Doha, 7th July, 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic has cast a brighter light on a range of issues which we otherwise had not considered with great focus previously. Global migration and the issues related to it are an important part of our society’s reality and with the advent of the pandemic, there is a growing consensus on the need to look and reflect upon the prevailing systems which impact the lives of the migrants and refugees.
There has been a host of frameworks for migration governance at the global level. But what is also important under present circumstances is to ponder upon the possibility of creating similar governance structures at the regional level by including the governments, NGOs and other stakeholders in the issues related to migration
With this objective in mind, a panel discussion on ‘Global and Regional Migration Governance During COVID 19 Pandemic’ was jointly organized by the Global Research Forum on Diaspora and Transnationalism (GRFDT), Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA), and Cross Regional Center for Refugees and Migrants (CCRM) on July 7, 2020 which included eminent scholars, policy makers, government officials and experts in the field.
Miss RoulaHamati’s talk on migration governance in the Gulf region is the focus of this report. She is the coordinator for the Cross Regional Center for Refugees and Migrants (CCRM), Lebanon.
Reluctance to adopt existing frameworks
Ms. Hamati began her talk by pointing out that the relationship between the global frameworks for migration governance and the governments in the Arab region has been complicated. “If we look at the legal frameworks for migration and refugee flows, most of them are either not adopted or ratified by the governments in question”, said Ms.Hamati.
The Convention on Migrant workers have been adopted by countries that don’t receive migrant workers. These include the North African countries from where migrants leave for Europe. By contrast, a lot of Arab countries that receive refugees have not ratified the Refugee Convention.
In case of Global Compact on Migration, there was an active involvement by the Arab countries for negotiating the framework. But this initial enthusiasm has been withering away when it comes to implementing it.
Conflict between national interests and the frameworks
For Ms. Hamati, there is also a direct contradiction between how migration is governed and how migration should be governed according to these frameworks. The Arab nations have been found wanting (for example, in case of temporary labour migrants) in complying with objective 16 of the Global Compact which is ‘committed to fostering inclusive and cohesive societies by empowering migrants to become active members of society and promoting the reciprocal engagement of regional engagement of receiving communities and migrants in the exercise of their rights and obligations towards each other’.
Another conflict arises when we consider the strong vocal opposition of the these countries against any kind of discussion about the right to asylum, international protection, mixed movement, non-refoulement and the other bigger questions on migration during the negotiations of the Global Compact on Migration.
We have to consider the various obstacles in adopting these global frameworks for translating them into action at the national and local level. These include amongst other things the legal frameworks within the countries and institutional capacities.
Nature and value of the frameworks needs to be scrutinized
In connection to this, Miss Hamati emphasizes a glaring problem within the very nature of such legal frameworks for migrants. Most of these are non-binding in nature which allows governments to escape the consequences very often. He furthered her discontent by stressing on the fact that “this is even true for binding instruments because on the ground and though there are different recourses that someone can take in case of violations, the consequences are not there because it is such a lengthy and complicated bureaucratic process for non-implementation”.
All this raises the question of incentives for Miss Hamati for if the countries possess complete authority in implementing these frameworks, what is the purpose of having such largely ‘ineffective’ ones in place? “I realize that I have a more or less gloomy or dim picture. But I am not saying that there is no value in having frameworks or coming together around these kinds of processes. A lot of countries do try to belong to this global community that looks at the governance of migration in a certain way and that has been an incentive in some cases”, said Miss Hamati.
For now, most of the projects and initiatives that we see are much smaller in nature. We have been favouring a “low-hanging fruit” approach so far which is not going to be effective in the long run. There is a trend to move towards a ‘less binding’ approach of doing things and this has come at the expense of migrants’ rights. This is where we are in the bigger picture and there is a need to look for ways to shift towards a wider transformative agenda.
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted migration to a great extent and there has been a resurgence of nation states as the “primary actors” in global affairs. This is something to be reflected upon as this emphasis on nation centric approach during times of crisis might not be helpful to resolve migration issues.
Not all is doom and gloom
In spite of all these deficiencies in the present policies and the Arab nations’ approach towards them, he points out that a lot has been happening in terms of policy making processes in the region which is a positive. A lot of policy developments have been happening in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) over the past few years. Miss Hamati agrees that these policies have so far failed to incorporate a comprehensive approach to migration issues in the region but there is a scope of improving the instruments which we already have with us. “I think it’s a question of recognizing the work that needs to go into making any instrument we have successful and it’s about how do we get the implementation going”, she concluded.
Report by Subhadip Mukherjee, he is currently pursuing his Master’s degree in English at the University of Delhi. His interest areas include Postcolonial studies, Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism, Diaspora literature, Literary theory, Indian writing in English and Climate fiction. You can connect with him on his Twitter account @SubhadipMuk.