Speech by Foreign Secretary Hemayetuddin at the dinner hosted for the delegation of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom at State Guest House Padma, Dhaka, March 1, 2006.

STATEMENT
BY
MR. HEMAYETUDDIN
FOREIGN SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH
&
THE GUEST OF HONOR

Occasion: Workshop on Population Movement
Organized by: Refugee and Migratory Movement Research Unit

Date: 22 August, 2006, Venue: BRAC Centre, Mohakhali, Dhaka

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

Good afternoon

At the outset, I would like to thank the Refugee and Migratory Movement Research Unit for organizing this important Workshop on "Population Movement: Non-Traditional Issue in South Asian Security" and for inviting me here to join this august gathering.

I would specially like to felicitate Dr. Tasneem Siddiqui, Project Coordinator of RMMU for taking this initiative on an issue that is both important and complex in international relations that has been further exacerbated by globalization.

Human migration is as old as human history will take us. It began with the savagery stage and the barbaric stage when cavemen and tribes moved from one place to another hunting animals for food or domestication, ultimately acquiring the skills of tilling land for agriculture and settling down as families. Then there were natural disasters that triggered mass movement of populations to traverse continents.

In the process interactions have taken place between tribes and ethnic groups and so called races, giving birth to nations and civilizations and in the final analysis, political entities known as countries. Migration had brought out the best in human beings: creating cultural diversity, innovations and technological feats developed over centuries what we today are privileged to enjoy. The United States of America that takes pride in its identity of being a land of the immigrants would be a classic example.

Let me pose a hypothetical question. What do you think Europe would have looked like if the Europeans could not migrate out of their continent since the 15th century and if they could not colonize the Americas, Africa and part of Asia? Academics have tried to answer this, explaining how mass migration led the European countries to the path of prosperity and how the outflow helped prevent a demographic, ecological and environmental disaster in the continent.

The 15th century Europe, by any account, was more impoverished than the present day Sub Saharan Africa, even if we take into account the technological differences between the two periods. Their standard of living, in real terms, was much less than the dollar-a-day poverty line that we use today. But Europe could come out of its misery by allowing and encouraging its people to find new settlements, colonize new territories and develop new markets to support their industrial revolution. Christopher Columbus was not just an explorer; he was in effect a fortune seeker and thus an economic migrant who pursued a migration policy at the behest of the Spanish Crown. The poor nations in Africa and South Asia are facing the same predicament that the Europeans encountered during the three hundred years since the 15th century.

Let's go back even further. The great Asian migration to the Americas, beginning in 2500 BC, is perhaps the first evidence of mass scale human migration. The Australoid people migrated from the Mediterranean region all the way to the South Pacific in pre-historic times, long before we see any major breakthrough in sea voyages. There are evidences of migration from Africa to the Americas also in the pre-historic times. There is a tragic irony in the history of migration. When the means of transporting people were meager or non-existent, people migrated en masse across continents and across vast oceans. In this age of jet engines, we are, in comparison, less mobile than our forefathers hundreds of years ago.

Throughout history, more prosperous communities attracted the less privileged. Finding better livelihood has often been the prime motivation for migration. The present day Bangladesh, by historical accounts, was a popular destination for migrants. Economic migrants flocked into Bengal, not only from the Middle East or Central Asia but also from Armenia, East Africa and Southern Europe. Even during the colonial times, there were large-scale migrations both to and from Bengal. The tea plantations in Sylhet attracted indentured labor from Orissa and Bengali fortune-seekers migrated to far-flung Mauritius, East Africa and the Caribbean Islands.

The opportunities for migration witnessed a sudden decline after World War II as colonialism came to an abrupt end and the richer Western nations hurried to erect walls against large-scale migration from their former colonies. It is unfortunate that the Bretton Woods conference, at the fag end of the War, while focusing on balance of trade and financial stability, completely ignored the migration issues. The small number of delegations from the developing countries that were present at the conference were more concerned about their quota in the International Monetary Fund than address the issue of migration and free movement of labor. The United Nations Conference in San Francisco was equally oblivious of the migration issue and there was no reference to it in the UN Charter. Only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, recognized the freedom of movement as a fundamental human right but that has remained a mere ideal and not an enforceable objective.

My understanding human migration is a simple one, meaning a change of place of residence which can be within the geographical parameters of one's own country or beyond. We deal with two aspects of migration : internal or intranational within a nation and the International that would include immigration or emigration. There are of course other aspects of migration such as free migration, impelled migration, forced migration that may include refugees and intrastate displacement which I am sure have already been discussed at length in the deliberations at this workshop. .

In the popular view, migration in today's globalized world mostly takes place in the search of economic security. There is a demand somewhere out there in the developed world or in the oil rich Gulf countries for cheaper and/or skilled workforce and there are people in the developing countries who are willing to go there to meet that demand to make a better living. Many would return after a temporary stay and this could very well include the illegal and others would be there for a given period of time ( legally) while still others would take advantage of the local immigration rules to earn permanent residency status as legalized aliens or citizens.

Economists have long argued that a labor abundant country should export surplus labor, while a capital rich country should export its surplus capital. The resultant exchange should make both countries better off. While the capital abundant countries like to ensure free movement of their capital, there is hardly any evidence of support for the labor abundant countries to export their surplus manpower to the richer Western countries. Migration issue was put in the backburner and it was not until the nineties that we see some interest in the issue.

The protagonists of migration issues argue its merits as a development imperative. It certainly nails down the point at the academic level but hardly manages to convince the Western policy makers to open their door to migrant workers from the developing countries. The proposition that migration is good for development does not receive enough support because of its being presented as a unilateral gain for the poor countries that send migrant workers. This should not be the case. Indeed, it needs to be and can be established that migration of unskilled and semi-skilled labor benefits the rich countries as much as it helps the poor labour supplying countries. Just consider the benefits that the U.S. receives from nearly one million people that legally migrate to the U.S. every year. More than half of them come with university-level education in their own country. The American society gets this for free.

In fact, the argument that migration helps the richer nations as much, should come from the richer nations themselves. The United Nations agencies and the Bretton Woods institutions can play a critical role in brining out the evidences of such gains so that the Western policy makers can convincingly sell migration to their respective electorate. Unfortunately, we are witnessing instead a rise in protectionist sentiments in many Western countries. Instead of showing the merits of migration, panic and xenophobia are being spread to prevent new migration. As a result, migration has turned into a contentious issue. It is often very difficult for the migrant workers to establish and assimilate themselves in a new environment. Xenophobia, discrimination, uncertainty and lack of opportunities tend to make their lives unbearable. The hostilities towards migrant workers are often a by-product of ignorance.

Security concerns often play into this reactionary response against migration as an issue. But we need to keep in mind that a country cannot become more secure by keeping out the very migrants that are meant to enrich the community. Security is not a function of isolation. We are safer when people who share mutual trust, respect and tolerance surround us. An increasingly isolated and inaccessible state, no matter how big and powerful, is unlikely to be able to address its security concerns effectively. This is true for other less prosperous societies as well.

The linkages between migration, remittances and economic development are more than obvious. By the same token, there is a positive correlation between economic development and security. Then, migration, by transitive logic, can promote peace and security. We need to keep this important fact in mind while we address migration issues.

It is true that the post 9/11 situation has greatly altered the level of tolerance of in respect of migrants. But it would be a grave mistake if every migrant is looked with suspect and linkages are sought with terrorism. The two issues are different and the migrant receiving countries have the technology to separate one from the other. If there is a prejudiced mindset, the global war against terror will surely suffer setbacks.

In conclusion, I would like to draw the attention of the expert panel and urge them to devote their work on showing how migration benefits both the sending and recipient states. We should not view migration as a zero sum game. We should rather focus on the positive sum aspect of migration creating a win - win situation for both sending and receiving states and how a multi-ethnic and a multi-cultural society can foster greater understanding and tolerance. If we are to achieve sustainable peace, we have to take a more comprehensive approach linking migration with security and development.