African migrant workers face tough conditions

Sometimes, for months on end, young African men and women risk everything, including their lives, to take on the perilous trip across dozens of borders and the treacherous waves of the Mediterranean Sea in search of a better life in the North. Some die along the way, some are turned back and some who finish the journey realize that life may not be easier across the frontier. But with few jobs and dim prospects at home, millions of youths and young adults in Africa still choose to migrate, often clandestinely.

Migration is currently at the centre of disagreements between the mainly poor sending countries and the richer receiving nations. While industrial countries are promoting easier flows of capital, goods and services (which they mainly supply), they are at the same time restricting the movement of labour, which comes mainly from developing countries. Developing countries view this as a double standard, especially since labour is an important factor in the production of goods and services.

By 2000 there were an estimated 175 million migrants worldwide, most moving from low- to higher-income nations. About 9 per cent — 16.3 million — were African, down from 12 per cent in 1960. Between 5 and 12 per cent of the population of 30 industrialized nations are migrants, notes the Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM).
Migration brings with it “many complex challenges,” says UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

The issues include human rights, economic opportunity, labour shortages and unemployment, the brain drain, multiculturalism and integration, and flows of refugees and asylum seekers.
“We cannot ignore the real policy difficulties posed by migration,” says Mr. Annan. “But neither should we lose sight of its immense potential to benefit migrants, the countries they leave and those to which they migrate.”
Owing in part to labour shortages in certain sectors, an expanding global economy and the long-term trend of ageing populations, many industrial countries need migrants. Many turn a blind eye to irregular migration to fill jobs locals do not want to take on.

But there are limits to the number of migrants they can take, for a number of reasons, including rising national unemployment. As a result, more receiving countries are becoming more selective about the migrants they are willing to take in, opting mainly for those with skills or capital to invest.

In most emigrant-producing countries, jobs are scarce or salaries are too low, obliging people to seek opportunities elsewhere. Therefore, in times of peace, governments can stem the flow of citizens seeking to leave by creating jobs.
Many developing countries maintain that freer migration would be a quick means of increasing their benefits from globalization. The challenge is to develop policies that are acceptable to both industrial and developing nations and that will spur global economic growth.

“Together, Africans and Europeans, we have a duty to dismantle the illegal immigration networks, behind which hides an appalling and mafia-like traffic,” French President Jacques Chirac told the France-Africa Summit in Mali last December. “Together, we must encourage co-development and enable Africans to enjoy decent conditions for living and working in their own countries.”

African countries are also pushing industrial nations to drop barriers to the free movement of labour through ongoing negotiations at the World Trade Organization. African and other developing countries are arguing that just as trade in goods, services and information have been opened up, so should the flow of labour, a sector in which developing countries hold an advantage and from which they could earn substantial revenue. Led by India, developing nations are using the liberalization of labour as one of the markers for measuring the success of the current round of WTO negotiations, due for completion at the end of this year.

The GCIM, a body established at the urging of the UN Secretary-General in 2003, proposes that the UN set up an Interagency Global Migration Facility. The agency would bring together more than a dozen UN and other international agencies and would be the primary forum for migration.

Some developed countries argue that the proposal for a new migration facility, along with international conventions emphasizing the rights of migrant workers may impinge on their right to determine their own policies. “The US believes that the International Organization of Migration, while not within the UN system, is the appropriate body to centre discussions on migration,” says Ambassador Sichan Siv, a US representative to the UN, reacting to the GCIM’s proposal for an international agency on migration. While coordination is important, he says, “such an effort must have at its core that migration law and policies are the sovereign rights of states.”

Despite attempts to limit the number of people moving across borders, especially between rich and poor countries, experts forecast that international migration is going to rise. One reason is demographic. While populations in developing countries are growing rapidly, those in high-income nations are not. To keep their economies running, developed countries need manpower.

Also, migration is good for economic growth. The World Bank estimates that if the labour force in high-income countries were to grow by 3 per cent, even if the additional workers were all migrants, there would be $356 bn in annual global economic gains. “That would be larger than gains from trade, for example,” says Mr. Dilip Ratha, senior economist at the World Bank.

The benefits of migration go not only to industrial nations, he says, but also to developing countries, which now receive more than $165 bn annually in remittances, money sent home by workers abroad. “Remittances reduce poverty because they generate direct income transfers to the households,” says Mr. Ratha. Household surveys in Uganda show that remittances to that country may have reduced poverty by 11 per cent.

The question is whether it is better to promote or restrict the mobility of people seeking to migrate. Simply closing the door could have deeply troubling implications for the human rights of the people involved, might not be effective and would limit the benefits migration delivers for both receiving and sending countries, says Mr. Sriskandarajah of the US-based Institute for Public Policy Research.

A better response, he suggests, is to start by recognizing that migration can be positive for those who move, for the societies they move to and for the societies they leave behind.