The Case for Migrants

Nations of the world have been asked to open their borders to migrants, and see their nations experience more development.

This call is the central theme of the 2009 Human Development Report, published by the United Nations Development Programme released recently.

The report themed: “Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development” argued that removing barriers to migration would greatly help migrants to improve their life chances, ensuring that they have access to the different indices with which development is measured and do not remain in abject poverty.

According to the report, migration is a fact of life in recent years, whereby people move from one geographical location to others, many times over long distances and between different regions.

As thus, the flow of migration could be from the South to the North, whereby people from Africa, the Caribbean, and South Asia move towards the United States, Europe and Australasia in search for greener pastures. Migration may even be within the borders of a country.

However, migrants have been faced with different challenges, especially such policies that limit the opportunities they can assess in their destination countries. This, the report said, must change.

Relating the reasons for migration, the report says: “For many people around the world, moving away from their home town or village can be the best – sometimes the only – option open to improve their life chances.”

While there is as yet no typical profile of migrants around the world, it is a fact that all manners of people, ranging from the skilled to the unskilled, at one time or the other seek a break from their situations and explore what is possible for them outside their own countries.

Economic conditions, conflicts, whether civil or political, as well as insecurity have made people to seek solace in other lands apart from their own. Yet many are still trafficked.

Unfortunately, the fact that there are policies that restrict the entrance of people into other countries and such strict measures being observed before people could get access to other countries have made the issue of illegal migration more conspicuous in recent times. Many people, especially youths from developing countries including The Gambia, have been lost to this tidal sway of illegal migration.

However, rather than meet the all rosy life that had propelled them to leave their home in the first place, migrants are sometimes met with hostility in the form of an environment, both policy and physical which militate against their survival.

While there have been myths held by locals that migrants are the causes of many of their social problems, the 2009 HDR argues that rather than this, “migrants boost economic output, at little or no cost to locals.” It said that as they acquire the local language and necessary skills needed to survive in their host countries, migrants tend to move up the economic ladder, they tend to integrate quite more naturally.

According to it, human development could be really helped if countries remove all barriers to movement.

“Large gains to human development can be achieved by lowering the barriers to movement and improving the treatment of movers. A bold vision is needed to realize these gains.”

The report argues that admissions and treatment of movers constitute the two most important dimensions of the mobility agenda, which would not only be the concerns of government but also of non state actors like the private sector, unions, non governmental organizations and individual migrants themselves.

“While policy makers face common face common challenges, they will of course need to design and implement different migration policies in their respective countries, according to national and local circumstances,” it said, noting that despite this, certain good practices still stand out and could still be more widely adopted.

The necessity of a ‘joint force’ to protect migrants is primary as the world has witnessed xenophobic attacks against migrants in recent times. Attacks on foreigners in South Africa in recent times are pointer to the necessity of instituting special frameworks that would protect foreigners.

This evidently would require a measure of commitment from the host governments. Apart from institutionalizing peace within the country itself, it would also go a long way in establishing diplomatic ties between countries.

Instead of the above, however, some host countries have encouraged an atmosphere of inequality between locals and foreigners by maintaining de facto barriers to movement.

The report noted specifically that restrictions take the form of reduced basic service provisions and entitlements against migrants.

It then says: “While not a substitute for broader development efforts, migration can be a vital strategy for households and families seeking to diversify and improve their livelihoods, especially in developing countries.

“Governments need to recognize this potential to integrate migration with other aspects of national development policy.… Advancing this agenda will require strong, enlightened leadership coupled with a more determined effort to engage with the public and raise their awareness about the facts around migration."

While the report dissociates itself from a wholesome campaign for liberalization of international mobility, it notes that “people relate to each other in myriad ways and that their moral obligations can operate at different levels.

“This is primarily because individuals don’t belong to just one society or group. Rather than being uniquely or solely defined by their religion, race, ethnicity or gender, individuals commonly see themselves through the multiple prisms of a set of identities.”

To act in the manner above would afford migrants increased opportunities to try their capacities in diverse areas, thus contributing their quota to both their personal development and that of their host countries.

The report concludes by suggesting policy and institutional reforms.

“Our suggested reforms to government policies and institutions could bring about sizeable human development gains from mobility at home and abroad.

Advancing this agenda will require committed leadership, extensive consultation with stakeholders and bold campaigning for changes in public opinion to move the debates and policy discussions forward.”

20092009

Yesterday, we were two;
Today, we are three.
I feel her tender tiny palms in mine,
I was once like this.

Her little cries pulsating my mind
How I wish I knew my days!

She has come, bringing memories we wish we had.
She has come, purveyor of joy.
She has brought the messages we wish had come long ago.
She has filled the void that used to live here.
She has come, my little princess.

How government diplomacy could facilitate public gains

Diplomacy has been largely described as the way and manner in which a country conducts its relations with other countries, with which it has relations or may have relations. This may not exclude its citizens who live within its borders and those abroad. Therefore, diplomacy is largely how a country conducts its public relations, considering that its publics are the people most concerned about its actions and inactions, its policy statements and so on.

The field of public relations, from which we look at diplomacy, is a vast field which needs at least a definition. According to scholars, public relations is the creation, maintenance and possible attainment of the goal of achieving a favourable public image so that people become favourably disposed to the organization, country, or person about whom public relations efforts are done.

It is concerned about projecting a good image of the subject to the public, a series of activities which includes the formulation of policies and management of issues in such manner that the subject of public relations efforts could be described as ‘responsible’. Thus, public relations is an image-making process.

Government diplomacy, which is the object of this paper, could thus be said to be the body of government policy statements, actions and inactions, and alliances. It is important to note early that the image that people, other countries, international organisations and aid agencies have of a country would determine the extent to which they are ready to commit their services into helping such government in its development agenda.

While all these external groups would not expect the country to pay for services rendered it, as such services would be categorized as humanitarian assistance, they expect the government to embrace the lofty principles enshrined in many international conventions and agreements to which the country is signatory; they expect it to ensure that expatriates, especially those that concern any of these groups are not maltreated, nor should they be classified as belonging to the second class.

Therefore, African countries which most usually rely on aids from foreign agencies and other countries have more need to manage their public image.

This cannot be done except that the country sees itself as a corporate entity which is liable to take responsibility for either its official activities and proclamations or the unofficial actions and statements of its officers. The country ensures that only the message being sent out as a result of the different actions of its representatives are coordinated in such a way that they collectively do not bring the country into disrepute.

In her book, Public Relations: In Search of Professional Excellence, Dr. Victoria Ajala suggests that “practitioners in government have the responsibility of maintaining communication lines between and citizens.” According to her, public relations practitioner in government departments and offices, and by extension government diplomats have the “responsibility for making democracy work.”

“They are to ensure that citizens do not view government as distant and unresponsive or even hostile. They should receive, examine and channel citizen’s complaints to government and ensure that they secure expeditious and impartial redress.”

Extending Ajala’s thought, it is thus necessary that the government should see it as expedient to win the approval of the populace, not out of intimidation but out of genuine desire to be of the people and for the people. This is the basic essential of democracy, as it is through an honest practice of democracy that the government could win its people’s approval; the people’s (both within and outside its borders) approval then culminating in an approval by the international community. Let us also note that people’s approval does not necessarily mean the approval of the international community.

Government’s actions and inactions, statements of public officials, verdicts in the country’s law courts, laws relating to immigrants, those relating to businesses, policies relating to aid agencies in the country, attitudes prevailing among citizens and the activities of country’s citizens outside its shores all affect the image that would be prevalent about a country.

The interactions of these are being monitored by the publics of the country, and a slip at any point may be devastating to the image of the country. This is why the country, especially its public officials have a lot to do in coordinating public pronouncements of government officials, advising in matters necessary. This may require that press officers are specifically charged to write speeches and respond to questions from the press. While this is not shielding the official in-charge from public scrutiny, it may mean that press officers, who should be trained in the public relations profession could more effectively coordinate government image efforts.

The last statement seems to underlie a recent meeting by Gambian diplomats over issues of The Gambia’s foreign policy, and by extension the coordination of the country’s image. In his opening address at the meeting, held at the Corinthia Atlantic Hotel, Gambia’s foreign affairs minister, Dr. Omar Touray called for foreign policy approach that would engineer results. The minister called on the diplomats (both home-based and those heading foreign missions) to assess the opportunities, the challenges and the constraints of their missions, noting that such assessment would help in identifying solutions.

From an analytical point of view, the minister’s statement is an indication that more needs to be done in managing The Gambia’s image. The world is changing, thus there is need to constantly review how diplomacy should be conducted. This is why the minister had specifically called for a re-acquainting the diplomats of what The Gambia’s foreign policy would now be. These, he said, are culminating from the different speeches of His Excellency, Sheikh Professor Alhagie Dr. Yahya AJJ Jammeh.

“Thus colleagues,” Dr. Touray had said, “the objectives of our two-day gathering are to reacquaint ourselves with the Gambia’s foreign policy objectives as defined by His Excellency, the President, rededicate ourselves to the attainment of these objectives, explore the opportunities that exist out there that mitigate in favour of Gambian diplomacy, assess the challenges and constraints that impact negatively on performance and identify solutions thereto and set the regulatory framework right in order to promote efficiency and coherence.”

This sums up the need for The Gambia and its officials to make concerted efforts at revamping the country’s image. This can be easily done by valuing the ever-lofty principles of truth and justice.

PS: This article appeared in the September 3, 2009 edition of TODAY Newspaper of The Gambia. Dr. Omar Touray, Gambia's Foreign Affairs minister mentioned in this piece cease to hold the position since September 11, 2009.