VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBS #2262/01 1931417
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 121417Z JUL 07
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA

UNCLAS USEU BRUSSELS 002262 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF PREL EUN
SUBJECT: GLOBAL MIGRATION FORUM DECLARES ITSELF A SUCCESS 
 
 
¶1. (U) Summary: The two-day Global Forum on Migration and 
Development was largely positive in tone, short on specific 
outcomes, and well on its way to becoming an annual event. 
Plenary sessions were dominated by states giving statements 
about their migration policy accomplishments and challenges, 
and many delegates said they found it useful to hear the 
experiences of other states.  Peter Sutherland will stay on 
as the UNSYG's Special Representative for International 
Migration and Development at least until next year's Forum in 
Manila.  End Summary. 
 
 
Linking Migration and Development 
--------------------------------- 
¶2. (U)  The first Global Forum on Migration and Development 
(GFMD) took place in Brussels July 10 and 11 with an 
estimated 700 participants from 155 countries.  Although it 
is affiliated with the UN, the Forum was billed by organizers 
as an informal state-led process stemming from the UN 
High-Level Dialogue on Migration and Development held last 
fall in New York.  The Forum specifically sought to explore 
links between migration and development and the effects of 
each upon the other.  It focused primarily on voluntary 
economic migrants, both legal and illegal, rather than on 
forced migrants such as refugees and trafficking victims.  At 
its most basic, Forum participants said, migration affects 
development in sending countries positively through 
remittances sent home by migrants, and through increased 
human capital and exposure to new ideas gained by migrants. 
Negative effects of migration on development include the loss 
of highly-skilled workers in countries of origin (brain 
drain) and the social costs of long-term family separation. 
The Forum noted that receiving countries also experience 
positive development effects through the work of migrants and 
negative effects such as increased enforcement costs incurred 
combating illegal immigration.   Reversing the equation, the 
Forum also explored the effects of development upon 
migration, saying sending countries need to consider how 
changes in agricultural, fiscal and other policies can spur 
migration, and to take migratory patterns into account when 
setting up national development plans.  Developed countries 
noted that their policies can also affect migration, with the 
UK explaining its decision to stop recruiting doctors from 
some poor countries because of ethical concerns about brain 
drain. 
 
¶3. (U) Because of the large number of Forum participants and 
the complex nature of both migration and development, the 
bulk of GFMD discussions were short on specifics and long on 
general statements.  Each day of the two-day Forum was 
divided into plenary and roundtable sessions, with the 
roundtable discussions providing more opportunity to hear 
from experts and delve into subjects in greater depth.  There 
were great disparities in the baseline knowledge of 
participants, who ranged from migration and development 
experts to representatives of ministries marginally 
associated with either area.  The global reach of the Forum 
also revealed that concerns about migration vary widely from 
region to region.  Numerous Latin American countries noted 
that 20-30 percent of their populations live outside their 
country of origin, and that they are grappling with being 
migrant sending, receiving, and transit countries 
simultaneously.  Many African countries, by contrast, said 
their primary migration concern is the high rate of 
rural-to-urban migration.  Many developing countries said 
their main migration pattern is not South-to-North, but 
rather South-to-South as workers seek jobs in other 
neighboring and regional countries. (Organizers said they 
would post reports of the roundtable discussions on the Forum 
website, www.gfmd-fmmd.org, on July 12.  RefCoord will send 
detailed report of roundtables separately.) 
 
Atmospherics 
------------ 
 
¶4. (SBU) The tone of the Forum was generally positive and 
consensus-oriented, with little finger-pointing or 
North-South polarization.  Doubts about the Forum's 
effectiveness expressed before and during the conference, 
however, by the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, 
were not well-received by the organizers.  During a 
roundtable discussion on the future of the Forum, both Regine 
De Clercq, Belgian Ambassador for Migration and Asylum 
Policy, and Peter Sutherland, the UN SYG's Special 
Representative for International Migration and Development, 
reacted sharply to questions and comments by the New Zealand 
delegate, saying New Zealand had not participated actively in 
Forum preparations and had no right to criticize it now. 
Delegates from Canada and Australia followed with comments 
similar to New Zealand's, but got no response from De Clercq 
and Sutherland (the U.S. did not participate formally in the 
GFMD, but sent an observer from USEU).  Sutherland privately 
asked a Canadian delegate why the "Anglo" countries were 
ganging up to criticize the Forum.  In the plenary sessions, 
De Clercq kept a tight hold over the discussion, once cutting 
off the microphone of a Namibian delegate who strayed from 
the topic.  When an Algerian delegate noted that he would 
like to see more Africans chosen to chair roundtables and act 
as roundtable rapporteurs at the next Forum, De Clercq 
responded angrily, saying many African countries had been 
asked to participate more actively, but had refused.  "I 
don't want to hear any more comments along these lines.  I 
believe we should be praised and not criticized," she said. 
 
Future of the Forum 
------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Germany suggested that the Forum take place every 
other year, and Thailand said it did not want to see the 
Forum become institutionalized, but Sutherland said it will 
be an annual event, rotating between countries of the North 
and South.  "The show is on the road and the train is on the 
tracks and this thing is moving forward," he said.  The 
process of choosing a host is ad hoc, he said, with the 
Government of Belgium offering to host the first one "with 
minor prodding," and the Philippines offering to host one in 
¶2008.  Sutherland said a northern country had stepped up to 
host the 2009 GFMD, but he would not name it.  On the 
sidelines, contacts said that country is likely Greece, with 
rumors that Mexico would like to host the Forum after that. 
Sutherland said he would like the Forum to continue as an 
informal process led by states and outside of any formal UN 
structure, though affiliated with the UN to lend "legitimacy 
and universality" and to differentiate it from a conference. 
UNSYG Ban Ki-Moon, who spoke at the Forum's opening session, 
said that, at his request, Sutherland will stay on as the 
SRSG at least through the Manila forum.  Sutherland said the 
GFMD will be run from now on in a troika format, like the EU, 
with the outgoing, current, and incoming host countries 
running it together. 
 
¶6. (U)  The Philippines outlined its proposed calendar as 
follows:  From July 12 to Aug. 31 Belgium will transfer its 
files, website, and questionnaire responses to the 
Philippines; on Sept. 1 the Philippines will send its first 
official e-mail to national focal points; on Oct. 1, the 
steering group will meet in Geneva to assess the 
Belgian-hosted Forum and identify themes for the Manila 
Forum; on Nov. 1, the Friends of the Forum will meet in 
Geneva.  The Philippines said it is inclined to follow 
Sweden's suggestion that the roundtable topic dealing with 
links between migration and development be retained for the 
next forum, but that the other two roundtable topics be 
replaced with new ones.  Austria suggested the link between 
climate change and migration as a possible topic.  The Indian 
delegate called such a link "far-fetched."  Sutherland and De 
Clercq closed the Forum by congratulating themselves and the 
participants for a "highly successful" event.  Sutherland 
said that initial opposition from some countries had been 
"virtually overcome."  "The big fear was that we couldn't 
have a constructive dialogue between the North and the South 
without criticism, but it hasn't come true," he said. 
 
 
 
Comment 
------- 
¶7. (SBU) Most statements made during the two-day event were 
unobjectionable.  The majority of states made boilerplate 
generalizations about the importance of making sure migrants 
are treated humanely and well, and noting the contributions 
that migrants make to both countries of origin and 
destination.  The tone of the Forum was positive, and many 
delegates seemed pleased to be able to discuss migration 
concerns in a global forum and to share ideas and best 
practices among countries.  There was little finger-pointing 
between developed and developing countries, and there was no 
real move to bring the Forum further into the formal UN 
bureaucracy.  It was clearly a Forum for states, with state 
delegates getting the bulk of floor time during plenary 
sessions to mae remarks and only short timeslots given to 
international organizations and civil society 
representatives.  The Forum produced little in the way of 
concrete outcomes.  It seems well on its way to becoming a 
permanent, annual event.  In informal discussions with 
like-minded states, Canada said it had a generally positive 
impression of the Forum and would need to decide soon whether 
to engage more fully in preparations for the next Forum.  A 
UK delegate said he believed the Forum was positive, though 
flawed, and that it made more sense to be a participating 
member than to be on the outside. 
GRAY 
.