Last week the General Assembly of the United Nations held a High-level Dialogue on Migration more than a decade after the proposal was first mooted at the Cairo Conference on Population and Development.  It is perhaps the first time this issue has been discussed at this level though it has been there, lurking in the background of all discussions of globalization.  But the clash of concerns between source countries and host countries made it very difficult to define an agreed agenda for any global discussion.

India is in a rather special situation.  It is a major source country with about 20 million Indians (and people of Indian origin) in the diaspora and a host country that, according to the Indian minister’s statement to the GA also has about 20 million, legal and illegal immigrants.  Every year some 300 thousand enterprising and well educated Indians migrate for work to more promising climes.  We received immigrant remittances amounting to $21.7 billion in 2004.    Yet another major concern for India is the short-term movement of persons across national boundaries as part of the trade in services, the so-called Mode 4 in the WTO negotiations.  Hence a structured global discussion on migration is very much in our national interest. 

Migration is clearly an international issue as the streams of  movement cross national and regional boundaries.  There are now some 191 million international migrants (including refugees) and the number is rising by 2 to 3 million per year.  The greater part of the movement now is linked to fairly specific work opportunities and the terms of such migration vary greatly from country to country. A special concern has been the brain drain of educated persons to the OECD countries which, during the nineties may have amounted to 800 thousand per year.  Assuming an opportunity cost of $100 thousand for the cost of tertiary education, this amounts to a transfer of some  $ 80 billion per year!   

Some 20 months ago I had argued in a column written for this paper for  a coherent global dialogue. Several pots are now brewing on this front.  About a year ago an independent Global Commission on International Migration submitted a report.  Since then the Secretary-General has appointed  Peter Sutherland, the former DG of WTO, as his Special Representative and proposed the establishment of a Global Forum on Migration and Development, which Belgium has offered to host.  The purpose of this forum is to connect the pieces that are being addressed separately in a variety of bodies. 

The differences between source countries and host countries is the major divide that has to be bridged by the proposed forum.  But that is not the only divide. There is also the difference between employers and labour.  Most employers would like a liberal regime for labour movement as that would help to keep reduce costs.  But unions argue that migrant labour should not be treated as a commodity which moves around labour market in response to demand-supply pressures.  Their emphasis is on equal treatment for migrants, labour rights and protections against exploitation.

Another divide has now appeared with the concerns of security agencies  that shows up in increasingly stringent visa conditions and stiffer border controls.  Our MOS, Mr. Ahamed, in his speech to the GA last week also said that irregular migration has serious security implications, including the use of irregular migrants as an instrument for cross-border terrorism and for creating social tensions in the host country.  Similar fears and broader concerns have been voiced in Europe where the new immigrant communities are very different in their culture, religion, language, dress and cuisine from the majority community.

India can play a constructive role in the emerging global dialogue in four areas – migrant rights, the link with development, temporary movements as part of trade and security concerns. 

As a country which sends out and receives migrants it has to modulate its stance on migrant rights to reflect both sets of interests – those of receiving countries which would wish to minimize rights of migrants to welfare, political participation and citizenship and those of sending countries that would want migrants to have most of the rights of domestic citizens.  Of course this is as likely to lead to double standards as to coherence.  But if we are to be consistent, when we argue for the rights of Indians in the Gulf we have to keep in mind that we would need to give similar rights to Bangladeshis and Nepalis within our borders.

The impact of migration on development in the sending country was often considered to be negative because of the so-called brain drain.  Current assessments in India at least are more mindful of the potential of the diaspora as a source of investment, technology, market contacts and political support.    The situation is less favourable in many African countries where one-third to one-half of doctors and others with higher education have migrated. 

The labour market impact is largely an issue for national policy.  Remittances

are a different matter.  The flow to developing countries has grown from $ 58 billion in 11995 to $ 167 billion in 2005.  Flows through informal channels may be even larger.  This is an area where policy cooperation between source and host countries can be very fruitful.

The temporary movement of persons as part of the trade in services is being covered under the Mode 4 negotiations in WTO.  However it would be in India’s interests to connect that discussion with broader issues of migrant rights and migration and development.  An interesting complication is the emergence of an inflow of expatriates to provide a service in India!

The fourth area is the dark side of migration – false asylum seekers, illegal migrants, people trafficking and terrorism.  This today is the real constraint on a liberalized regime of managed migration.  Here too India is both a source and a destination and can play a major role in finding common ground for cooperative action.

India is a country that straddles the key divides in the global migration dialogue.  Its voice will be heard if it recognizes that you cannot ask for more for your citizens abroad than what you give to foreigners here.