a critical view of the global forum on migration and development

GFMD stands for Global Forum on Migration and Development. It is “an informal multilateral and state-led multistakeholder process “that is open to 192 member states of the United Nations “to identify practical and feasible ways to strengthen the mutually beneficial relationship between migration and development.”1
The GFMD comes at a time when the number of migrants has grown to about 205 million migrants around the world. Tens of millions are undocumented while about 20 million are refugees. Altogether they remit US$ 2.26 trillion, an amount which is far more than the combined “development assistance” given by developed countries to underdeveloped ones.
The GFMD purportedly professes to embrace “development”, a concept which may be remote to the realities of peoples of Third World countries who are impoverished. This universal concept defined by the United Nations supposedly pertains to human development, which is about creating an environment in which “people can develop their full potential and lead productive and creative lives in accord with their needs and interests.”2 It is therefore fundamental for human development to build human capabilities – to lead long and healthy lives, to be knowledgeable, to have access to have a decent standard of living, and to be able to participate in the life of a community. As such, human development shares the vision of fundamental human rights – the human right to work, the right to adequate standard of living including food, clothing, and housing, the right to physical and mental health, the right to security, the right to healthy environment, and the right to education.3
Over the years, the concept of human development evolved. On December 4, 1986, the General Assembly of the United Nations issued a Declaration on the Right to Development saying that “the right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human being and all peoples are entitled to, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.”4
However, the path to human development changed, depending on whose perspective and interest holds such concept. As the disparity between the rich and poor countries widened, the dominant concept defined by First World countries prevailed. This concept holds the view that the path to development meant capital infusion combined with the provision and teaching of technical skills.
But as the process of “globalization” continued, this changed to embracing the principles of trade liberalization, the opening up of domestic industry investment to “free market” forces, privatization and deregulation. These principles gained prominence over the years and led to the “Washington consensus” in 1989, the formation of WTO in 1995, and the establishment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the United Nations in 2000. These initiatives were designed purportedly to address global problems such as poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental devastation and discrimination against women.
It was along this line that subsequent post-Washington or even post-post Washington concepts and other initiatives followed suit:
1)the Monterrey Consensus was adopted in 2002 (by over 50 Heads of State and 200 Ministers of Finance, Foreign Affairs, Development and Trade) as a result of a UN-organized International Conference on Financing for Development. Pushed by WTO and IMF-WB, commitments for more development aid to developing countries were mobilized, the concept of international trade as an engine for development was adopted, and governments, WTO and IFIs agreed to enhance the coherence and consistency of the international monetary, financial and trading systems in support of development.
2)the Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness was adopted in 2005 (by development officials and ministers from 91 countries and 26 donor organizations) for more aid commitments, and reforms in the delivery and management of aid . These commitments, however, meant more conditionalities and tied aid for developing countries to buy products only from donor countries.
3)Various High Level Fora (HLF) on different issues were organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) with the strong presence and influence of IMF and WB. One result of this HLF is to hold a permanent Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) in September 2006 in Washington..
What is common in all these policy developments is that the framework of development which serves the interests and strategies of neoliberal globalization has prevailed among governments, inter-government bodies (UN and OECD) and IFIs. In all these initiatives, the OECD plays the role of policy think-tank and coordinates both domestic and international policy-making processes. In collusion with the WB, it uses governments and the UN to create legitimated consensus bodies such as the GFMD to propagate and propel neoliberal policies and strategies.
It is no wonder then that the developments in international migration have caught the attention of governments and capitalists alike. This global interest is concretely seen as migration is increasingly on the agenda of the UN, ILO, IMF, WB, OECD and WTO. Various initiatives were taken by these global inter-government organizations and international financial institutions (IFIs), namely: WTO’s inclusion of Mode 4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Services (GATS); the formation of the Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) by the UN in 2003, and the holding of High Level Dialogues with governments and other “stakeholders” by the OECD.
One such product of this High Level Dialogue in September 2006, pursued specially after the collapse of WTO talks on the so-called Doha Development Agenda, was the creation of a permanent Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD), which held its inaugural session in Brussels, Belgium in July 2007.
The GFMD thus arose not from the genuine interest of First World countries to realize development of Third World countries and address migration issues and problems in countries of origin and destination. It arose in the midst of the worsening world economic crisis where far more advanced First World countries are fighting their way out of this crisis while still retaining their economic and political interests, control and power, while poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment continue to aggravate the lives of peoples of Third World countries.
It also came at a time when pro-globalization, debt-ridden and corrupt regimes in Third World countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and others are saying that migration is “international sharing of human resources” and that the “remittances of migrants help prop up (their) economies.”
The GFMD and Its Framework
The first GFMD held in Brussels, Belgium in 2007 discussed the following topics and conclusions:Human Capital Development and Labor Mobility: Maximizing Opportunities and Minimizing RisksRemittances and other Diaspora Resources: Increasing their Volume and Development ValueEnhancing Institutional and Policy Coherence, and Promoting Partnerships
Conclusions of the First GFMD session held in Brussels, Belgium are summed up in the following points:
1)that migration is an opportunity, not a threat; as such, migration policies can contribute to development and to achieving the Millennium Development Goals; that development policies can harness best the potential benefits of migration.2)that temporary labor migration can be a flexible way of meeting labor surplus and shortage across countries.3)that more circular forms of migration and sustainable return would enable temporary labor movements to be better linked to the skills and development needs of the source country, and to be factored into the skills requirements of the destination country. Also, the return or circulation of skills and other assets of more permanent migrants can reinforce development efforts in origin countries.4)that remittances to developing countries are one of the largest sources of external finance for developing countries, and can represent a large share of GDP for some of them. The World Bank estimates that recorded remittances to developing countries (i.e., excluding informal flows) reached $206 billion in 2006, almost two-thirds of foreign direct investment ($325 billion), and almost twice as large as official aid ($104 billion) received by these countries. Remittances are also considered to be more stable and evenly spread than other financial flows such as ODA or FDI, and are also considered to be countercyclical.5)that remittances cannot be appropriated by governments, but their positive impact on development can be increased through options, incentives and tools designed and implemented by governments in partnership with other relevant actors.6)that reducing remittance costs can create incentives for migrants to use formal remittance channels. Increased formalization of remittance transfers also enables better policy planning for development and for responding to the possible negative impact of these flows.
The next GFMD session will be held in Manila, Philippines on October 29-30, 2008.The Philippine experience in developing the export of labor as an industry is seen by many governments as a model for the world to see. Moreover, the Arroyo government sees the GFMD as “the country’s opportunity” to market Filipinos workers overseas since “it can no longer stop Filipinos from leaving for better jobs abroad.” Albeit this lame excuse, the fact remains that the government cannot create decent jobs and it exploits the diaspora of Filipinos to earn the much needed foreign exchange.
As with the first GFMD session in Belgium, consultations with civil society organizations (CSO) will again be held, this time on October 27-28, 2008. The CSO consultation is being organized by the Ayala Foundation.
The theme of the next GFMD is “Protecting and Empowering Migrants for Development,” which is meant to call on the host and sending countries to “share responsibility” to ensure the developmental effects of migration. The roundtable discussions will focus on the following:
Migration, Development, and Human RightsSecure, Legal Migration can Achieve Stronger Developmental ImpactPolicy and Institutional Coherence and Partnerships
It is in this context that the forthcoming GFMD session in Manila, Philippines is being pursued.
Critical Position on the GFMD
The GFMD is a device to sell neoliberal anti-poverty and financing strategy. It thrives on the poverty of Third World countries, directs them to institutionalize migration policies as a mechanism for development and development cooperation.
It hides under the cloak of universally-accepted concepts and principles such as the right to migrate, the “right to development”, “responsibility of government to manage” but peddles on “remittance as a survival mechanism for poor countries” and “temporary labor migration” as a “flexible way of meeting labor surplus and shortage across countries”.
It avoids the notion that migration is an “alternative to development” because it will expose the undeniable fact that “neoliberal” globalization has failed miserably on its promise to usher development, especially in poor countries that has a vast pool of unemployed. It also unmasks the real intent of the current drive of First World countries and their institutions to exploit the migration phenomenon, the lucrative labor export programs and migrant remittances for the purpose of salvaging or propping up the collapsing economies, especially of semi-colonies and dependent countries.
GFMD sells neoliberal anti-poverty and financing strategies by promoting the concept that “migration promotes development” and that the remittances of migrants helps the economy and therefore serves as a “tool for development”. It directs its efforts towards capturing the remittances of migrants to: a) ensure super profits of bank monopolies, and b) ensure that debt-ridden economies have a large currency reserve to pay off debts.
The underlying agenda however is to do away with capital pump-priming and ODA which donor countries and IFIs have so far been unable to meet for the past several decades. This exposes the fact that neoliberal globalization currently has not brought Third World countries any closer to the eradication of global poverty and unemployment.
It promotes the concept of government responsibility to “manage migration” in order to augment state revenues and help cover deficits in foreign payments. Managing migration meant institutionalizing migration policies, adopting “policy coherence” in all its related branches of government, and by “aligning” migration policies with development policies domestically and internationally. This concept exposes that the underlying neoliberal agenda is for Third World countries to continue to tow the line of neoliberal policies (liberalization, privatization, deregulation, etc), policies that bred a vast pool of unemployed and underemployed, the very same policies that brought Third World countries heavily indebted and in a state of abject poverty.
It employs post post-Washington strategy of “transparency” and “shared responsibility” thru “inter-partnership” with all “stakeholders” in the name of development but marginalizes the role of the most important stakeholder on this issue – the migrants themselves. Consultations and representation of migrant organizations in HLF are nil. Even in dialogues with civil society organizations, migrant representation is merely a token.
While there is some truth that remittances temporarily alleviates the financial woes of families of migrants, this perverse notion signifies greater commodification of migrants and the perpetuation of conditions for cheap labor, not to mention the social costs of migration, especially on children and families.
It is time to expose that this so-called “development” thru migration and reliance on remittances as development tool are neoliberal anti-poverty and financing concepts and strategy that thrives on people’s exploitation and miseries of migrants, enhances labor flexibilization and therefore, greater commodification of labor, and only brings Third World countries into the quagmire of poverty because these do not address the root causes of underdevelopment and the massive migration of peoples from poor countries.
National and Global Response
The forthcoming GFMD is being hosted by the Arroyo regime in the Philippines. The Arroyo regime is the nightmare of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs). No other regime than this has squelched the OFWs dry with enormous exactions from fees to charges to taxes. It has duped OFWs to part with their earnings in collusion with big business, illegal recruiters, traffickers and racketeers, and in utter disregard of the abuses and violations of migrants’ rights. It is currently riding high on the phenomenal increase (from $13B in 2006 to $16B in 2007) in dollar remittances even as OFWs continue to reel from the falling value of their dollars.
Effectively, this regime has began to cover its budget deficits, pay the country’s international creditors, and brag about “sound fundamentals” largely borne by the blood, sweat and tears of the country’s migrants. For all its “achievements,” the Arroyo regime is playing poster girl to the next GFMD.
Yet nothing about development is written on the sad and angry faces of Filipino migrants and their families. And nothing of the same could be measured in the lives of some 200 million migrants of various nationalities and races around the globe. What is clearer is a renewed offensive against the rights and welfare of migrants as the next GFMD unfolds. And the only path is resistance — a resistance that can span countries and continents, cross borders, break down barriers of race and gender, and developing the cooperation and partnership of migrants, their advocates and their families all around the world.
As Prof. Jose Ma. Sison, chairperson of the International League of People’s Struggles (ILPS), says: “The GFMD cannot be expected to become relevant and helpful to the most important of its supposed stakeholders – the migrant workers themselves – as it fails to address the essential issues of the migration phenomenon, including the immediate and long-term issues involving the migrant workers.”
It is thus important for all progressive migrants and refugees to play a defining role in the GFMD process and to be at the forefront of their own struggles against neoliberal globalization and its devices, and to link their struggles with those of all other oppressed peoples and sectors.
The role of advocate groups and institutions is also important in strengthening the voice of migrants and refugees and in promoting their rights and welfare to the GFMD process.###

Prepared by:The International Assembly of Migrants and Refugees (IAMR)Manila, Philippines