Distinguished colleagues,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Introduction

It is a distinct honor to be with you this evening. The theme of my remarks is “Migration: The future of a prosperous Europe or undermining the political status quo”.

Today, I would like to make three points:

1. A World on the Move
2. A World Amidst A “Perfect Storm”
3. A World on the “High Ground”

I. World on the Move – The Global Migration Context  

We live in a world on the move.  Numerically, there are more people migrating than at any other time in recorded history. This is largely due to the world’s population having quadrupled in the 20th century – a phenomenon that is not likely to be repeated. (Percentage-wise, however, international migration has remained fairly constant at about 3 per cent since 1960s.)

There are 250 million international migrants, and some 750 million domestic migrants. In other words, there are 1 billion migrants in our 7 billion world. One in every seven persons on the globe is a migrant.

IOM defines a migrant as any person who is moving or has moved across an international border or within a State away from his/her habitual place of residence, regardless of:

1. the person’s legal status;
2. whether the movement is voluntary or involuntary;
3. what the causes for the movement are; or
4. what the length of the stay is.   

IOM concerns itself with migrants and migration‐related issues and, in agreement with relevant States, with migrants who are in need of international migration services.

Were the international migrants to form themselves into a country, the population of “Migration-land” would be slightly less than that of Indonesia and slightly more than the population of Brazil.

The “GDP” of these migrants in the form of remittances or money sent home is USD 442 billion. This is roughly equivalent to the GDP of a small to medium size European country. At any rate, annual migrant remittances far exceed total foreign aid and are about two-thirds of the total of all foreign direct investment which last year stood at USD 654 billion. For a number of developing countries – e.g., El Salvador, Bangladesh, the Philippines – migrant remittances are major source of GDP.

As regards internal migration, China alone, with some 260 million internal migrants, has more domestic migrants than the world has international migrants.  And China’s internal migrants face some of the same challenges as do international migrants: livelihood and shelter needs; anti-migrant sentiment; language barriers; family separation; etc.

Migration is as old as humankind and, as John Kenneth Galbraith has told us, is one oldest poverty reduction strategy. IOM has long held the view that large-scale migration is and will remain a “mega-trend” of this century.

A. “Drivers” or root causes of migration

The motives for migrating are multiple and complex. For simplicity’s sake, I have reduced them to seven, all of which start with the letter “D”:

• Demography: an aging North with a demographic deficit and in need of workers at all skill levels; and a youthful South with a demographic surplus and in need of jobs; most OECD countries’ populations will continue to decline, while Africa’s population will double in the second half of the century.
  When I was Ambassador to Nigeria in the early nineties, it had a population of 100 million, today, 20 years later, Nigeria’s population is 170 million.
• Demand: labor shortages versus labor surplus;
• Disparities: North-South socio-economic imbalances continue to increase;
• Distance-shrinking technology: cheap, rapid means of transport;
• Digital revolution: instant communication and information (300 million in 2000; 3 billion + today);
• Desperation: “survival” migration;
• Disasters: natural and man-made.

B. Migration is not a problem to be solved or a crisis to be resolved but rather a human reality to be managed.

Our simple thesis has been that –  given all that we know –  migration is:

• Inevitable in view of the driving forces in the globalized, interconnected and interdependent world we have created;
• Necessary, if skills are to be available, jobs to be filled and economies to flourish; and,
• Desirable for the contributions that migrants make both to countries of origin and destination and, most of all, the benefits that migration brings to migrants themselves and their families.

This is IOM’s vision for a prosperous Europe and a world in which migration is well governed. Today, however, the world in which we live is vastly different.  And, this brings me to my second point.

II. A world amidst a “perfect storm”

Unfortunately, the world at present is in disarray and finds itself in the middle of a “perfect storm” -- the likes of which I’ve not witnessed in my long life. Among the elements are:

• The greatest forced migration since World War II: some 65 million persons forced to migrate. Of these, about 23 million refugees and 42 million internally displaced persons (IDPs).
• An unprecedented series of simultaneous, complex, intractable and protracted crises, conflicts, and humanitarian emergencies -- crises that stretch from the Western bulge of Africa to the heights of the Himalayas: Boka Horam in Nigeria, ethno-religious strife in the Central African Republic,  ethnic warfare is South Sudan, nearly a half-century of conflict in Somalia, continuing chronic instability in Libya and Yemen, and armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and an ongoing, five – year war in Syria – a number of these proxy wars.
• An absence of any viable political processes or active negotiations that offer any hope of a solution to any of these conflicts in the short to medium-term.
• Unprecedented anti-migrant sentiment and xenophobia that manifests itself in anti-migrant policies and actions that perpetuate harmful stereotypes and endanger migrants.
• Persons fleeing armed conflict and terrorism are now objects of public suspicion and scorn.
• A decline in public confidence in governments’ ability to manage the increasing migration movements.
• An appalling dearth of political courage and leadership; a serious erosion of international moral authority; and violation of international humanitarian law by all sides in these conflicts.

These, then, are some of the elements that constitute a “perfect storm” in which Europe and much of the world find themselves. But, let’s pause for a moment, reflect and ask ourselves how the world got into this situation.

III.    A World on the “High Ground”.

When you’re in a storm, it’s wise to seek the “high ground” -- in regard to migration, this means trying to capture the “moral high ground”.

A. Such a “high road” policy serves three objectives:

1. To address and reduce the drivers of forced and irregular migration;
2. To facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration; and,
3. To respect the human rights of all migrants, whatever their status, whether regular or irregular.

B. In the midst of the migration storm, the “high ground” lies in well-managed migration. This takes a number of forms, the combination of which can constitute a comprehensive, long-term, multi-faceted migration and asylum policy. These elements include, for example:

• Give top priority to saving life. The number of migrants who die or go missing every year is alarming. In our annual report entitled “Fatal Journeys”, we at IOM have documented 50,000 known migrant deaths along migratory paths since the year 2000. (This is probably a gross underestimate since most governments do not maintain statistics on migrant deaths.) In this year alone, nearly 4,000 migrants have already perished in the Mediterranean – this despite valiant efforts by the Italian, Greek, Maltese, Turkish and Libyan Coast Guards which have saved several hundred thousand lives since 2013.

• Develop a global consensus on responsibility sharing. This was the objective of the UNGA’s “Summit on Addressing Large-scale Movements of Refugees and Migrants” held on 19 September. The Summit opened a two-year process, led by the UN Secretariat and IOM, to negotiate a global compact onmigration that will be signed at a UNGA Global Conference in 2018.
• Develop a “whole-of-government”, “whole-of-society” comprehensive, long-term, multifaceted, migration and asylum policy;
• Open more legal channels of migration;
• With large movements, draw resourcefully on a range of consular and visa options, including: temporary protective status; work visas; family reunification; resettlements; re-location; assisted voluntary return and reintegration; etc.
• Decriminalize irregular migrants; and transform migrant detention centers into reception centers;
• Pass dual nationality legislation, issue multiple entry visas; and make pensions portable.
• Sponsor public education and public information programs to  assist local communities in integrating migrants, on the one hand; and, to remind migrants of their responsibilities and to caution migrants concerning risks along the migratory routes;
• Maintain perspective;
• Changing the migration narrative. At present, migration has a negative connotation in much of the public mind which leads to discriminatory migration policies and endangers migrants. Needed is a historically more accurate narrative, namely, that migration and human mobility have always been overwhelmingly positive.
• Learning to manage diversity.  Given demographic imbalances and the other “drivers” that I mentioned earlier, all of our countries are likely to become more multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious. Diversity can be a blessing but only if we embrace diversity. Most countries already face the challenge of migrant integration into their societies.  Migrant integration is best achieved by promoting tolerant societies which value diversity and migrants’ contributions.  These concerns are more likely to be overcome if the focus is shifted to the development of shared values and common interests. Instead of playing on public fears, politicians have a responsibility to help people understand and deal with their concerns about migrants.  The focus has been too much on the clash of identities and cultures.  Trying to address these fears through the optic of identity will not work, but rather through seeking common interests.
• Expose, arrest and bring to justice the criminal smuggling gangs.
• If Europe is to continue to prosper, several issues must be addressed: address “refugee amnesia”; systemic dysfunction; and, adjust psychologically as a people.
• Improving Migration Management. Increased border controls alone will not stop irregular migration. Exclusive reliance on walls, fences and other “closed door” policies and restrictive measures such as tightened visa regimes and criminalizing irregular migrants will not lead to the expected results some would have you
• Improving Partnerships and Coordination
• Europe’s crisis is one of policy and leadership, not a migrant crisis. Considering its size and resources, flows should be manageable for Europe. Last year, the EU received one million migrants and refugees, fewer than the number of Syrian refugees in Lebanon alone. But better coordination, responsibility sharing and intra-EU solidarity is imperative – coherent migration and asylum policies, better information and resource sharing, more organized migration management at borders to ensure registration of all arrivals and proper assistance to migrants. A short-term, crisis-mode response focused on security is not likely to achieve the longer term objective of regular, humane and orderly flows.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the question is posed whether the current migrant movements globally represent a “defining moment” or are simply manifestations that we are still in a long dark tunnel the end of which we cannot yet see.

If this is to be a “defining moment”, then we will need to address several paradoxes we currently face: how do we conjugate these dilemmas and competing forces?

• national sovereignty vs. individual freedom to move;
• national security vs. human security; and,
• populist nationalism vs. shared responsibility.

As regards the “perfect storm” in Europe, I see several possible “rainbows”:

1. That Europe would finally use the current situation to accomplish the objective that has eluded them for several decades, namely, an agreement on a comprehensive, long-term, multi-faceted migration and asylum policy;
    
2. That most, if not all 28 EU Member States would become refugee resettlement countries with respectable annual refugee resettlement quotas. From my presentation, you perhaps conclude that I am not optimistic. However that maybe, I am, like Archbishop Tutu, a “prisoner of Hope”.