VZCZCXRO1066
OO RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSL RUEHSR RUEHVK
RUEHYG
DE RUEHTH #2038/01 3201708
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O R 161707Z NOV 09
FM AMEMBASSY ATHENS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1077
INFO EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0007
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO 0002
RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA 0003

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 ATHENS 002038 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
DEPT PASS TO PRM/PIM, PRM/FO 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PREF EAID SMIG GR
SUBJECT: Greeks Host Third Global Forum on Migration and Development 
 
ATHENS 00002038  001.2 OF 006 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY:  Greece hosted the 2009 Global Forum on 
Migration and Development (GFMD) in Athens November 2-5.  For the 
first time, a U.S. delegation attended the Forum, led by PRM/PIM 
Office Director Suzanne Sheldon and including officers from U.S. 
Mission Geneva, U.S. Embassy Athens, and DHS/CIS Athens.  The GFMD, 
an informal, non-binding, states-led dialogue on migration and 
development issues, was attended this year by over 130 countries 
plus UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon; the previous two Forums were 
in Brussels and in Manila.  USDel's main goals were to quietly 
advance the Department's humanitarian and human rights policy goals 
and to "listen and learn." USDel met with U.S. civil society 
representatives during the NGO-oriented GFMD Civil Society Days 
(November 2-3) and held informal consultations with delegates from 
Canada, the UK, and the European Commission during the Government 
Meeting (November 4-5).  The Mexicans, who will host the 2010 GFMD 
in Puerto Vallarta, requested greater U.S. participation at next 
year's Forum.  END SUMMARY. 
 
 
 
¶2.  (U) This is a joint cable between PRM/PIM, U.S. Mission Geneva, 
and U.S. Embassy Athens. 
 
 
 
History and Structure of the GFMD 
 
--------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶3.  (U) The GFMD emerged from a proposal by Peter Sutherland, UN 
Secretary General Kofi Annan's Special Representative for 
International Migration and Development, following the September 
2006 UN High Level Dialogue on International Migration and 
Development (HLD).  At that time, there was strong interest among 
member states in continuing global discussion on the nexus of 
migration and development policies but also a strong preference to 
have such discussions outside the framework of the United Nations. 
The first GFMD meeting took place in Brussels in 2007 and the 
second the following year in Manila.  Future hosts will be Mexico 
in 2010, Spain in 2011, and Morocco in 2012.  A new UN HLD on 
Migration and Development, building on any progress made through 
the GFMD, is expected in 2013. 
 
 
 
¶4.  (U) The GFMD is a states-led, informal, non-binding forum for 
dialogue open to all UN member states and observers.  The Forum is 
split into the Civil Society Days (CSD) and the official Government 
Meeting, with an interface session in between where the NGO 
community can provide recommendations to governments.  The CSD 
track has been organized by a private foundation chosen by the host 
government; for the 2009 GFMD, the Onassis Foundation organized the 
CSD. 
 
 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  The USG and a number of like-minded States (Australia, 
Canada, UK and many other EU countries) have had some reservations 
about the value of a global (rather than bilateral or regional) 
approach to migration, but agree that, since the GFMD is going to 
take place with or without our participation, it makes sense to 
attempt to influence its direction from within.  Some countries, 
such as Mexico, were initially reluctant to participate unless it 
was within the UN structure. Others - probably a majority - believe 
it is best as an independent, state-led, non-binding entity, since 
such a structure better facilitates open dialogue and debate, and 
because many migration issues remain bilateral ones that are not 
appropriately addressed in the UN. 
 
 
 
Greeks Announce New Domestic Initiatives 
 
---------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶6.  (U) Keynote speakers at the GFMD opening plenary included UN 
Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who noted as priorities the economic 
crisis, climate change, and protecting vulnerable migrants.  He 
 
ATHENS 00002038  002.2 OF 006 
 
 
urged all countries to join "the campaign for zero tolerance of 
exploitation of women and girls," whether migrants or not.  Greek 
PM George Papandreou and Minister of Interior Giannis Ragousis 
stressed Greece's renewed focus on both respecting the human rights 
of migrants and increasing enforcement against illegal migration. 
Papandreou and Ragousis pledged to grant citizenship to 
second-generation immigrants born and raised in Greece, and called 
on other EU countries to share Greece's migration and asylum-seeker 
burden.  (NOTE:  Illegal immigration to Greece has surged during 
the past five years, driven in part by waves of migrants from South 
Asia and Africa and conflict zones in the Middle East.  Under the 
European Dublin II asylum framework, asylum seekers are generally 
required to seek asylum in the first EU country they enter, and the 
Greeks complain this shoulders them with a disproportionate asylum 
burden.  Illegal migration--and how to combat it--has become a 
major domestic political issue for Greece.  END NOTE.)  Spyros 
Vougias, Deputy Minister for Citizen's Protection, spoke during the 
CSD opening plenary, noting the increasing waves of illegal 
immigration faced by Greece but also promising to better integrate 
and provide documents to legal migrants.  Vougias acknowledged that 
Greece had come under intense international criticism for its 
ineffective asylum system and the poor conditions in its detention 
centers, and vowed to better protect refugees. 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. Civil Society: We Want a Voice 
 
----------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶7.  (U) The first two days of the 2009 GFMD, the Civil Society Days 
(CSD), were dedicated to discussions among civil society 
representatives, encompassing NGOs, academics, international 
organizations, lawyers, and industry associations from both migrant 
origin and destination countries.  The CSD goal was to gather 
consensus and make policy recommendations on key migration and 
development issues for governments in advance of the subsequent 
Government Meeting days.  CSD participants generally agreed that 
governments should ensure better human rights protections for 
migrants, engage and better support diaspora communities in 
destination countries, and develop more effective programs to 
integrate migrants, as well as re-integrate them into their home 
countries (and better use their capital and skills) if and when 
they return. 
 
 
 
¶8.  (U) USDel met with approximately 20 members of U.S. civil 
society groups representing academia and human rights and migrant 
worker NGOs.  U.S. participation in the GFMD was warmly welcomed, 
and participants remarked that few other governments took time to 
attend the CSD and meet with NGOs.  The discussion focused on 
several issues: 
 
 
 
-- Migrants' rights and migration policy: Many of the U.S. civil 
society groups presently focus on the protection of human rights of 
migrants in the U.S. rather than development per se.  With the 
GFMD's focus on better linking migration and development, U.S. 
groups expressed the need to better understand concepts such as 
circular migration and policy coherence.  Some participants 
suggested that the USG could start making "migration impact 
assessments" for trade, development, and immigration 
policies--along lines similar to that of environmental impact 
statements. 
 
 
 
-- A greater civil society voice in the U.S. policy process: 
Participants were unclear about the potential for the GFMD to 
influence U.S. policy--especially since the Forum is an informal, 
non-binding, states-led process, and there has not been official 
U.S. participation in the past.  If the GFMD were not an effective 
way to do policy advocacy, U.S. groups would be less interested in 
engaging in the future. 
 
ATHENS 00002038  003.2 OF 006 
 
 
-- Fair labor practices toward migrants: Some U.S. civil society 
entities, especially labor unions, were not enthusiastic about the 
GFMD's focus on circular migration as a model, fearing that it 
could be used to justify exploitative temporary worker programs. 
(NOTE:  Circular migration is a model designed in theory to benefit 
both origin and destination countries; origin countries provide 
labor, while in destination countries migrants pick up skills and 
capital which they can bring back home to aid in development.  END 
NOTE.)  Instead, some participants said, the GFMD should focus on 
migrants' rights and fair labor practices. 
 
 
 
Integrating Migration into Development Strategies 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
 
 
¶9.  (U) For the 2009 GFMD Government Meeting, the Greek Chair chose 
the theme "Integrating Migration Policies into Development 
Strategies for the Benefit of All."  Discussions in Athens focused 
on the practical and statistical needs of countries, especially 
developing countries, to better integrate migration and development 
policies.  However, few participants articulated precisely how the 
Forum should address the links between migration and development 
and what aspects of development (e.g., remittances, labor migration 
policy, development assitance, trade policy) would be the most 
fruitful lines of inquiry. 
 
 
 
¶10.  (U) The formal Government Meeting discussions in Athens took 
place in three substantive Roundtables: 
 
 
 
-- Roundtable 1: How to Make the Migration - Development Nexus Work 
for the Achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, which 
explored ways to ensure diasporas are part of national  development 
strategies in both migrant origin and destination countries, and 
examined the impact of the current economic crisis on global 
migration patterns; 
 
 
 
-- Roundtable 2: Migrant Integration, Reintegration and Circulation 
For Development, which examined new patterns of labor migration, 
especially temporary migration and circular migration, that have 
arisen as a result of globalization; and 
 
 
 
-- Roundtable 3: Policy and Institutional Coherence and 
Partnerships, in which participants discussed how the GFMD should 
interact with existing Regional Consultative Processes (RCPs) and 
how countries can collect and manage data on migration patterns to 
improve national policymaking. 
 
 
 
In addition to the three Roundtables, there was a special session 
for heads of delegation to discuss the Future of the Forum and the 
lead-up to the next HLD in 2013. 
 
 
 
¶11.  (SBU) The Roundtables were conducted under Chatham House 
rules, which preclude direct attribution of comments.  However, 
USDel noted that the bulk of comments in the Roundtables came from 
representatives of developing countries that are grappling with 
growing mixed migration flows.  Much of the discussion, especially 
in Roundtable 1, but to some degree also in Roundtable 3, 
emphasized the need for more complete and more accurate data on 
migration flows.  Although the sessions were largely 
non-confrontational, a number of delegations, in particular from 
Latin America, emphasized the need to guarantee human rights for 
migrants and to ensure all countries--both origin and destination 
countries--received the maximum social and economic benefits of 
migration.  The delegations from Ecuador, Peru, and Cuba made 
impassioned pleas for "regularization" of immigration status, 
 
ATHENS 00002038  004.2 OF 006 
 
 
equivalent treatment (access to justice, health care, etc.) for 
migrant and local workers and (in the case of Ecuador and Peru) 
completely open migration policies and even common citizenship in 
their regions. 
 
 
 
 
 
2009 GFMD: Key Conclusions 
 
-------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶12.  (SBU) There was no formal report issued at the conclusion of 
the GFMD.  However, each session was assigned a general rapporteur 
who summarized the discussion and reported the broad non-binding 
conclusions of each Roundtable to the concluding plenary. 
 
 
 
¶13.  (SBU) The major conclusions and/or policy recommendations that 
emerged from the Roundtables were: 
 
 
 
-- The need for national governments to ensure greater policy 
coordination between all relevant ministries so that there is 
adequate "policy coherence" at national and local levels; to ensure 
that the potential benefits of migration to both origin and 
destination countries are not undermined by the unintended 
consequences of government policies. 
 
 
 
-- There is a lack of accurate and up-to-date data on both inbound 
and outbound migration flows for many countries and regions.  Many 
delegations expressed interest in a European Commission program for 
creating "migration profiles" that collect, collate, and manage the 
data policymakers need on immigration origin countries in order to 
successfully integrate migration and development.  There was broad 
agreement that such profiles can only be useful if the data are 
regularly updated and there is "buy-in" from the subject countries. 
 
 
 
-- Diasporas can make valuable contributions to development, both 
in their countries of origin and new home countries.  Including 
diaspora representatives in development planning must be part of a 
coherent national strategy based upon accurate data and mutual 
respect.   One practical proposal in this area was for future 
Forums to create a handbook detailing lessons learned and practical 
guidelines for how governments can engage diaspora communities in 
development activities. 
 
 
 
-- The current global economic crisis and other impacts of 
globalization have given rise to new forms of temporary and 
circular migration.  Coordinated, unrestricted, and transparent 
sharing of data and experiences between countries of origin and 
destination is needed in order to ensure policy responses to the 
crisis can be based upon the best available evidence. 
 
 
 
-- There needs to be special attention given to combating 
xenophobia and discrimination towards migrants in times of economic 
crisis and job losses.  Countries should seriously consider the 
impact of climate change on migration and address this problem 
jointly before it leads to increased migratory flows. 
 
 
 
-- Against the backdrop of increased circular migration, countries 
should focus on ensuring the rights and adequate integration of 
migrants in host countries, as well as if and when they return home 
to "reintegrate."  This may require countries to undertake studies 
and data collection on the impact of circular migration and to 
consider ways to define a set of indicators to evaluate 
reintegration policies and programs.  The 2010 global census round 
 
ATHENS 00002038  005.2 OF 006 
 
 
can provide an opportunity to advance knowledge of, and improve 
data collection on global and regional migratory patterns. 
 
 
 
-- Most GFMD members want to maintain the Forum's non-binding, 
informal, and states-led structure outside of the United Nations 
system.  At the same time, Special Representative Sutherland 
reminded GFMD participants that the UN can make an important 
contribution to discussions on global migration so the Forum needs 
to think how it wishes to prepare for the 2013 High level Dialogue. 
 
 
 
 
-- Several participants expressed concern that the GFMD needs to 
better enhance the links between migration and the global 
development agenda.  A number of donor countries made pledges to 
support the Geneva-based GFMD Support Unit. 
 
 
 
-- While maintaining its state-led character, the GFMD needs to 
consider how to build closer relations with civil society. 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. Consultations with Canada, UK, and EC 
 
------------------------------------------ 
 
 
 
¶14.  (SBU) In line with a "listen and learn" approach towards the 
GFMD, the U.S. delegation held an informal meeting with Canadian 
and UK delegates.  The British explained the GFMD's focus on the 
concepts of circular migration and migration management, noting 
that the vagueness of these terms allowed developing origin 
countries and developed destination countries to interpret the 
concepts differently.  Origin countries could focus on labor rights 
for migrants and development, while source countries could focus on 
migration enforcement and controlled immigration policies.  Some 
European countries faced labor shortages, so the idea of circular 
migration was attractive.  The Canadians expressed interest in the 
European Commission's "migration profiles" program for migration 
source countries, noting that it would be useful when paired with 
Canada's points-based immigration process.  Delegates also 
discussed a code of conduct for the recruitment and hiring of 
origin country health workers. 
 
 
 
¶15.  (SBU) USDel also met with European Commission official Soenke 
Schmidt, who explained the EU perspective on the GFMD:  keep it out 
of the UN framework, keep it informal, and lessen the frequency of 
meetings to allow for more practical groundwork during the 
interim--perhaps once every two years.  Schmidt noted that the EU 
supported institutionalizing/formalizing the Regional Consultative 
Processes (RCPs), such as the Mediterranean 5-plus-5 RCP, when the 
"timing was right." 
 
 
 
¶16.  (SBU) Canadian, UK, Australian, Japanese, and EU delegates 
uniformly agreed that they had no interest in ratifying the UN 
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers 
and Members of Their Families.  Delegates noted that the convention 
had a very expansive view of the rights of migrants--especially 
illegal immigrants.  (NOTE:  As of November 2009, the convention 
had been ratified by 42 countries, all migration source countries. 
Several of these countries publicly called for ratification of the 
convention during the GFMD.  END NOTE.) 
 
 
 
Looking Ahead: 2010 GFMD, Puerto Vallarta 
 
----------------------------------------- 
 
ATHENS 00002038  006.2 OF 006 
 
 
¶17.  (SBU) As part of their planning for the 2010 GFMD, Mexican 
delegates met privately with USDel to explain their plans and 
solicit U.S. views.  The Mexican MFA and National Immigration 
Institute are co-organizers.  But, in light of the current global 
economic crisis and its impact on the Mexican government budget, 
the GOM is planning a low-budget event.  Their initial cost 
projection was 2 million euro ($3 million) and they are seeking 
donations from both member states and private foundations, as was 
done for past GFMD meetings.  They promised not to make the 2010 
GFMD a forum focused solely on the Mexican immigration agenda and 
pledged to work closely with the U.S. and other destination 
countries to ensure a well-rounded program.  The Mexican delegation 
has already chosen a CSD organizing partner, the BBVA Bancomer 
Foundation, which is associated with Mexico's largest private bank 
and has strong experience working on migration issues.   Mexico 
hopes for an increased American role in 2010 and will continue to 
welcome USG suggestions on themes for next year's roundtables. 
 
 
 
¶18.  (SBU) The Mexican participants also mentioned their view that 
the overarching migration issue for the U.S.- Mexico relationship 
is one of "shared responsibility."  Mexico consistently seeks to 
include this term in U.N. and other resolutions.  When asked what 
he meant by this, Mexican Coordinator for International and 
Inter-Institutional Relations Rolando Alonso said that the Mexican 
responsibility is to re-integrate returning migrants, while the 
U.S. responsibility is to "understand our reality."  He said that 
the labor market reflected this reality (apparently referring to 
the large number of undocumented Mexican migrants working in the 
U.S. economy) and that U.S. law should be consistent (other Latin 
American delegations also mentioned regularization of immigration 
status as an important goal).  Alonso also expressed the opinion 
that both undocumented and legal Mexican immigrants were too often 
separated from their family members. 
 
 
 
¶19.  (U) Heads of delegation met on November 5 to discuss the 
future of the forum.  While a wide variety of views were expressed, 
there was broad consensus that the GFMD should remain informal and 
state-led so as to best facilitate open dialogue and debate; the 
main result should be policy outcomes; there should be more 
participation by private sector groups, in addition to NGOs; 
government sessions should not include civil society participants; 
and, there should be better ways to disseminate the issues and 
outcomes discussed in the forum to the outside world.  Delegations 
differed on whether there should be a multi-year work plan.  Sweden 
and Denmark supported this idea; Germany said it might have the 
opposite of the intended effect by narrowing the agenda and thereby 
inhibiting open exchanges; Switzerland said it could be helpful if 
"carefully controlled."  The USDel opposed a multi-year work plan, 
noting that the Forum will have the most potential to be effective 
if its agenda is allowed to develop organically. 
 
 
 
¶20.  (SBU) COMMENT: U.S. delegates found the GFMD to be a useful 
opportunity to share and learn information and best practices on 
migration policy issues--especially from like-minded migrant 
destination countries.  As EU countries have played a lead role in 
developing the GFMD and negotiating agenda items with migrant 
source countries, Forum discussions tended to focus on Euro-centric 
migration management models, such as circular migration between 
African and European countries.  The 2010 GFMD in Mexico presents 
the opportunity for the U.S. to offer its own take on migration 
management, development, and best practices, such as migrant 
integration and English language programs, thriving diaspora 
communities, and regional consultative processes.  END COMMENT. 
Speckhard