Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Introduction

It is a distinct honor and privilege to be invited to the 2016 Munich Security Conference. I wish to thank Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, and the MSC team for organizing this important annual event.  I am delighted that you have selected “Refuge Refused? The EU and the Migrant Crisis" as the theme for this panel discussion. This topic is most timely. IOM has long held the view that large-scale migration is and will remain a “mega-trend” of this century.

This evening, I would like to make three points:

a) “The Perfect Storm” – the challenge of forced migration
b) “Weathering the Storm” – responding to the challenges forced migration in the EU
c) “Preparing for the next storm” – looking at prospects for the future including positive outcomes and opportunities that the current migrant crisis could produce for Europe

I. “The Perfect Storm” – The Challenge of Forced Migration

We live in an era of unprecedented human mobility – a period in which more people are on the move than ever before. Unfortunately, not since the Second World War have so many persons been forcibly displaced, a number exceeding 60 million: comprised of 20 million refugees and 40 million internally displaced persons.

The contemporary “drivers” or “root causes” of forced migration are complex and multi-causal. The blurring lines between forced and voluntary migration, between “refugees” and “economic migrants”, alongside the expansion of irregular migration have exposed a range of protection and assistance “gaps” that existing frameworks do not cover. The drivers include: demography; disasters; the digital revolution; distance-shrinking technology; increasing North-South inequality; degradation of the environment and climate change, among others.

The international humanitarian community has spent much time and effort towards the development of mechanisms to provide a coordinated international response to crisis situations. The existing frameworks, however, do not cover all patterns of mobility or vulnerability during crises. There are only two: the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees; and the Stateless Persons agreement.

Arrivals to Europe will continue, as long as the root causes that led to record numbers of refugees and migrants fleeing in the hope of finding safety and security have not changed. At present, there are uninterrupted conflicts from the Western bulge of Africa to the Bay of Bengal. Apart from the Syrian talks, there are no active negotiations that offer any prospect of a short- to medium-term solution to any of these.

In a counter cyclical reaction to these crises and in resisting forced migration, Europe and most of the OECD area are now challenged by anti-migrant sentiment and policies. The cruel irony is that those fleeing war are now being linked to terrorisms (Paris, and Cologne).

In this context of unprecedented simultaneous, complex and protracted crises, public discourse on migration in Europe is toxic, even though there is unfilled labor demand created by an ageing population. Caught up in the tumult of anti-migrant sentiments, European states have found it challenging to respond to the crisis in a coherent and coordinated way. The risk is that irregular movements will be even harder to manage while smuggling rings will continue to flourish.

There is also political malaise: a dearth of political leadership, courage, and vision; violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) by all sides, compounded by a serious erosion of international moral authority; and a decline in confidence in governments’ ability to manage increasing flows.

II. “Weathering the Storm” – Responding to the Challenges of Forced Migration  

How then should we respond to these challenges? Let me make four brief suggestions:

a) Change the toxic migration narrative

We must find a way to change the toxic migration narrative. Historically, migration has been overwhelmingly positive. Many countries, including mine, were built on the backs and with the brains of migrants. As public officials and as thought leaders, we need to use our power of public pronouncement to accurately articulate the positive contribution of migrants to our communities.

b) Managing Diversity

Many countries are facing major challenges in migrant integration. What we all need to understand is that integration will only be possible by promoting tolerant societies that value diversity and recognize what migrants bring. This is not to dismiss community concerns and apprehensions out of hand. We must be prepared to listen to those who are genuinely worried about social change and social diversity. We need to find thoughtful ways of explaining that diversity is a source of strength for the future, not of weakness. Media support is critical in this endeavor.

Integration is clearly the main key to successful migration. It is a very legitimate topic of interest when large numbers of newcomers come into contact with the host community. The focus has been too much on a clash of identities or cultures. These concerns can be overcome if the focus is shifted to the development of shared values and common interests.

c) Improving Migration Management

Increased border controls alone will fall short of stopping irregular migration. Exclusive reliance on border controls, 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 believe.

Excessive border control measures run the risk of hindering a migrant’s legitimate access to asylum and are only putting individuals at larger risk by increasing the role and leverage of smugglers. Don’t get me wrong – I believe that states have the sovereignty to protect their borders and ensure orderly cross-border migration. However, restrictive measures must not come at the expense of saving lives or present unnecessary hardships or risks for already vulnerable populations legitimately seeking protection.

We need migration policies that will lead to what I describe as a “High Road” scenario. These policies must have three objectives:

1) address the drivers of migration to reduce forced and irregular migration;

2) facilitate safe, orderly, and regular mobility

3) respect the human rights of all migrants, whether regular or irregular.

d) Improving  Partnerships and Coordination

This is a crisis of policy, rather than a crisis of people; a crisis of leadership if you will. Considering its size and resources, flows should be manageable for Europe. Last year, the EU received one million migrants and refugees, slightly fewer than the number of Syrian refugees who entered 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.

No country can address the situation alone. The suspension of Schengen would be costly for Europe, in both political and economic terms. After all, free circulation of people is a key pillar of the European project. As put forth in a recent study by the French government, the return of border checks across the 26 members of the Schengen passport-free travel zone would reduce GDP by 0.8 per cent – the equivalent to more than €100 billion.

III.  “Preparing for the next Storm” – Prospects for the Future

Migration will inevitably be a fundamental feature of our time. We need therefore to work together to ensure that migration benefits everyone: countries of origin, transit and destination and, of course, the migrants themselves.

Europe has survived both the Euro Crisis and the Greek Crisis. And I can see several possible outcomes of the current crisis of leadership within the Union:

• First that the EU might finally be able to agree on a common comprehensive, long-term migration and asylum policy – an objective that has eluded the EU for many years.
• Two, that the current migration challenge might bring the EU and Turkey closer together, in a more formal way; and
• Three, that all, of at least most of the EU’s 28 Member States would become formally refugee resettlement countries with respectable annual refugee resettlement quotas.

Conclusion

IOM believes that migration is a reality to be managed, more than a problem to be solved. And to achieve these positive outcomes, three evolutions will be required:

• First, Europe and other parts of the world must overcome “refugee amnesia”.
• Second, Europe must overcome systemic dysfunctionality.
• Third, to adapt to the reality that, after four centuries as a continent of origin, Europe has over the past four decades also become a continent of destination.