Panel Moderator Dr. Taylor B. Seybolt of the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP) introduced the event. He explained that USIP awarded a grant to the Center for East Asian Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California to conduct a research project on human flows in Northeast Asia. The grant recipient, Professor Tsuneo Akaha, gathered an international group of experts on China, Japan, Mongolia, Russia, North and South Korea, and the United States, and convened several meetings over the course of the project to discuss their research. This Washington DC briefing, co-hosted by USIP and the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) was organized to present the policy-oriented results of the project
Dr. Seybolt introduced the speakers. In addition to Dr. Akaha, the panelists were:
· Robert Scalapino, the Robson Research Professor of Government Emeritus in the Department of Political Science at the University of Berkeley;
· Hazel Smith, Director of the MA Program of International Relations at the University of Warwick and currently Senior Academic Programme Officer at the United Nations University in Tokyo; and
· Demetrios Papademetriou, President of the Migration Policy Institute

Introduction to the Project

Dr. Akaha thanked the USIP staff for their hospitality. He introduced the project by providing some definitions of key terms employed by the research team. He explained that the group’s research looked primarily at national borders, although other types of borders surely exist. The term ‘human flows’ had been selected by the researchers, as opposed to migration, in an effort to be inclusive of all types of movements by people, including visitors, tourists, and long-term/permanent residents. He explained that the objectives of the study were 1) to explain Northeast Asian human flows through statistical estimates, surveys, and interviews, and 2) to develop policy solutions to be shared with the public. This project included researchers from several of the countries under study. The preliminary reports by all the authors involved are available on the Monterey website at http://www.miis.edu/rcenters-ceas-pub.html.

Dr. Akaha pointed out that Northeast Asian countries constitute 28% of the world’s population, but contain only 11.7% of the world’s migrant stock. These facts led him to two conclusions: first, that the immigration policies of Northeast Asian countries are restrictive; and second, that the number of migrants in the region is likely to continue to grow, given the demographic patterns in these countries.

Dr. Scalapino then discussed the economic and political background to human flows in Northeast Asia, pointing to the fact that the economic development of the region looks more promising at present than it has for many years. He emphasized cooperative developments on the political front, pointing out that in general, bilateral and multilateral relations in the region are stable, with the exceptions of the tensions that flare over Taiwan and North Korea. Thus, the contemporary atmosphere in Northeast Asia is one of increasing intensive economic interaction, political dialogue on a multilateral level, and decreasing security-induced tensions. Dr. Scalapino continued with an overview of particular experiences in the major countries in the region:
· China has made rapid economic advances, which have generally improved the livelihood of the population. Nonetheless, there are large gaps between rural and urban development levels. Rural populations can be expected to migrate to urban centers, but there may also be push-factor pressures on the less populated areas of Chinese borders, especially in the Russian Far East.
· Japan has an aging society. In twenty years, one-fourth of all Japanese will be 65 years of age or older. Labor scarcity, which is compounded by the population’s historical desire to maintain homogeneity, is expected even if the workforce expands through increased immigration.
· South Korea, despite some political insecurity, has shown reasonable growth rates in recent years and has a more internationalized population than other Northeast Asian countries.
· North Korea has recently advanced its relationship with South Korea, making both economic and rhetorical changes that have eased border tensions. Though it is unlikely, a collapse or crisis could hurt the tentative balance that exists on the peninsula. Unless the crisis-driven fear is alleviated, modest emigration flows from North Korea to other Northeast Asian countries will continue.
· Mongolia, a small country with a population of 2.5 million, has concerns about its relationship with China and has turned to G-8 powers, including the United States, for support.
Dr. Scalapino concluded that the United States should take a keen interest in Northeast Asian issues, especially given the history of Asian migration to the U.S.

Examples of Human Cross-border Flows in Northeast Asia

The panel then presented three case studies as examples of human cross-border flows in Northeast Asia.

Dr. Hazel Smith discussed the case of North Koreans in China. Her research revealed a number of points:
· In a review of the research available in English on the topic, including a discussion of terminology used to refer to migrants and patterns of migration, she discovered that this research is very poor. Even the best papers are based on short-term delegation visits, demonstrating little sense of dynamic change.
· In terms of demographic estimates from late 2002, she believes that some frequently used estimates of North Koreans in China have been overstated, given available information about the area. For example, the whole of China has less than 2 million Koreans, and the Korean autonomous prefecture at the Northeast Korean border has less than 1 million Koreans. Thus, it is unlikely that the sparsely populated capital city of that region has the capacity to hold 300,000 North Koreans, an estimate used in some publications Dr. Smith reviewed in her research. She believes that an estimate of 30,000 to 50,000 North Koreans in the autonomous prefecture is more likely accurate.
· The social and geographic prominence of Korean migrants to China has not changed over time; North Koreans who migrate are largely single adults from the Northeast who travel back and forth across the border. These patterns of frequent return occur regardless of whether the migrants are traveling for food or income, and recur whether they stay for long or short periods in China.
· The living conditions of North Koreans in China are appalling, and the extent of their poverty is underestimated. They sometimes live in conditions of indentured servitude, are divorced from their local communities, and are often reliant on charity to survive.
Dr. Smith suggests that further research be undertaken on the organizations and groups involved in the human flow movement, especially due to the lack of transparency in their work.

On behalf of his project Co-Director Dr. Anna Vassilieva who was unable to attend the briefing, Dr. Akaha discussed the experience of Chinese immigrants in Far East Russia:
· With over 13 million immigrants, Russia has the largest migrant stock in Northeast Asia. The majority of these immigrants migrated to the Russian Federation from former Soviet Republics. The Russian Far East, defined as the region extending eastwards from Lake Baikal, has a relatively small proportion both of the Russian population and of Russia’s immigrants.
· Russia has always seen, and continues to perceive, Chinese immigration as a threat. In 1992-1993, many published articles estimated that 1 million Chinese lived in the Russian Far East. However, the total population of the Russian Far East at the time was estimated at 7.8 million. Thus, the Chinese presence in Russia was most probably overstated, especially in light of Dr. Akawa’s observations that the Chinese were not sufficiently visible for such high estimates to be accurate. Using the national census and available literature, the best contemporary estimate of the number of Chinese in the Russian Far East is 200,000
· Demographic shifts and structural economic decline in Russia, together with China’s continued economic growth, have played into Russia’s perception of the Chinese population threat as a “Yellow Peril.”
· Due in part to the high percentage of unemployed Chinese youth, Chinese migrants mainly move to Russia for economic opportunities in three areas of employment: construction, restaurant work, and trade. Most recently, private labor-supply firms that are licensed by the Chinese government have begun managing the export of labor from China.
· China has asked Russia to open its labor market to Chinese laborers as part of the negotiation leading to Russia’s possible accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Insofar as Chinese immigrants are seeking work, and the Russian Far East has a demographic shortage, the countries have complementary economic needs. However, negative Russian rhetoric about China is an impediment to the opening of labor markets in the region.
· Despite the rhetorical controversy, there have been some efforts on the part of both sides of the border to cooperate on human flow issues. For example, the Sino-Russian Good-Neighborly Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, signed in July 2001, calls on the two governments to combat illegal immigration together.

Dr. Akaha continued by briefly presenting his own work on the influx of Russians to Japan. He explained that the immigration is a recent post-Cold War phenomenon. While Russians represent a small minority of non-Japanese human flows to Japan, they comprise a disproportionate number of short-term visitors to the port cities on the Sea of Japan, and are particularly visible in the small city of Wakkanai on the island of Hokkaido. Russians in this city are a major source of revenue, particularly from the tourist industry. When he surveyed Japanese University students in Wakanai, Dr. Akaha discovered that 95% of those interviewed were concerned by the presence of Russians in the country, despite the fact that they posed no viable security threat. He indicated that the issue of discrimination deserved additional study, especially because those of Russian ancestry who were born and raised in Japan continue to be marginalized by ethnic Japanese.

Commentary

Demetrios Papademetriou of the Migration Policy Institute provided additional context and commentary, prefacing his remarks by noting that his comments were based on his background as a specialist on migration and not necessarily on the Northeast Asian region.

· Dr Papademetriou raised a definitional concern regarding the idea of separating human flows from migration flows, because the inclusion of tourists in human flows reflects economic change without political, social, or cultural ramifications. He suggested that, if the project targets social and political variables, less emphasis should be placed on the movement of tourists and other short-term visitors, and more on longer-term settlement.
· Dr. Papademetriou recognized that Dr. Akaha had briefly recognized issues of human security and national security in his introduction, but chose not to delve into the topic due to time limitations. As a result, while the nexus between national security and “human flows” might usefully have been addressed in the research, it had not come out in the presentations. Dr. Papademetriou pointed out that terrorist attacks in the US in 2001 and in Madrid in March 2004 have affected, and will continue to affect, migration flows, and has also have instigated more attention to the intersection between national security and immigration. One consequence of the renewed focus from governments on migration flows, including all travelers, could be useful for researchers: there will probably be better collection of data on the movement of people.
· Dr. Papademetriou commented in connection with this issue of data collection on the embarrassing state of migration statistics. Non-specialists have gotten into the habit of using demographics published by international organizations without considering the source and context of that data. He pointed out, for example, that following the collapse of the Soviet Union the acknowledged world stock of immigrants was said to have increased by 35 million. This statistic represented the number of people who had not moved at all, but whose citizenship or ethnicity had changed as a result of the drawing of new political borders.
· He seconded Dr. Scalapino’s point about the potential for collapse to compound itself across the Northeast Asian region. Currently, instability in a nation-state causes brief waves of attention from the international community before a return to normalcy. However, the possibility of instability in one Northeast Asian country could breed substantial compounded instability across the entire region.
· Dr. Papademetriou believes demographic change is a silent issue that could substantially erode the foundations of both society and economy. Comparing Japan’s economic strength fluctuations to its low fertility rates, he reemphasized the importance of birth rates and labor scarcity to the future of migration.
· Finally, Dr Papademetriou commented that Dr. Smith’s discussion of migrants who travel frequently back and forth across the border is synonymous with “circular migration,” (in the jargon of migration experts). He considered her discussion of the subject to be very important, because, while circular migration has the potential to help people economically, it also tends to be exploitative.

Questions and Answers

An audience member from Vital Voices asked about the panel’s discoveries regarding the economic effects of human trafficking. While Dr. Akaha admitted that the project did not delve into trafficking specifically because other researchers have produced literature on that issue, he discovered many illustrative examples of trafficking throughout the course of his research. Dr. Smith uncovered in her research on North Koreans in China that there were some blurry boundaries in the definition of trafficking, especially when the trafficking ‘victim’ voluntarily consented to the move. She also emphasized the huge push factor, propelled by the poor North Korean economy, which is perpetuating the trafficking problem. Dr. Papademetriou pointed out that trafficking can be understood from a number of perspectives, including humanitarian, legal, security, and policing trends. He also indicated that traffickers respond to the market at work, and that the problem is fueled by extraordinary policy failures on the part of many world societies. When a receiving country fails to address the issue of trafficking, it involuntarily validates immigration policies and incentives that it is unwilling to formally legislate.

Another audience member from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars asked why the Russian population perpetually fears the Chinese, and stated that she did not believe that demographic pressures and stagnating economies were linked in all cases. Dr. Akaha pointed out that the Russian fear of losing control over its borders has been perpetuated by economic insecurity, despite the fact that most Chinese plan to return to their countries or move onto third countries. Dr. Scalapino believes that the extensive sense of vulnerability in Far East Russia is also due in part to the economic and demographic decline of that region, especially in contrast to its historical importance as a center of Soviet military industry. Dr. Akaha clarified that there are vastly different perspectives between the Russian center in Moscow and the Russian Far East, and thus the rhetoric of strategic partnership between Moscow and Beijing leaves the Russian Far East feeling neglected in the discussions.

A member of the audience from the United States Census Bureau requested information on the methods used by various Northeast Asian countries to calculate indigenous and migrant populations. Dr. Akaha responded that, in Japan, persons are counted by citizenship, not ethnicity. Zainichi, or individuals born in Japan of Korean ancestry, are counted as non-citizens even though they are becoming assimilated into Japanese culture. Dr. Papademetriou reminded the audience that, in many other parts of the world besides the United States, there are generations of persons who have lived full-time in a country without gaining citizenship. He believes that many countries might purposefully de-emphasize statistical differences when reporting on ethnicity and migration demographics. Dr. Smith revealed that no data on ethnicity was collected in the 1993 North Korean census. Similarly, Dr. Akaha pointed out that Russian statistics do not differentiate between ethnicities of migrants crossing the border from China, nor do the Japanese track ethnic differences among human flows from Russia. The lack of available statistics complicated his research effort.

An audience member inquired if the case studies revealed any tensions between the national government’s cost-benefit analysis of the political and economic implications of migration and the local governments who bear the brunt of the costs. Dr. Akaha used two examples:
· Japanese port cities consider themselves to be at the core of the population interchange, and pride themselves on the economic development created by international mobility.
· The Russian Far East perceives its local infrastructure to be overburdened, though the Russian government does not give migrants access to social services until they become permanent residents.
Dr. Smith added that Beijing authorities traditionally turned a blind eye to the famine and poverty of North Koreans in Eastern China, though many local authorities were of Korean descent and thus were more sympathetic and supported the survival of North Korean refugees. In 2002, this pattern changed when North Koreans overran Chinese embassies, leading Beijing authorities to send security troops and force the return of illegal North Korean migrants.

A question was posed to Dr. Smith about the South Korean government’s decision to give citizenship to Koreans outside their borders, and how that affected the chance for North Koreans in China to be declared refugees. Dr. Smith responded that, though many North Korean migrants may fear persecution, the primary motivation of North Koreans to migrate to China is economic. She cited two main pieces of evidence: 1) the vast majority of North Korean migrants come from the Northeast part of the country—that which is also the most destitute; and 2) a high percentage of North Korean migrants in China would like to return to their native country. Nevertheless, she pointed out that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees named all North Koreans in China persons of concern due to the lack of transparency on the issue, and indicated that China should take some responsibility for the well being of the migrants.

A MENSA representative asked whether the panel had any comments on the costs incurred on Northeast Asia due to the outflow of migrants to educational institutions in the European Union and the United States. Dr. Scalapino in his concluding remarks mentioned that the number of foreign students attending foreign universities is decreasing because of the costs associated with the application process, and that the ‘brain drain’ from Northeast Asian countries has slowed because of the opportunities available in the students’ home countries.

Conclusion

Professor Akaha concluded that, given the diversity of the cases studied, the recommendations made were quite varied. However, he mentioned that one common theme that emerged from the research was that no Northeast Asian country had joined the 1990 Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and their Families or its subsequent protocols. Furthermore, he suggested that they should seriously consider ratification in order to foster a convergence and consensus on such an important issue.

Dr. Papademetriou cautioned that the policy recommendations provided on paper by the team, including the recommendation to Northeast Asian states to sign and ratify the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers, represented an enormous leap forward. None of the North American, EU or other major migrant-receiving states have ratified the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and their Families, and thus it might be hypocritical to expect the Northeast Asian countries to do so. He suggested that the research team could consider recommending smaller policy steps in the final report, which might be more manageable for states and set them on the path to bigger goals.