Event Summary	Events > Event Announcement > Event Summary

Briefing by Søren Jessen-Petersen, Chairman of the Steering Committee on Migration, Asylum and Regional Return of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe
November 13, 2003

Introduction

For almost two decades, migration from and through the Balkans has been a focus of attention for European policymakers. Following in the footsteps of refugee movements during the wars in the former Yugoslavia, significant numbers of smuggled refugees, economic migrants and others--increasingly traffickers--have made the region a preferred travel route. As the European Union enlarges, issues such as border management, visa, refugee protection, return, and settlement in the Balkan region have risen on the agenda.

In order to take an integrated approach to regional cooperation on Balkan migration issues, the Migration, Asylum, Refugees Regional Initiative (MARRI) "Program of Action" was set out under the auspices of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. This Initiative benefits from the skilled chairmanship of Mr. Soren Jessen-Petersen, former Assistant High Commissioner at UNHCR headquarters in Geneva.

On Thursday, November 13, 2003, the Migration Policy Institute hosted a breakfast briefing with Mr. Jessen-Petersen on "Managing Migration in the Balkans.” The briefing was part of MPI's "Migration Policies and Processes in Europe" visitor series funded by the European Commission Delegation in Washington, D.C.

Presentation

Mr. Jessen-Petersen began the briefing by noting that some of the initiative for establishing a framework for managing migration in the Balkans came as a result of the MPI-directed Athens Migration Policy Initiative (AMPI) in preparation of and during the Greek EU Presidency. The goal of AMPI, and of the Stability Pact’s Steering Committee on Migration, Asylum and Regional Return (MARRI), was to construct “forward looking, constructive migration policy;” to change the dialogue on migration from primarily negative to primarily positive.

He also noted that it is especially important to be holding a briefing on the Balkans at a time when most attention is focused on Iraq and Afghanistan. There was a time when the Balkans made all the headlines, but the region is now off the radar screen. The lessening of attention has both good and bad implications: good in the sense that the situation is no longer in crisis and is therefore not constantly generating such headlines, but bad in the sense that there are still many unresolved issues in the region that require attention. Among these issues are:

• The final status of Kosovo and continuing instability in Macedonia
• Certain elements within the Republika Srpska who believe they can “reopen the issue,” that is, that the peace process can still be un-done
• The complex Bosnian constitution, which creates layers and layers of different bureaucracies, makes it very difficult for foreign and private investors to invest in the country – dealing with too many different entities “frightens them off.”

The Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe was established in July 1999 to support the normalization of relations in the five Western Balkan countries and their eventual integration into the European Union. As membership in the EU is the one overarching idea on which all Balkan countries can agree, it presents the best way forward for defeating separatist tendencies and entrenching peace and stability in the region.

The Stability Pact launched MARRI, an initiative for managing migration and population movements, just over a year ago. The main populations with which MARRI deals are:

• The more than one million refugees and displaced persons still remaining in the Balkan countries
• Extra-regional migrants transiting through the region, whether voluntarily or being trafficked
• Internal migration within the region itself

Though the last group has not yet proven to be very large, it is anticipated that it will expand within the next five to ten years as national economies grow at different speeds. It is also clear that the Balkan countries will be integrated into the EU at different rates, which will only increase divergences in economic development and therefore increase internal migration pressures, as people seek to move to nearby countries with better economic prospects. It is important that internal migration be well managed for the benefit of all.

MARRI’s Program of Action was developed as a consultative process with national, regional and international actors including civil society and international organizations and processes such as the UN and ICMPD. Its aim is to create a strategic and operational framework for the management of population movements in the Western Balkan region, based on cross-border and regional cooperation and with the goal of bringing issues and interlocutors together. MARRI looks at the various populations with which it deals (see above) in an integrated way, noting that it is not helpful to try to manage these populations separately because they are so interlinked. As long as policymakers and officials remain aware of the distinctions among these groups, it is easier to devise holistic solutions to their problems.

MARRI’s work is aimed at both state and human security:

· State security means setting up structures – legislation and institutions – for cooperation around migration issues. The aim is to put states in control rather than traffickers in control. For example, one recommendation has been for states in the region to refrain from dialogue with the EU on asylum and migration issues until they are seen as being in control of the situation.
· Human security means protecting and empowering people on the move, both for political reasons (defeating separatist tendencies, for example) and to break down the importance of borders for the economic and social development of the region, to focus instead on freedom of movement, especially considering the role of forced displacement in the recent regional conflicts.

MARRI’s Program of Action complements the European process that currently guides the EU approach to the region and was strongly reflected in the Thessaloniki Agenda. The Program of Action is now in the implementation stage. Though MARRI was not designed to be operational, it has, through the Program of Action, developed both strategic and operational frameworks aimed at allowing the international community to move forward in a more coordinated manner.

The Program of Action’s three areas of focus are:

• Create a structural framework. Set up structures allowing for integrated action first nationally, then regionally. Following a joint conference of Balkan and Nordic states in which the Nordic states shared their cooperative framework as a “platform for inspiration,” the countries of the Western Balkans are in the process of creating a regional forum for exchanging experiences, best practices, etc., on issues such as visa harmonization, for example.
• “Make action possible.” MARRI is developing inventories of the structures and procedures already in place in the region and the feasibility for action – for example, are there already visa arrangements between countries, are border management systems inter-operational, is there a documentation system, country of origin information, etc., and if so, can they be built upon? In other words, what is currently in place, and how can it be best used and/or expanded?
• Identify the largest gaps and see how they can be filled. The main gap now is in terms of refugees and displaced persons and is a political, institutional and economic gap. Humanitarian organizations are in the process of moving out of the region or dramatically scaling back their actions as the Balkans cease to be a “crisis” situation and there are few immediate protection and security issues (except in Kosovo) – yet there are still over one million refugees and IDPs.

The scaling back of humanitarian assistance in the region has prompted MARRI to look at the refugee problem in a discussion paper (“Note on Sustainable Solutions to the Problems of Refugees: Moving from Refugee Status to Citizenship, Access to Rights”) which attempts to move the focus of the discussion from a question of refugees to a question of citizenship. Noting that the first priority must still be return to home of origin for those who wish to do so, the paper attempts to determine what is in the best, long-term interest of the population in terms of, among other things, integration. In doing so, it poses several questions to the international community and those dealing with the situation on the ground:

• What rights do citizens have, in terms of access to property, employment, education, social rights, etc.?
• Are mechanisms in place for guaranteeing such rights?
• How are people being informed of their rights, how can access to rights be monitored, and who should do so?
• How should the consequences of not allowing access to rights be dealt with, and who should do so?

MARRI has discussed the paper with the EU and other interested governments including the US, as well as various international organizations.

Question and Answer Session:

International Rescue Committee: As NGOs phase out their emergency humanitarian work, they are looking for new avenues and methods of advocacy in the region. Could you give us an update on the final status talks on Kosovo? What topics will be discussed, and how can NGO views be reflected in these talks?

Mr. Jessen-Petersen: As shown in the discussion paper, MARRI does foresee a large role for civil society and is in the process of discussing with NGOs in the region precisely how they see that role developing. The main areas are informing refugees and IDPs of their rights, monitoring that access is granted and intervening when access is denied. MARRI has also looked at the roles NGOs have played in similar process in other regions of the world, such as the CIS Conference Process. We believe the Balkan countries are already further along in terms of civil society participation on migration issues than are the CIS countries.

The status of the final status talks on Kosovo is still unclear. There is a great deal of political upheaval in Belgrade at the moment, particularly since the assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic in March 2003, and the political establishment in Priština – still trying to organize itself – may not yet be ready. Any dialogue will require concessions, but neither party can make such concessions from a position of weakness.

Whenever they occur, the final status talks will be an important confidence-building measure, particularly in terms of the dialogue on return. Though the refugee/IDPs issue in Kosovo is more political – with refugees and IDPs being used as pawns – than that in Croatia or Bosnia & Herzegovina, the numbers are more manageable (perhaps less than 220,000), and both sides acknowledge that not all of those 220,000 people will in fact actually go back even after final status determination.

There is a great deal of experience with return in the region and the international community now knows “how to deal with it” – once it starts in Kosovo, we believe it will move forward quickly. It is also very encouraging that MARRI and the Stability Pact in general are seen as honest brokers by both sides, because of their experience and background. The problem until now has been that while both Belgrade and Priština both have plans, they have been separate plans and have never converged. Looking at the plans now, however, there is much optimism that they can be made to converge.

Former officer of the German Marshall Fund, and US Departments of State, Labor and Interior: recent years have seen a proliferation in the number of nation-states, in the Balkans, the Former Soviet Union, etc.. This leads to the creation of new bureaucracies, borders, etc., which is inherently a very expensive operation. Doesn’t this process actually slow economic development, with so much money going to the central government?

Mr. Jessen-Petersen: In fact, this was also a factor during the regimes of Milosevic and Tudjman, for example. It is inertia that has the highest costs, and the thinking is that the EU integration process – breaking down the meaning of borders – is the best way to avoid a slowdown in growth. The hope is to address economic concerns such as the lack of private and foreign investment by bringing countries into the EU as soon as they’re ready.

UNHCR-DC: There is still so much open hatred in the Balkans, perhaps as much as there was during the wars. How possible is productive dialogue in such an environment? Is it realistic to expect progress without (immediate) EU integration giving countries an overarching reason to cooperate?

Mr. Jessen-Petersen: until the major underlying problems are resolved, the hatred will remain. Many people believe the peace process can still be “un-done,” and extremist politicians prey on this sentiment. And how can people “leave the past behind” when there are still more than a million refugees and displaced persons? Hatred remains because people have too much time on their hands to think about it because they still don’t have jobs. The education system is still segregated, with different ethnicities teaching their own versions of history. To succeed, the focus must be on changing daily life rather than changing the past, to allow people to move freely in order to seek out their own best opportunities.

Property rights are one of the biggest underlying issues. Statistically, returns have been encouraging, but are not sustainable – people who once had houses, jobs, cars, etc. are returning to nothing but devastation and it is not surprising that hatred remains. The best way to deal with the situation, then, is to get the economy going again. This is a long-term process, however, and at the moment the economic situation is actually getting worse rather than better.

So many young people are leaving the region – mostly illegally – in search of better opportunities elsewhere, and very few ever return for fear that they won’t be able to leave again should they want to. The prospects for onward migration need to be changed; young people must be given opportunities to study, train or work abroad legally for short periods of time in order to bring their knowledge and skills back to the region where it is so needed. Bosnia & Herzegovina, for example, have reached 90% of property restitution, but 80% of the youth want to leave the country. Economic development must come hand in hand with return in order for it to be sustainable.

Embassy of Serbia & Montenegro: No matter who wins in the presidential election, it will not change the destiny of the country, particularly in terms of the goal of EU integration and building good relationships with neighboring countries, nor should it affect the final status talks between Belgrade and Priština – this is the one thing all parties to the election agree on.

How will translating refugees into citizens contribute to their return?

Mr. Jessen-Petersen: Serbia still hosts 500,000 refugees. The vast majority of these refugees don’t want to return, but rather want to sell their properties, get the money, and move on.

Strategic and operational plans are needed. When people return now, they are looking not as much at the security situation as at the economic situation, prospects for employment, etc.. Therefore, it must be ensured that, should they choose not to return, they are given citizenship – including dual citizenship when necessary – and can enjoy all the rights to which they are entitled.

One problem is how to present these ideas to the international community, since it is a very costly process. Is the international community prepared to finance solutions other than return? For local integration, for example, there is a need for community financing, not just traditional refugee assistance.

MPI: What have been the biggest surprises for your work in the political integration process?

Mr. Jessen-Petersen: perhaps these are not surprises, but rather encouraging developments: the fact that all five of the Western Balkan countries are fully agreed on the common goal of EU integration, and at the Thessaloniki Conference, the EU made it clear that the Balkan states would become EU members – that it is no longer a question of if, but when. This is now a clearly agreed national, regional and international goal.