G|O BRIEFINGS

#141 THE G|O BRIEFING, JUNE 8, 2023

Qatar's ILC Presidency testing the limits of constructive engagement | Dam collapse to be instrumentalized at HRC | ILO further isolates Belarus | Migration and elections

Philippe Mottaz , Jamil Chade

Jun 8, 2023 • 15 min read

Today in The Geneva Observer, we stay close to the heart of International Geneva with a follow-up to our story of last week about the International Labour Conference and the blowback around Qatar’s presidency. The nomination has only heightened tensions within the Workers’ Group, with some denouncing an overly accommodating posture towards Doha and others insisting that dialogue must still, be given a chance.

We stay with the ILO with Jamil Chade’s report on efforts to isolate Belarus following the devastation caused by the Kakhovka Dam blast. Jamil also takes us to the Human Rights Council, where the war in Ukraine will once again loom over debates at the upcoming session.

We are delighted to have a guest essay by a member of The Geneva Observer’s community of readers: Martin Wyss, a former IOM Chief of Mission, hopes that the recent nomination of Amy Pope at the head of the organization will lead to a substantive discussion on migration. We encourage you to comment on his piece and constructively join the debate.

As always, thank you for reading us.

Between Qatar and the ILO, the limits of constructive engagement are being severely tested

By Philippe Mottaz

On Monday (June 5), represented by its Labour Minister Ali Bin Samikh Al Marri, Qatar was elected by consensus to the presidency of the ILO’s annual International Labour Conference—as we predicted last week. No resolution calling for a vote was put forward by the Workers’ Group, and member states’ prerogatives in the nominating process were maintained. Be that as it may, for some seasoned ILO watchers, the smooth running of the ILC may have come at a cost for Qatar’s migrant workers, the very people whose rights and working conditions the international organization is supposed to better. For some labour groups—particularly the European Trade Union (ETUC)—and human rights organizations, deep concern and frustration remain about the path of constructive engagement with Qatar adopted by some unions and the ILO. The notion that dialogue and engagement will lead to profound and lasting change towards social justice has, they believe, long since reached its limits.

There is evident divergence and unease within the Workers’ Group—or the ‘family’ as it likes to call itself. Sources that The Geneva Observer has spoken to since Monday’s election express a sustained bewilderment at both the credibility and influence Doha continues to enjoy, openly speculating that the accommodating posture taken by some global unions—and, to some extent, the ILO—could be explained by their fear that Doha might reassess its financial commitment to the ILO. That, critics argue, is when constructive engagement becomes destructive.

“In the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, how long will we keep saying that progress is being made but there is still work to be done?” asks one source. There are other reasons, say some. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), Building and Wood Workers' International (BWI) and the ILO are in a difficult position, having praised Qatar for its reform in the past. Accepting that they might have been wrong puts their credibility at risk. “Qatar, rather than the ILO, should get the rap. But this whole episode is also testing the ILO’s ability to say no,” a senior former ILO official told The G|O.

Monday’s election of Al-Marri, and the decision not to call for a vote itself, was sealed as a result of a negotiation between Qatar, the ILO, the ITUC, BWI and other global unions. As we previously reported, both the ITUC and BWI had voiced opposition to Qatar’s presidency of the ILC, before being joined by the ETUC, the latter going a step further, demanding a vote over the nomination of Minister Al-Marri at the opening of the ILC on Monday, June 5.

With pressure mounting from unions, and with some member states having openly expressed their displeasure at the way the ILO had handled the matter, the organization’s Director-General, Gilbert Houngbo, organized a meeting on Saturday, June 3, to stave off disruption of the ILC’s opening. If anything, it strengthened the conviction of the hard-liners: BWI came to the meeting with a scathing report, ‘Unsustained reforms, unprotected rights,’ documenting what it considers to be Qatar’s continuous unwillingness to change its labour laws and the way the country has, post-World Cup, hardened some of its positions. The BWI report focuses on serious problems of freedom of association and the right to unionize. However, the meeting did not discuss that document or any other examples of Qatar falling short of its engagements. It was, say people familiar with the discussion, about reengaging with Qatar after a long period of distrust and broken dialogue.

“We had to give dialogue and engagement a chance,” a highly informed union source told The Geneva Observer. “Negotiations are always a process, with [their] own dynamics, and we will now be able to judge Qatar on its commitment to engage in meaningful reforms.”

The meeting concluded with an agreement between the ILO, Qatar, the unions, and the Workers’ representative to meet in Qatar in late July or early August. “Minister Al-Marri will have time to study our report” before responding to it, a source familiar with the meeting told The G|O.

Cosmetic reforms?

Critics of Doha contend that the changes implemented so far are mostly cosmetic and that the country has a long way to go to ensure that migrants are fairly treated and their working rights are protected. Certain key Conventions in this regard have not been ratified, and some Qatari laws do not meet minimum ILO standards.(more)

-PHM

ILO further isolates Belarus

By Jamil Chade

Against the ever-present backdrop of the war in Ukraine, the General Affairs Committee of the International Labour Organization (ILO) has decided to condemn Belarus for serious violations of labour rights.

The resolution—which passed on Tuesday, with 41 votes in favor, four abstentions, and just two votes against—means action will be taken under Article 33 of the ILO Constitution, pressing the Belarusian government to release trade union leaders and activists, reinstate the unions, and demonstrate real commitment to implementing the recommendations of a Commission of Inquiry established almost 20 years ago.

The issue will be taken to the International Labour Conference (ILC) plenary, next week. Once approved, the ILO Director-General will be invited to call on the relevant bodies of the ILO to reconsider any cooperation they may be engaged in with Belarus and, if appropriate, to cease any activity in the country as soon as possible. Governments, employers and workers will be invited to take appropriate measures to ensure that Belarus cannot take advantage of relations with these constituencies “to perpetuate or extend the violations of workers’ rights in respect of freedom of association.”

The three groups are also called upon to “ensure that the principle of non-refoulement is respected in line with international humanitarian law, given that trade union and human rights defenders are at risk of persecution in Belarus.”

Finally, the decision urges Belarus to receive an ILO tripartite mission as a matter of urgency. The mission’s objective would be to “gather information on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequent recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO, including a visit to the independent trade union leaders and activists in prison or detention.”

However, for unions and governments, the strength of the resolution—and the end of a decade-old impasse on what to do with Belarus—is a reflection of Minsk’s role as an ally of Vladimir Putin. As such, the vote is part of a wider strategy to further isolate the country. It failed this week to be elected at the UN Security Council.

It’s a situation that the ILO has been dealing with since 2004, when a Commission of Inquiry pointed out serious violations, concluding that the Belarus trade union movement had been the subject of significant interference on the part of the government. The Commission made several recommendations; the repression, however, has only increased since then.

In a statement, international trade unions argued that the repression of the past two decades culminated in 2022 with the dissolution of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP) and its affiliates, and with the arrests and detention of more than 40 trade union leaders and activists, including BKDP President Yarashuk and Vice-President Antusevich.

“For more than 20 years, government interference in trade union activities and elections, forced dissolution of unions and detention of trade union leaders, dismissals and blacklisting has been condemned by ILO bodies,” the statement reads. The Belarusian authorities, its signatories claim, refer to independent unions as “extremists” and “terrorists,” and engage in defamation campaigns with the clear and explicit message that anyone who is in any way associated with the BKDP and its affiliates risks persecution. Many leaders and activists have had to leave the country.

The joint statement was signed by the International Trade Union Confederation, International Transport Workers’ Federation, UNI Global Union, IndustriALL Global Union, International Federation of Journalists and others.

Dam collapse to be instrumentalized at the Human Rights Council

By Jamil Chade

Once again, the Ukrainian war is set to dominate the session of the Human Rights Council, where a new resolution will be submitted by Kiev’s main allies in the hope of maintaining pressure over Moscow, in what is being considered a key moment of the conflict.

According to diplomatic sources, the collapse of the Kakhovka dam will enhance the issue of the protection of civilians and will thus strengthen the argument from Western countries that the war must have center stage at the Council in Geneva. To this end, the new resolution will frame the act of aggression by Russia as an attack against civilians.

In a recent statement, the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR) said that “wide flooding after [the] blast at [the] Kakhovka dam [is] already seriously impacting many civilians, along with their rights to housing, health, livelihoods, healthy environment and access to clean water,” adding that this is contributing to the suffering already caused by Russia’s war on Ukraine. “We urge full investigation and accountability,” the OHCHR concludes.

Western governments also hope to bargain for greater support from the Global South, by offering to sponsor and to promote issues related to development rights in other resolutions of interest.

The move to seduce more developing countries comes at a time when the White House and European governments are already somewhat preoccupied by the BRICS, specifically their decision to host Vladimir Putin at an August summit in South Africa. Indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, the Russian will seek to use the occasion to demonstrate that he is not isolated.

Migration and Elections: A Call for a Fact-Based Migration Discourse

By Martin Wyss*

Migration is omnipresent in the news and fiercely debated in elections. It has been used in election campaigns, most recently in the Turkish elections; it has led to election victories as in Sweden, or to the creation of a new coalition as in Denmark; it can boost new parties such as the AfD in Germany and it clearly tipped a fine balance in favor of Brexit.

It can also negatively affect bilateral relations, as between Italy and France recently, it divides electorates, societies, governments, countries, regions, continents, and even political parties like the German Greens.

Migration reaches us through reports about tragedies at sea, pushbacks, and new arrivals. It is discussed—mostly passionately—at home, in bars, in parliaments, and in the op-ed pages of tabloids and high-brow magazines alike.

As a global issue, migration has been debated by the UN at the highest level, for instance through the 2016 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which gave birth to the so-called Global Compacts—one on refugees and one for migration. The latter, referred to as GCM, received much more attention than the former and was officially adopted by 164 countries in Marrakesh in 2018.

In view of the uncontested importance of the migration theme for elections and governments, it is surprising that the recent election of the Director General of IOM, the UN’s Migration Agency, failed to provoke a new ‘call to order’ on how migration should or could be managed.

The campaign received some media attention only because the re-election of the incumbent for a second and final term, which is usually a mere formality, was this time challenged by one of the two Deputy Director Generals. This unexpected move raised eyebrows that the media picked up on and portrayed mostly as an American affront against a European candidate.

The reason for reflecting on the election of a new Director General for the UN’s Migration Agency is not the final result—winning may have been the easy part for the new DG—but the disappointing lack of interest from IOM’s 175 member states in the differences between the two candidates’ visions for the future role of the organization, and in the question of how IOM could best help member states to ‘manage migration,’ its core remit.

The competitors themselves also remained pretty vague, while in one case coming close to not really having a position: The Arab News (20.03.23) quoted one candidate as saying IOM should not take sides in migration debates. But even IOM’s official election press note (12.05.23) repeats its formal position:

“The Organization is guided by the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including upholding human rights for all. Respect for the rights, dignity and well-being of migrants remains paramount.”

How this can be achieved without taking sides is not clear. I have worked for IOM for 26 years and I have systematically and occasionally successfully lobbied for migrant rights and humane migration policies; in part driven by my own conviction and in part because IOM Chiefs of Mission were clearly directed to do so.

The Global Compact for Migration […] appears to be largely ignored

It is difficult to accept why member states didn't challenge the candidates to be more concrete in laying out their vision and program. It can only be explained with an almost defeatist lack of interest by the member states in working towards a global migration discourse which should lead to a more actionable migration diplomacy, an important step towards addressing the present migration divisions.

This seeming lack of interest, or courage, is covered up by ingenuous mantras, ideas, and initiatives such as the Global Compact for Migration (GCM)—which appears to be largely ignored rather than used as intended.

Originally, it was hoped that the Global Compact for Migration, the first inter-governmentally negotiated agreement to be prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, would cover all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner (sic!), but while much ink was lost over the very few countries that have not signed up to the GCM, there is deafening silence regarding those instances where actions blatantly contradict one, some, or all of the GCM’s 23 laboriously developed objectives.

Objective 9 is about cooperating against the ‘Smuggling of Migrants,’ but smuggling has been fostered by some signatories already committed to combat ‘Smuggling of Migrants’ in the so-called Palermo Protocols. This is condemned in public but, surprisingly, without a clear reference to the GCM Agreement.

The campaign also put a lot of emphasis on data, often seen as a safe call when substantive discussions about migration run out of steam. “Collect and utilize accurate and dis-aggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies” is the GCM's first objective.

While more data is always welcome—and there is already an awful lot of it out there, enough to haggle over final figures and interpretation—data on their own, however, are just figures. They are not enough to be meaningful if they are not analyzed in an honest and fact-based manner.

IOM runs the Mediterranean Missing Migrants Project, and its data is available. The bigger and much more debated question is whether private rescue operations constitute a pull factor for smuggled migrants and smugglers, but despite lots of data, there is no appetite by member states to confront this important question.

In 2017 I was called to a hearing by a new Dutch parliament when just this question was put directly to me by all parties. Frontex was also present, its explanations were read from a piece of paper and remained unclear. I read from J-C Juncker's recent ‘State of the European Union’ address, in which he praised the EU for having offered safety and shelter to more than a million refugees in 2016—more than the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand together, he added. It was clearly a very self-congratulatory message. I then asked the parliamentarians how many of these more than one million would have made it without the help of the smugglers?

It was a rhetorical question, as at least 90% of all boat refugees/migrants depend on smugglers. If we are proud to have offered so much refuge and protection, we should recognize and accept the role of the smugglers and their part in “aiding and abetting” irregular migration, but billions are spent to fight the inhuman practice of smuggling (regularly and falsely referred to as trafficking) with few noticing the blatant contradiction: we are happy to offer you safety, shelter and access to lawyers, but first you need to get here.

To be fair, many in the EU would be less enthusiastic than the former president of the EUC in welcoming more than a million undocumented migrants per year, but if they blame the NGO rescue boats for inviting people to Europe, even they may miss the point. It is not the NGO boats, but the idea that so-called ‘mixed flows’ (the official term used to show that migrants and refugees are distinct, but travel and arrive together) can be differentiated post-arrival. The message from the main destination countries is: “You manage to arrive, you may stay.”

Although the GCM objective 21 foresees cooperation over returns— “Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration”—in reality, many returns are blocked precisely because of a lack of cooperation. However, the GCM objective is not invoked publicly or internationally by the UN—it is as all GCM violations: anathema.

It is time for more honesty, a strict terminology and a serious effort to find a new global discourse

At a moment when migrants are in huge demand in many sectors and regions, there is a clear need for more regular migration, but confusing and contradictory migration discourses remain its worst detractor—in the very countries that depend most on immigrants.

The terms ‘migrant’ and ‘refugee’ continue to be confused by politicians and almost all journalists in a persistent way, even though the very purpose of having two global compacts was to make this distinction. The same confusion applies to the smuggling of migrants and trafficking, despite the fact that the very purpose of the Palermo Protocols was to have two distinct sets of guidance for two categories of migrants. Such blatant indifference reflects very badly on international agreements and those who ceremoniously promoted them.

Migration affects many in different ways. It is time for more honesty, a strict terminology, and a serious effort to find a new global discourse, which must start with restating internationally accepted common denominators, regardless of how low they may appear to some. First there needs to be a solid foundation, the roof comes later.

A vast majority of countries already accept a few basic and important tenets and apply them in practice:

Everybody accepts that migration must be regulated.
Many understand and agree that there should be more open channels and lower thresholds for regular migration.
Most agree that refugees and those forced to migrate need international protection, and almost all understand that effective protection of refugees can only be upheld through international solidarity with the countries in the vicinity of conflict zones, which host most of the world’s refugees.
There is, furthermore, agreement that all countries have the right to have their own migration rules and visa requirements.

However, there is no agreement on how to deal with those in breach of migration procedures. For some they are all victims, for others they are criminals. In short, there is no agreement on whether the rights of states prevail over the rights of individuals or the other way around. It must, therefore, become possible to balance the rights and obligations of all migrants with the rights and obligations of all states.

It appears difficult, but if we take note of how all nations fully agree and comply with the very strict and mandatory rules which must prevail so that thousands of flights carrying billions of air travelers around the globe every year can take off in safety, it should be possible to find some common rules in order to allow many more to travel and migrate freely and safely—but this will require courage.

* Martin Wyss is a former IOM Chief of Mission. He was posted in 9 countries over 26 years.