Event Summary	Events > Event Announcement > Event Summary

July 30, 2004

Kathleen Newland, Director of the Migration Policy Institute, introduced Mr. Frans Bouwen, Convenor of the Club of The Hague and the Hague Process. Mr. Bouwen has been one of the main organizers behind the Hague Process, an initiative to advance the agenda of refugees and migrants internationally.

Bouwen introduced his talk by describing how he became inspired to organize the Hague Process. While leading a project for the Dutch Refugee Council, he came to feel that the guidelines for current international refugee policy were deeply lacking in substance. To address this, he began working to organize a forum that would bring together participants from groups that specifically worked with migration issues, such as advocacy groups, and others who had no choice but to deal with these issues, such as law enforcement officers, to engage in dialogue about international refugee and migration policy. The first, pilot meeting at The Hague was a success. Bouwen explained that media participation was ruled out at the launch of the pilot and what was to become the Hague Process, resulting in a lack of publicity but allowing participants to express themselves more freely. A trial meeting with the press reinforced the impression that the negative perception of refugees and migrants in the European media would only have repressed productive discussion on these issues.

Bouwen noted that bringing together such a diverse range of participants led to some conflict. Despite very heated interchanges, common ground was- found and the diversity of participants helped to achieve more comprehensive agreements. Bouwen explained that the lack of American participation in the first stage of the Hague Process was due to the fact that one of the major meetings for the first round of the Hague Process had been scheduled for two days after the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, DC, when no air travel from these two cities was possible.

The culmination of the first round of discussions was the Declaration of The Hague on the Future of Refugee and Migration Policy published in 2002, a list of 21 principles intended to provide a foundation and direction for the world community on how to advance the international refugee and migration agenda. A draft of the Declaration was presented to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, who approved its contents and encouraged the group to pursue the principles of the Declaration. The Club of The Hague was formed in 2003 to do just this.

The Hague Process is now entering its second phase, and Bouwen notes that there is some nervousness about reintegrating North Americans into the dialogue. But Bouwen voiced with certainty that that with an open-minded attitude towards changing selective language, the Declaration will be able to encapsulate the goals of all participants in this process. Bouwen also noted that that there will be seminars to initiate dialogue for the second phase of the Hague Process in the near future. These seminars will be uniquely designed to promote fresh dialogue on migration issues. Bouwen offered the example of an upcoming seminar for integration experts that would be held in Bangkok, with the intention of highlighting the challenges of managing migration in the South. Examples of themes to be addressed in future seminars are migration and development, migration and mobility, and migration and social issues. Bouwen further noted that corporate participation will be encouraged in the Hague Process, as corporations benefit from migrant labor and additionally are able to exert significant influence in the governments of their country. Bouwen concluded his talk with an invitation for those in the crowd to join the second phase of this global dialogue.

Question and Answer Session

One audience member noted that Declaration of The Hague on the Future of Refugee and Migration Policy does not mention the most importance concept in international refugee law, no-refoulement, the prohibition of forced repatriation of refugees. The audience member added that in addition to this right, there should be an effort to ensure that refugees would be able to enjoy economic rights through which to better their lives.

Bouwen heartily agreed with this comment, adding that the last fifty years of refugee discourse focused on presenting the refugee as someone to be saved from persecution. The discourse failed to show that the once the refugee is saved from persecution, he still continues to be a refugee, someone who has been forced to flee from his community. Bouwen asserted that in order to empower the refugee it would be necessary to start seeing the refugee as a person who could be invested in. Bouwen also noted the importance of incorporating the cause of internally displaced persons into this discourse.

Another audience member remarked that American refugee advocacy groups have been successful in manipulating the media in their favor by putting heavy emphasis on the human face. The audience member asked if and how the European media could be used to similarly influence the European migration debate.

Bouwen’s response reiterated the bias of European media against migration politics. The media perception reflects the attempt of European governments to make migration a security issue. Bouwen gave the example of the Dutch case. Until 1983, migrant workers and refugees were viewed as positive additions to the Dutch society and the Office of Foreign Affairs was in charge of regulating their presence. The European Union’s Schengen Implementation Agreement changed this, putting migration issues under the jurisdiction of the Home Affairs Office and regulating them more as security threats rather than economic migrants. Advocacy groups in the Netherlands have tried to highlight the error of this process, but the Dutch government continues with its implementation of the Schengen process and the media continues to follow the government’s lead by portraying migration issues in a negative light. Bouwen concluded this point by noting his hope that increased corporate participation in the Hague Process would induce corporations to pressure the government to view migrants in a more positive light.

An audience member asked Bouwen how, conceptually, religion and religious groups could affect this debate. Bouwen responded by pointing out that religious leaders play a very important role in the process of reforming migration and refugee law, as they are able to reach the religious populations most effectively. Bouwen noted there is a strong desire to bring open-minded persons from diverse religious backgrounds into the Hague Process.

Another audience member asked Bouwen to comment on the change in European attitudes on the issue of migration from constructive to hysterical. The audience member further commented that there has been a tendency for the European outlook on migration to be framed out of a short-term perspective, hence lending to the inability of present migration systems in European countries to integrate second-generation immigrants. The audience member emphasized the need for politicians, especially European politicians, to recognize the need for migrants in their countries as low birth rates and ageing populations foreshadow impending labor shortages on the continent.

Bouwen agreed with the speaker that migration policy tended to be formed with a short-term outlook in mind, especially in the short electoral cycles of democratically elected governments, to the detriment of these countries. As migration is a continuous process, short-, medium- and long-term concerns should be considered when forming migration policy. Bouwen disputed the use of the idea of integration, equating it with assimilation, emphasizing instead the need to value increased participation of migrants in the receiving society.

Another audience member asked whether the Declaration addressed the issue of interpersonal violence among migrants. Bouwen responded that due to the early stage of this process, the wording of the Declaration was still non-specific. The audience member responded by suggesting the recent Violence Against Women Act legislation passed in the United States as a model through which to address this much neglected issue.

A member of the audience asked what parts of international law protected the rights of migrants. Kathleen Newland noted that the two main theoretical bodies of international law protecting migrants, the Convention on Consular Protection and the Convention on Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families, were not rigorously enforced by governments. The latter, indeed, has attracted very few ratifications overall, and none from major migrant-hosting countries. She further added that the human rights law framework has been the more effective forum for addressing the rights of migrants. Bouwen added to Newland’s comment by noting that the Hague Process sought to incorporate some of the ideas of these two conventions. He added that it was only the inclusion of some very specific clauses in these Conventions that caused many countries to refuse to enforce them.

The final question asked Bouwen to comment on the extent of cooperation between the Hague Process and other similar international processes such as the Berne Initiative and the Global Commission on International Migration, and on the viability of having international law address migration issues. Bouwen affirmed that there has been positive communication between the different international migration policy initiatives. He further noted that the uniqueness of the Hague Process stemmed from its openness, whereas discussions for the Berne Initiative and the Global Commission involved a select group and were closed to the public. To the second part of the question, Bouwen noted that the international law framework is in desperate need of reevaluation at the international, national, and interregional level. He remarked that he found hope in that despite the tensions surrounding this issue in the home countries of participants, they continued to engage in dialogue thorough the Hague Process.