Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07USEUBRUSSELS2262
2007-07-12 14:17:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
USEU Brussels
Cable title:  

GLOBAL MIGRATION FORUM DECLARES ITSELF A SUCCESS

Tags:  PREF PREL EUN 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBS #2262/01 1931417
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 121417Z JUL 07
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
UNCLAS USEU BRUSSELS 002262 

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREF PREL EUN
SUBJECT: GLOBAL MIGRATION FORUM DECLARES ITSELF A SUCCESS


UNCLAS USEU BRUSSELS 002262

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREF PREL EUN
SUBJECT: GLOBAL MIGRATION FORUM DECLARES ITSELF A SUCCESS



1. (U) Summary: The two-day Global Forum on Migration and
Development was largely positive in tone, short on specific
outcomes, and well on its way to becoming an annual event.
Plenary sessions were dominated by states giving statements
about their migration policy accomplishments and challenges,
and many delegates said they found it useful to hear the
experiences of other states. Peter Sutherland will stay on
as the UNSYG's Special Representative for International
Migration and Development at least until next year's Forum in
Manila. End Summary.


Linking Migration and Development
--------------

2. (U) The first Global Forum on Migration and Development
(GFMD) took place in Brussels July 10 and 11 with an
estimated 700 participants from 155 countries. Although it
is affiliated with the UN, the Forum was billed by organizers
as an informal state-led process stemming from the UN
High-Level Dialogue on Migration and Development held last
fall in New York. The Forum specifically sought to explore
links between migration and development and the effects of
each upon the other. It focused primarily on voluntary
economic migrants, both legal and illegal, rather than on
forced migrants such as refugees and trafficking victims. At
its most basic, Forum participants said, migration affects
development in sending countries positively through
remittances sent home by migrants, and through increased
human capital and exposure to new ideas gained by migrants.
Negative effects of migration on development include the loss
of highly-skilled workers in countries of origin (brain
drain) and the social costs of long-term family separation.
The Forum noted that receiving countries also experience
positive development effects through the work of migrants and
negative effects such as increased enforcement costs incurred
combating illegal immigration. Reversing the equation, the
Forum also explored the effects of development upon
migration, saying sending countries need to consider how
changes in agricultural, fiscal and other policies can spur
migration, and to take migratory patterns into account when
setting up national development plans. Developed countries
noted that their policies can also affect migration, with the
UK explaining its decision to stop recruiting doctors from
some poor countries because of ethical concerns about brain

drain.


3. (U) Because of the large number of Forum participants and
the complex nature of both migration and development, the
bulk of GFMD discussions were short on specifics and long on
general statements. Each day of the two-day Forum was
divided into plenary and roundtable sessions, with the
roundtable discussions providing more opportunity to hear
from experts and delve into subjects in greater depth. There
were great disparities in the baseline knowledge of
participants, who ranged from migration and development
experts to representatives of ministries marginally
associated with either area. The global reach of the Forum
also revealed that concerns about migration vary widely from
region to region. Numerous Latin American countries noted
that 20-30 percent of their populations live outside their
country of origin, and that they are grappling with being
migrant sending, receiving, and transit countries
simultaneously. Many African countries, by contrast, said
their primary migration concern is the high rate of
rural-to-urban migration. Many developing countries said
their main migration pattern is not South-to-North, but
rather South-to-South as workers seek jobs in other
neighboring and regional countries. (Organizers said they
would post reports of the roundtable discussions on the Forum
website, www.gfmd-fmmd.org, on July 12. RefCoord will send
detailed report of roundtables separately.)

Atmospherics
--------------


4. (SBU) The tone of the Forum was generally positive and
consensus-oriented, with little finger-pointing or
North-South polarization. Doubts about the Forum's
effectiveness expressed before and during the conference,
however, by the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia,
were not well-received by the organizers. During a
roundtable discussion on the future of the Forum, both Regine
De Clercq, Belgian Ambassador for Migration and Asylum
Policy, and Peter Sutherland, the UN SYG's Special
Representative for International Migration and Development,
reacted sharply to questions and comments by the New Zealand
delegate, saying New Zealand had not participated actively in
Forum preparations and had no right to criticize it now.
Delegates from Canada and Australia followed with comments
similar to New Zealand's, but got no response from De Clercq
and Sutherland (the U.S. did not participate formally in the
GFMD, but sent an observer from USEU). Sutherland privately
asked a Canadian delegate why the "Anglo" countries were
ganging up to criticize the Forum. In the plenary sessions,
De Clercq kept a tight hold over the discussion, once cutting
off the microphone of a Namibian delegate who strayed from
the topic. When an Algerian delegate noted that he would
like to see more Africans chosen to chair roundtables and act
as roundtable rapporteurs at the next Forum, De Clercq
responded angrily, saying many African countries had been
asked to participate more actively, but had refused. "I
don't want to hear any more comments along these lines. I
believe we should be praised and not criticized," she said.

Future of the Forum
--------------


5. (SBU) Germany suggested that the Forum take place every
other year, and Thailand said it did not want to see the
Forum become institutionalized, but Sutherland said it will
be an annual event, rotating between countries of the North
and South. "The show is on the road and the train is on the
tracks and this thing is moving forward," he said. The
process of choosing a host is ad hoc, he said, with the
Government of Belgium offering to host the first one "with
minor prodding," and the Philippines offering to host one in

2008. Sutherland said a northern country had stepped up to
host the 2009 GFMD, but he would not name it. On the
sidelines, contacts said that country is likely Greece, with
rumors that Mexico would like to host the Forum after that.
Sutherland said he would like the Forum to continue as an
informal process led by states and outside of any formal UN
structure, though affiliated with the UN to lend "legitimacy
and universality" and to differentiate it from a conference.
UNSYG Ban Ki-Moon, who spoke at the Forum's opening session,
said that, at his request, Sutherland will stay on as the
SRSG at least through the Manila forum. Sutherland said the
GFMD will be run from now on in a troika format, like the EU,
with the outgoing, current, and incoming host countries
running it together.


6. (U) The Philippines outlined its proposed calendar as
follows: From July 12 to Aug. 31 Belgium will transfer its
files, website, and questionnaire responses to the
Philippines; on Sept. 1 the Philippines will send its first
official e-mail to national focal points; on Oct. 1, the
steering group will meet in Geneva to assess the
Belgian-hosted Forum and identify themes for the Manila
Forum; on Nov. 1, the Friends of the Forum will meet in
Geneva. The Philippines said it is inclined to follow
Sweden's suggestion that the roundtable topic dealing with
links between migration and development be retained for the
next forum, but that the other two roundtable topics be
replaced with new ones. Austria suggested the link between
climate change and migration as a possible topic. The Indian
delegate called such a link "far-fetched." Sutherland and De
Clercq closed the Forum by congratulating themselves and the
participants for a "highly successful" event. Sutherland
said that initial opposition from some countries had been
"virtually overcome." "The big fear was that we couldn't
have a constructive dialogue between the North and the South
without criticism, but it hasn't come true," he said.



Comment
--------------

7. (SBU) Most statements made during the two-day event were
unobjectionable. The majority of states made boilerplate
generalizations about the importance of making sure migrants
are treated humanely and well, and noting the contributions
that migrants make to both countries of origin and
destination. The tone of the Forum was positive, and many
delegates seemed pleased to be able to discuss migration
concerns in a global forum and to share ideas and best
practices among countries. There was little finger-pointing
between developed and developing countries, and there was no
real move to bring the Forum further into the formal UN
bureaucracy. It was clearly a Forum for states, with state
delegates getting the bulk of floor time during plenary
sessions to mae remarks and only short timeslots given to
international organizations and civil society
representatives. The Forum produced little in the way of
concrete outcomes. It seems well on its way to becoming a
permanent, annual event. In informal discussions with
like-minded states, Canada said it had a generally positive
impression of the Forum and would need to decide soon whether
to engage more fully in preparations for the next Forum. A
UK delegate said he believed the Forum was positive, though
flawed, and that it made more sense to be a participating
member than to be on the outside.
GRAY
.