General Trends in Current East-West Migration and Related
Policy Challenges
==========================================================
NATO ECONOMIC Colloqium,
30 June, 1 and 2 July 1993,
Brussels
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS IN COOPERATION PARTNER COUNTRIES
FROM A SECTORAL PERSPECTIVE
EVOLUTION DE LA SITUATION ECONOMIQUE DANS LES PAYS
PARTENAIRES DE LA COOPERATION DU POINT DE VUE SECTORIEL
==========================================================
PANEL II
Economic Aspects of Demographic
Developments, Ethnic Tensions, Migration
Chair: Guillaume Parmentier, Assistant Director,
NATO Office of Information and Press
Panelists: Lajos Hethy
Panelists: Piotr Korcelli
Panelists: Oleg Shamshur
Panelists: Jonas Widgren
--------------------------------------------------------
General Trends in Current East-West Migration and Related
Policy Challenges
Jonas Widgren
The mere fact that migration now for the second time is
brought to the agenda of the annual NATO Economics
Colloquium is a true reflection of the increasing
awareness of the overall security aspects of mass
movements in an East-West context. I had the privilege of
addressing the 1992 Colloquium on this very topic, and in
my intervention today, I will seek to assess developments
since then.(1) The intervention will set out from the
excellent country-oriented contributions which have been
submitted by Dr. Hethy (Hungary), Professor Korcelli
(Poland) and Dr. Shamshur (Ukraine).(2) In my intervention
I will in particular dwell upon the need to reform the
existing multilateral machinery dealing with East-West
movements.
States in Western Europe have long since established
cooperation systems with respect to the movements of
people. These cooperation systems have evolved during
decades according to prevailing political circumstances
and
requirements. They cover a vast array of areas: agreements
on the free circulation of persons, rules for the hiring
and treatment of foreign labour, common visa and border
control arrangements as well as cooperation, also at the
global level, to ensure the protection of refugees. In
addition to extensive bilateral cooperation in these and
related areas, a complex multilateral machinery has
developed to facilitate the achievement of common goals
and
actions. The main components of the intergovernmental part
of this multilateral machinery were until the mid-1980s
the
EC Commission (the free circulation and the social
conditions of foreign workers), the Council of Europe (the
protection of migrants and refugees and general migration
policy activities), OECD (the analysis of labour market
implications of migration), ILO (the protection of migrant
workers), IOM (the transport of migrants), and UNHCR (the
protection of refugees). In 1986 an important new
component
was added to this cooperation machinery, namely the
activities on asylum and border control issues which were
initiated under the auspices of the EC Ministers of
Immigration in view of the completion of the internal
market.
However, many of the assumptions on the volume and
character of migratory flows upon which these
international
activities in the area of migration, asylum and refugee
policies were based started to decrease in strength in the
late 1980s. One of these presumptions (i) was that total
annual immigration of foreigners to Western European
States
would oscillate between 600,000 and 900,000 persons, as
had
been the case ever since the introduction of immigration
restrictions all over Western Europe in the mid-1970s.
However, total gross immigration to EC and EFTA States,
taken together appears now to be on the constant increase
and to be less controllable than hitherto. It has grown
from about 1.0 million in 1985, to 1.6 million in 1988,
about 2.3 million in 1990 and as much as over 3.0 million
in 1992.
Moreover, (ii) the proportion of irregular versus regular
immigration of total inflows to Western Europe seems to be
on a steady increase. Thus, whereas regular immigration
(i.e. cases where the right to enter for residence has
been
granted beforehand) accounted for 80% of total inflows in
1985, this category accounted for only 60% in 1992. On the
other hand, irregular flows (consisting of asylum-seekers
with weak claims, illegal entrants, etc.) are increasing,
both in relative and absolute terms. The total annual
number of asylum-seekers to EC and EFTA States taken
together was at the level of 20,000 in 1975, about 170,000
in 1985, over 430,000 in 1990 and 1.1 million in 1992, all
ex-Yugoslav claimants included. However, there would have
been a certain increase in total annual immigration
between
1990 and 1992 even if the flows from ex-Yugoslavia had not
existed. Hence, it seems highly probable that, given the
situation in many relevant countries of origin and existing
migration patterns, total annual immigration to Western
Europe will continue to display an upward trend for the
rest of the decade.
Thus, the presumption of fairly stable, predictable and
controllable inflows is no longer valid for the Western
part of the region. This upward immigration trend would
most probably have emerged irrespective of the changes in
Central and Eastern Europe, given migration and population
pressures on the southern side of the Mediterranean and
beyond, in combination with growing wage differentials and
easy communication. However, they have undoubtedly been
exacerbated by the changes in the East, as the migration
system of Western Europe has implicitly been based on
(iii)
the presumption of exit control system in the Eastern part
of the region. The revolutionary changes all over Central
and Eastern Europe have brought about rules for the travel
OUT of countries which are compatible with those of the
Western world. Nationals of countries in Central and
Eastern Europe have now the possibility to leave freely
and
to try to settle elsewhere. (Until the mid-1980s only
former Yugoslavia pursued an open border policy.) In fact,
the share of nationals ofCentral and Eastern European
countries of the total inflows to Western Europe appears
to have increased from a mere 15% in 1985, when exit
control was still maintained in most of the countries
concerned, to about 30% in 1990 and as much as 40%
in 1992, mainly reflecting the significant movements out
of
many of the republics of former Yugoslavia. However, even
when deducting refugee-related movements from former
Yugoslavia, nationals of Central and Eastern European
countries still account for one-third of total inflows to
Western Europe in 1992. Thus, nationals of Central and
Eastern Europe are increasingly to be found among all
categories of long-term entrants, including those who
enter
illegally (see table below).
----------------------------------------------------------
-
Estimate of flows of countries in CEE to Western European
countries 1987-1992
----------------------------------------------------------
-
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
----------------------------------------------------------
-
1. 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000
400,000
2. 150,000 300,000 800,000 450,000 300,000
300,000
3. 5,000 10,000 15,000 60,000 65,000
100,000
4. 10,000 25,000 25,000 35,000 100,000
600,000
5. 25,000 25,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
60,000
6. 20,000 25,000 40,000 70,000 150,000
200,000
----------------------------------------------------------
-
Totla 310,000 540,000 1,100000 905,000 965,000
1,660000
CEE
----------------------------------------------------------
-
Total 1,180000 1,570000 2,360000 2,280000 2,450000
3,040000
inflows
1. Regular immigration (labour transfer and family
reunion)
2. Ethnic Germans to Germany
3. Asylum-seekers: Romanians
4. "Yugoslavs" (Incl.TPS)
5. Others
6. Illegal entrants
----------------------------------------------------------
-
A fourth no longer valid presumption upon which the
present
cooperation system is based is that (iv) arge-scale
refugee
movements like those occurring in the ftermath of the
Second World War, would no longer appear n Europe. The
flight of a total of nearly four illion persons from their
homes in Croatia, osnia-Herzegovinia (and to some extent
other parts of ormer Yugoslavia) is in blatant
contradiction with this ssumption, as are certain
significant flows of people in the area of former USSR,
following conflict. Obviously the appearance, once again,
of large-scale refugee movements emanating from European
countries requires new forms of European cooperation.
Finally, although it is true (as indicated above) that
movements of nationals of countries in Central and Eastern
Europe now account for about one-third of total inflows to
Western Europe, an expected mass exodus on economic
grounds
has still not taken place. Indeed, one main reason for the
convening of the Vienna Ministerial Conference on
East-West
movements in early 1991 was the fear in Western Europe
that
economic transition in Central and Eastern Europe would
push millions on the move to the West. Taking Central and
Eastern Europe as a whole, this has not occurred, although
quite substantial outflows of a predominantly economic
character are currently taking place from some of the
countries concerned. However, the new cooperation
arrangements discussed at the time of the Vienna
Conference did not foresee (v) that the countries of
Central and Eastern Europe would so quickly become the
targets of large-scale and illegal transit movements of
third country citizens. The sudden emergence of these
flows
has urgently necessitated new forms of West-East
cooperation in the area of border control, such as those
carried out through the working groups of the Berlin
process on illegal migration.
The radical changes in migratory patterns which thus are
under way, in combination with overriding political
concerns relating to European integration and security,
have prompted governments to seek to adapt existing
cooperation mechanisms to the new challenges, and also to
establish new pan-European processes to address the new
migration situation such as the Vienna and Budapest
Ministerial conferences. Furthermore, European leaders
increasingly warn against the detrimental effects of
massive disorderly movements of people and highlight the
need for a new comprehensive approach in this regard.
Thus,
in many of the statements delivered at the 1991 Vienna
Conference, it was underlined that massive and disorderly
movements of people between European States could
represent
a threat to political stability in all countries
concerned.
Equally, the European ministers responsible for migration
affairs underlined in their conclusions adopted at their
Luxembourg meeting in September 1991 that "irregular
migration has reached disquieting levels". In the security
dimension of uncontrolled large-scale migration was
further
evoked at the Berlin Ministerial conference on illegal
migration, held in November 1991, which convened more or
less the same governments as the Vienna Ministerial
Conference. At the Berlin meeting, ministers stated that
"uncontrolled migratory movements in their present order
of
magnitude constitute a destabilizing factor in all
countries and place a burden on the harmonious development
of relations between European people" (the communique of
the conference). The same month, the ministers responsible
for G24 aid to Central and Eastern Europe, meeting in
Brussels, "noted the potential destabilising effects of
uncontrolled migration, and have agreed to take
particular account of this issue when developing their
assistance programmes" (the conclusions of the meeting).
As a result of the further evolution of political
developments in Europe, the interrelationship between
massive migratory movements and regional stability has
since been discussed at the highest level by the EC
States.
Thus, in the "Declaration on Principles of Governing
External Aspects of Migration Policy", adopted by the
European Council meeting (at the level of Heads of State
and Governments) in Edinburgh, in December 1992, the
Council notes "the pressures on Member States resulting
from migratory movements, this being an issue of major
concern for Member States, and one which is likely to
continue into the next decade". The Council further
"recognizes the danger that uncontrolled migration could
be
destabilizing", and in this context it "welcomes the work
on East-West migration of the Berlin and Vienna groups".
More recently, at the Budapest Ministerial Conference to
prevent uncontrolled migration, held in February 1993, the
Ministers noted "that illegal immigration constitutes a
threat to public security and stability".
There are thus clear commitments at the highest European
political level not only towards the free movement of
persons and the protection of refugees, but also towards
the establishment of sustainable and comprehensive
collective cooperation structures between all countries
concerned with respect to disorderly or massive population
movements, taking into account their potentially
destabilisingeffects, nationally and internationally, and
their grave human and social dimensions. However, whereas
there is thus now a high degree of understanding of the
need for a truly comprehensive approach with respect to
the
movements of people, involving all countries concerned in
a
system for mutual trust and support, there is no
comprehensive and well coordinated multilateral network
which couldensure an effective effort of all countries and
institutions and organisations involved with respect to
this challenge. To be precise: there is no need for new
institutions but for more synergy, cooperation,
coordination and streamlining of efforts already
undertaken
in various areas by various governments and organisations
so as to more effectively attain common goals. Such a
synergetic effect could only be achieved through
collective governmental action. In addition to ever
increasing bilateral cooperation and to the six major
intergovernmental organisations which for decades have
been
involved in various aspects of European migration (ILO,
UNHCR, IOM, OECD, Council of Europe and the EC
Commission),
there is a plethora of new fora which have emerged in
recent years: the above-mentioned extensive migration
cooperation between the Twelve carried out under the
auspices of the Ministers of Immigration with support of
the EC Council, the Schengen Group, the Vienna, Berlin and
Budapest Ministerial Conferences, the new Centre for
Migration Policy Development in Vienna, sub-regional
migration groupings such as the Nordic Group, the Central
European Initiative, etc., as well as older bodies having
taken up the migration issue in their work plans fairly
recently, such as ECE and CSCE as well as NATO itself.
Governments in Western, Central and Eastern Europe are
members of all or of one or another of the above-mentioned
institutions and groupings Ultimately, only governments
themselves can ensure that the comprehensive collective
approach which is needed can be implemented is a
coordinated synergetic fashion through existing organs or
through their streamlining to avoid duplication.(3)
What would be the basic thrust of such a truly collective
intergovernmental approach? Once it has been established
at
the political level, as seems to be the case, that the
emergence of disorderly or massive movements of people is
a
destabilising phenomenon which could negatively affect
relations between peoples and states, there seem to be two
interdependent lines of policy and action to be pursued
with a view to confronting this new challenge: (i)
collective cooperation between European and other states
concerned to prevent the occurrence of disorderly
movements
and (ii) collective cooperation after disorderly movements
of a considerable magnitude have already occurred.
Obviously, these two policy areas are closely
interconnected, but the initiatives to be taken and the
techniques to be applied in each of the areas differ
greatly. Again, within these two policy branches of
collective cooperative action, there are measures to be
contemplated which widely vary in character. However, only
a consolidated and well co-ordinated common European
approach to the subject in its entirety could ensure
effective and sustainable solutions.
To conclude, European governments are today in need of a
multilateral system which provides an efficient and
flexible framework for developing effective cooperation
structures, to be applicable within 3-5 years (before it
is
too late), to achieve the
following objectives:
- Harmonize visa, entry, border control and readmission
policies between EC states, between them and EFTA states,
and between them and Central and Eastern European states,
which would be financially assisted to this end.
- Harmonize asylum policies as above, including a
pan-European country of first asylum agreement, joint
definitions of safe countries (i.e. non-refugee-producing
countries) and the effective return of rejectees to their
countries of origin.
- Establish limited programmes for organized temporary
transfer of labour for employment or training from Central
and Eastern European to Western European states with a
view
to creating an alternative to irregular movements.
- Reinforce efforts to ensure free circulation within the
EC and EES areas, plus the gradual inclusion of
non-labour-redundancy states in Eastern Europe (and maybe
later, when possible, further around the Mediterranean) in
such free circulation zones.
- Concentrate on the forming of anti-exodus policies in
selected countries of origin, including dissemination of
proper information, the building up of institutions and
migration management capability, enforcement of minority
rights and free elections etc., and development of
suitable
labour market policies.
- Better analysis of the impact of free trade and
development aid on job creation as well as the formation
of
sustainable non-exodus policies in the Third World,
covering population, environment, humanitarian and human
rights policies, so as to create alternativesto
emigration.
- In spite of the lack of a comprehensive European
approach
to the new refugee crisis in Europe following the war in
former Yugoslavia, a further examination of the
possibility
of establishing a European refugee regime, including early
warning, containment in the respective sub-region, joint
assessment of criteria for protection, assistance
packages,
and implementation of joint return operations, when
feasible.
- And, finally, orientate the early warning prevention
mechanisms of CSCE and NATO/NACC to also cover massive
population displacements, and to further discuss the
potential roles of NATO/NACC (and WEU) in terms of
operational/military activities to block aggression and
hence to prevent mass displacements from occurring.(4)
Notes
1. J. Widgren, East-West migration - economic buffer on
security threat, Statement at the NATO Economics
Colloquium, 8-10 April 1992, 15 pp.
2. L. Hethy, Migration and labour market in Central
Europe,
paper presented to the NATO Economics Colloquium,
30 June -2 July 1993. P. Korcelli, Economic aspects of
demographic developments, paper presented to the NATO
Economics Colloquium, 30 June -2 July 1993, 11 p. O.
Shamshur, Current crisis and migrations in the former
USSR, paper presented to the NATO Economics
Colloquium,30 June - 2 July 1993.
3. Cf. J. Widgren, Towards collective European
co-operation
with respect to the movement of people, Council of
Europe, June 1993, 32 p.
4. Cf. J. Widgren, The need for a new multilateral order
to
prevent mass movements to become a security threat in
Europe, paper presented at a conference at Taormina in
April 1993, organized by the Washington Center for
Strategic and International Studies, 20 p.
----------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1993 NATO
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in
any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic,
magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without permission in writing from the
copyright holders.
Authorization may be requested for redistribution of the
text on a non commercial base by research and educational
services. Requests should be addressed to the Economics
Directorate, NATO, via e-mail 'scheurweghs@hq.nato.int'.
First edition 1993
ISBN 92-845-0079-6
This is the latest in a series bringing together papers
presented at the NATO colloquia organised by the NATO
Economics Directorate and Office of Information and Press
on economic issues in the former USSR and Central and
East European countries. For further information please
write to the Director, Office of Information and Press,
1110 Brussels, Belgium.
The articles contained in this volume represent the views
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
official opinion or policy of member governments or NATO.