a common challenge to these interstate dialogues when there is a misalignment of objectives among member countries.
The lived reality of Somali diaspora and their potential for community development
Sara Ahmed, who is a PhD candidate in gender and Somali diaspora and Founder Director of Somalia Gender Hub focused her presentation specifically on youth vulnerability from a gender perspective. With a personal experience of being a refugee in Europe, she moved beyond considering vulnerability as a concept and rather examines it as a lived reality from stories enveloping vulnerabilities from the point of departure to the point of destination via transit. “Vulnerability is very much linked to insecurity and inequality” she stated as she points to the inequality at multiple levels of gender, ethnicity and disability that compounds to make the lives of migrants doubly problematic.
It is the unfortunate image of the western world as a dream destination and the economic imperatives that pressure young people with unprecedented burden to choose such a scenario. To address those multiple challenges and distinctive nature of each migrant that is usually missed in the analysis, she had made use of feminist tools and the concept of intersectionality. She narrates a story of young Somali man who aspires to migrate to Europe to alleviate the difficult circumstance of his family, but ends up in the hands of smugglers who demands an exorbitant amount of ransom from his family.“There is little known about the families that are left behind” she adds as she reflects on the vulnerability of the policies and rules that are put in place for these already vulnerable migrants. African people migrating to Europe are understood as a burden while western people coming to Africa are generally seen as expatriates encouraged for their expertise. She pointed out this contradictory perception to recognize the potential of those African youths fleeing from conflict to be utilized properly so that they can be the agents who can go back home and bring about concrete change.
She also replied to a question from the moderator regarding the policies member states could do to initiate this potential, where she highlighted that refugee measures in Europe, except in some organizations like the Shabaka are not conducive to build an individual who can go home and contribute. By inviting listener’s attention to the role Somali diaspora has been playing in responding early and effectively to calamities, she asked them to think about how more robust migration policies could build resilient African communities better able to cope with these challenges. The potential is huge because as the speaker notes: “they are doing so with the intention of building their lives, bettering their own family’s lives and contributing significantly to their communities”
The refugee children: Inclusive decision making
Memory Mandikiana, who is working on the effects of COVID-19 on the displaced children of the Tongogara refugee camp in Zimbabwe specifically mentioned about the forced migration from the four different categories of migration. She listed labour migration, forced migration, retirement migration and internal migration as other categories where similar kind of structural and procedural violence exist. She understands the encampment policy of Zimbabwe government resulting in sexual abuse, mental challenges, child labour and language barriers for the asylum-seeking children coming from francophone countries. The other vulnerabilities she charts include early marriages, teenage pregnancies and other subtler issues like limited dietary diversity and lack of basic services like leisure activities for children that are enshrined in the Article 31 of the UNHCR Convention.
“As much as refugees are perceived as a vulnerable group, refugee children are at the crux of that vulnerability complex” she states. Memory sheds light on some revolutionary practices in the field: the foster care system in Zimbabwe where minors are attached to a certain family who are willing to take and nurture them and other practices like offering training and counselling services to hear their problem from themselves. She said that these are applied through a partnership approach where organizations, UNHCR and the government pools resources together. She also lamented about the encampment policy of the Zimbabwe government in reservation of Articles 17 and 26 of the 1951 UN convention on refugees: “this is sort of like a temporary situation. Unfortunately, it ends up being permanent somewhat because we have got refugees that have been in the camp for at least a decade or so”. Finally, she stressed that as far as vulnerability of children is considered, it is not just about making decision for them, but also to find out from them their condition and their understanding of the solution.
“Anything for us without us is not for us”: Memory Mandikiana
Wholly, the conversation explored a wide range of discourses on vulnerability, including vulnerabilities that are structural, personal and from the perspectives of children and feminist theories. The panelists gave due significance to the context of these vulnerabilities and how dialogue with the victims could unearth many situations that are not possibly taken into consideration. The moderator concluded the panel by asking the panelists and attenders to explore further the connection between GCM objective 7 and objective 2 that dealt with the drivers of migration. He alluded that the drivers of migration might be also the causes of some of the vulnerable situation migrants find themselves in.
M Abdul Fathah, Research Student at Jamia Madeenathunnoor and Graduate Student at IGNOU. Twitter: @M_Abdul_Fathah