Coming Together or Coming Apart? A New Phase of International Cooperation on Migration
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries introduced border closures or restrictions that essentially paused most forms of mobility, with significant consequences for migrants, their countries of origin, and destination countries. This post summarises a new report by the Migration Policy Institute that explores the rationale for deeper international cooperation on migration, the obstacles impeding it, and ways forward. You can find the full report here.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the global context for corporation on migration in unanticipated ways three years after the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM).
The GCM is the first inter-governmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, and consists of 23 objectives covering all aspects of migration with an array of possible actions, drawn from best practice, that States may choose to utilise to implement their national migration policies.
While not legally binding, the GCM’s guiding principles, objectives, and actions find their root in established obligations and principals, underpinned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 2030 Agenda for Social Development, and international law.
The ‘Coming Together or Coming Apart? A New Phase of International Cooporation on Migration’ Council Statement Report by the Migration Policy Institute explores how the public-health crisis has underscored the importance of pursuing greater coordination on migration and mobility at the bilateral, regional and even multilateral levels, and exposed the limitations of existing global frameworks to govern mobility in times of crisis.
When it was first adopted in December 2018, the GCM marked a new chapter for international corporation on migration that should theoretically have laid the groundwork for the type of corporation needed throughout the pandemic.
The compact was formally adopted by 164 countries in Marrakech at the UN Intergovernmental Conference on the GCM; endorsed by 152 states, with five votes against (Czechia, Hungary, Israel, Poland and the United States), and 12 abstentions (Algeria, Australia*, Austria, Bulgaria, Chile, Italy, Latvia, Libya, Lichtenstein, Romania, Singapore and Switzerland).
Throughout the pandemic, certain objectives associated with migrant rights suddenly became vital to public health. Most recently, this has extended to ensuring that migrants and refugees have are included in vaccination campaigns.
The report describes how the recognition that migrant well-being cannot be separated from societal well-being has arguably nudged progress toward GCM objectives in four areas:
Regularisation and Extension of Legal Status (Objectives 4, 6, 7, 15, and 19). Many states stabilised migrants’ legal status to ease access to health care, services, and livelihoods.
Alternatives to Detention (Objective 13). Several states have pursued alternatives to detention, recognising the public-health risks surrounding detention facilities.
Access to Health Care and Vaccination (Objectives 7 and 15). The public-health imperative to protect the most vulnerable in the interest of keeping entire communities safe has prompted the expansion of access to health care and vaccines in many states. Progress toward full vaccination inclusion, however, has been mixed, driven both by the uneven distribution of vaccines and by some states’ hesitancy to put migrants on equal footing with citizens. Refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers may also lack of access to identification documents and online sign-ups or be reluctant to come forward for vaccination, for example due to fear of arrest or deportation.
Public Narrative Campaigns (Objectives 16, 17, and 18). Many states launched public communication campaigns to combat xenophobia and highlight migrants’ contributions to society.
Making the case for international cooperation in the current climate requires persuading publics of the long-term benefits of well-managed migration and multilaterism at a time when most countries and their citizens are experiencing intense short-to-medium term challenges and uncertainties (health, economic, jobs, and broader personal and economic security).
Some states have argued that the best way to protect national interests is to look outward. Achieving national goals cannot accomplished solely through policies within or at one’s own borders. For example, overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic relies on investing in the capacity of countries with less-robust public health and migration management system.
“Policy actors thus may need to go back to basics and make the broader case for why and how cooperation can actually advance national priorities—rather than undermine them—particularly in the context of a historic economic downturn and pandemic”.
To reinvigorate the value of international cooporation, The Transatlantic Council on Migration recommends that states consider three principles:
1. Put national priorities front and centre when making the case for new policies or investments. Policy actors may need to go back to basics and make the broader case to their constituents for why and how cooperation can actually advance national priorities—rather than undermine them—particularly in the context of a historic economic upheaval and pandemic. This involves pointing to easy wins, setting realistic expectations for what collective action can achieve and on what timeframe, and carefully identifying, measuring, and articulating the costs of unilateralism.
2. Prioritise efforts to rebuild public trust rather than pursue quick fixes. Governments need to make the political and public policy case for investing in cooperation for the long term in order to get the public on board. This requires establishing a compelling narrative about cooperation and presenting it in a disciplined and consistent matter. Without this trust, they will not have the political latitude to test and get buy-in for creative immigration and integration ideas and to take calculated and deliberate risks to guide their communities in the long recovery ahead.
3. Acknowledge that there is no perfect or quick solution. Multilateralism demands continuous engagement and compromise. It is almost always slower, less precise, and imposes many imperfect trade-offs. Instead of trying to persuade people that, ipso facto, migration will have benefits to all people, leaders should be transparent about the challenges and potential trade-offs and outline the measures they intend to take to address them. In doing so, they should strive to build confidence that systems are operating fairly, according to clear rules, and consistent with a society’s values.
This is a summary of a report by The Migration Policy Institute, an independent, nonpartisan think tank in Washington, DC. It includes some excerpts from the original report.
*In 2019 the Parliament of Australia posted a FlagPost outlining why Australia abstained from the vote.
Moderator: Carissa Jedwab @carissajedwab