A historical day for combating forced migrations?

Yesterday was a historical day for United Nations. Member states adopted the Resolution against Forced Migration at the GA session, with 27 votes in favour, no abstentions and no votes against. Let's first take a look at the responses of representatives and then analyze the clauses.

The discussion at the session was very lively and thought-provoking. The presiding officers received quite a large number of friendly amendments - which were mainly focused on specific topics and issues - and one unfriendly amendment, which is an obvious evidence of the great interest of member states for preventing forced migrations and protecting the migrants. The representatives also addressed the situation in Syria (maybe it was the heart-breaking story of a Syrian refugee that provoked them?) and the need to increase financial and humanitarian aid. At this point some delegates expressed that Syria is only one of the conflicts that are currently challenging the international community and producing forced migrants. Representatives did not reach a decision regarding Syria, but they did mention some conflict areas in the resolution. Let's look at some of the details of adopted resolution.

One of the things that the sponsors and signatories were quite determined to include in the resolution was a broader definition of displaced persons. And they were successful - the definition from the Guiding Principles was broaden in a way "that recognizes that displaced persons are persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obligated to flee and leave their homes and have either remained within national borders or crossed internationally recognized borders;" and the resolution also "calls upon states to recognize the needs and provide protection for displaced persons who have been forced to flee their homes due to persecution, fear of persecution, violence, life-threatening catastrophes or devastation or gross violations of human rights and political freedoms and protect those migrants affected by violent acts of terrorists or extremist groups." The part about "persecution, fear of persecution, violence, environmental life-threatening catastrophes" was added by an unfriendly amendment sponsored by Russian Federation. Although there was a burning discussion, the member states agreed that as long as the term violence is understood in its most severest form, they can support it.

Some member states emphasized the issue of human trafficking and smuggling must be addressed in the resolution. This was one of the main goals of OAS member states (read the analysis of their standpoint again) and it was also heard by some Asia-Pacific states, such as South Korea and Australia. Mexico stressed that this issue should be a matter of bilateral and multilateral cooperation, whereas Iran offered a little different point of view - they are determined that the problem is mostly in developed countries. Iran expressed that forced human trafficking happens because the demand for it exists in rich countries, therefore these countries should tackle this issue domestically. Nevertheless, in the end all member states agreed that this is an important international issue and included six clauses to address with human trafficking, among them is one in which the GA "appeals to all States to respect and fully implement the provision stipulated in the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, in the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, and in the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime." They have also included that the GA "calls upon all the states to increase criminal prosecution of human smugglers and traffickers," which was demanded by several member states, USA and Russia among them.

International cooperation was a term used many times in the speeches and interviews with the delegates. Although there has been some disagreements regarding this issue - especially because some member states argued for an approach that would not interfere in the internal affairs of each member state (remember the speeches and interviews with Russia, Malaysia and China?), they agreed that international cooperation is crucial but must not diminish already established practices and procedures of national systems. International cooperation was carried out in the clause where GA "further calls upon States to divert diplomatic efforts and increase international cooperation, as well as humanitarian assistance for protracted refugee situations, in which basic human rights and vital economic, social and psychological needs are substandard."

An especially burning issue was the topic of burden sharing. We reported a lot about this issue as it was a strong demand of some states - especially the recipient countries in Africa and Europe. Some member states demanded the principle of fairness to be included which would mean that countries should contribute according to their ability - not only financial aid would be required, but also support in the form of technical assistance, logistics, medical help etc. This was also demanded by the D-8 member states a couple of days before the session. In the clause, the GA "recognizes the importance and expresses its satisfaction with the already established and implemented burden sharing systems involving the international community, the UNHCR and receiving States in especially conflict and challenging regions and therefore approves such burden sharing systems are further enhanced and developed in the framework of existing agreements among respective parties, while keeping in mind the welfare of forced migrants under the authority of the UNHCR." The resolution also recognizes the developmental differences between States and heavier burdens experienced by some States which was - as already mentioned - especially demanded by some developing member states. There were also some other clauses in which the GA called states and UNHCR to provide the necessary medical assistance etc. and there is also a clause that further invites States to differ the question of burden sharing to the High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development. Remember how most of the OAS member states - especially Latin America - weren't quite sure of this policy and said they still needed to be convinced? We suppose that the supporters of this clause were quite successful at negotiating.

There is also a clause that "suggests states to respond to emergencies of forced migration according to specific needs of each situation with a case-by-case approach, and that, appointed agencies by the international community to take the lead in providing support and assistance will be determined based on their comparative advantage in mobilizing national and local resources necessary to respond effecitively." Case-by-case approach was advocated by many member states prior to the session, strong supporters of the approach among the sponsors of the resolution were the UK and USA, while other supporters included some Asia-Pacific countries.

Member states recognized the importance of the UNHCR in the resolution and it was heard many times during the speeches by numerous delegatres that UNHCR plays a very special role in protecting forced migrats. One of the clauses recognizes "the competence of the UNHCR in diverse situations involving refugees, IDPs, returnees, stateless people and asylum-seekers, its coordination of international action on the basis of cooperation with governments." Representative of Russian Federation mentioned in her speech that any kind of UNHCR action must not interfere with already established national actions, but it seems that the clause did not bother RF too much as they voted in favour.

The representatives also recognized the increasing climate change problems and natural disasters which are causing many people to flee their homes as environmental refugees. The GA therefore "reiterates that all States should contribute to the mitigation of climate change effects for the same purpose," and "further reiterates the importance of protecting the environment and acting in accordance with global environmental commitments as a form of preventing forced migration," and "calls upon States to adopt mechanisms, that would address the situation of those, who found themselves fleeing their homes due to irreversible causes such as natural disasters and ecological degradation."

In the debates prior to the session one could recognize quite a consensus for the need to prevent forced migrations - along with protection of migrants of course. Some delegates states that forced migrations are a preventable phenomenon and should be therefore dealt as such - with establishing a mechanism that would prevent them. And how do states plan to achieve this in the resolution? With developing an international mechanism for detecting causes and recognizing pressures of forced migration as an early warning system; states working with local and national authorities, international governmental and non-governmental organizations to achieve the final goal of preventing forced migrations; and with adopting legislation, measures and strategies which help prevent displacement.

Taking into account different interests that were expressed prior to the session, it seems that member states tried to include and combine all of them - not only to satisfy needs of the countries, but to provide a resolution that would actually guarantee the protection of refugees and displaced persons. There is an especially big emphasis on internally displaced persons (now also covered with a broader definition) which are one of the most vulnerable groups. It goes without saying, the resolution could be even more strict and including more obligations for member states - but there is a strong possibility it would not be adopted. Some member states had to bend their interests in order to adopt the resolution, while others achieved almost everything they wished for. We only hope that the fact that it was adopted by consensus actually means that member states have a strong intention of fulfilling their pledges.

And for the end, we would like to conclude with a tweet posted by the representative of Italy, H.E. ms. Božič: "Most vulnerable are in practice not protected by adoption, but by implementation of the resolution!" Yesterday might have been a historical day. Or it may not. All depends on the member states - will the pledges stay on the paper or will they actually save lives? Only time will show. Until then, congratulations dear delegates. It was our pleasure reporting on your various activites regarding the issue of forced migrations and we can only hope you will take such an active part in the second and third topic.

Tamara Kajtazović