TRAVERS MCLEOD. Australia will rue its decision on global migration compact

“Step up or step aside.” This was former Indonesian foreign minister Hassan Wirajuda’s warning to Australia and Indonesia, as Co-Chairs of the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons, and Related Transnational Crime, in January 2016.

Dr Wirajuda was speaking in Bangkok at the second Asia Dialogue on Forced Migration meeting and he didn’t mince his words. Wirajuda was furious at the lack of leadership and inaction by the Bali Process Co-Chairs in response to the crisis in the Andaman Sea and Bay of Bengal in May 2015. Thousands had been stranded at sea and at least 370 people had died after more than 25,000 people left Myanmar and Bangladesh by boat. What was lacking was a coordinated response from neighbouring countries. The founding purpose of the Bali Process, which Wirajuda played a pivotal role in establishing, was to better equip the region to respond to such emergencies.

The Bali Process heard Dr Wirajuda’s call and has come a long way since then, showing the benefits of building regional frameworks, agreements and institutions to respond in sophisticated and humane ways to the ongoing challenge posed by forced migration. These forms of migration are proving the most difficult for governments to manage and raise complex challenges within both national and international communities. They involve migratory movements of people in the most vulnerable of circumstances, including the movement of asylum seekers, refugees, stateless and trafficked persons.

Yet today, no doubt Wirajuda and others in the region are once again shaking their heads in frustration after Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s decision not to sign the Global Compact on Migration (GCM) in Marrakesh next month.

Australia will rue this call, for several reasons.

First, we are now part of ‘that group’ of countries seemingly in retreat from the rules-based order, not building on it. We join a minority of countries not signing, among them Austria, Hungary, and the United States.

Second, the decision not to sign reveals a short-sighted view of the future of migration governance. No country in our region can unilaterally and satisfactorily address the escalating challenges posed by forced migration. This was Wirajuda’s point in response to the Andaman Sea crisis. Challenges like these require regional cooperation, shared responsibility and distributed capacities. In a region with little common migration governance, the GCM provides a platform of shared objectives built on the principle of national sovereignty.

As Wirajuda said in January 2016, the “lesson learned from our experience in the region is that there is a need to strengthen the capacity of public policy on migration and strengthen the process of institution building”.

Third, the decision is at odds with the collective view presented by Australia and Indonesia on behalf of the Bali Process during the drafting process. In November 2017, the Australian and Indonesian Ambassadors to the United Nations sent input on behalf of the Bali Process to those drafting the GCM. The same input had been presented at the Asia-Pacific Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Global Compact in Bangkok in November 2017. It concluded:

“The Bali Process looks forward to playing an active role in facilitating the implementation of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.”

The Co-Chairs of the Bali Process could say this because in many respects they have “stepped up” after Wirajuda’s January 2016 speech. The March 2016 Bali Declaration “committed members to deal with protection issues, promote regular migration pathways, counter criminal networks and address human trafficking as matters of priority”. A mechanism for senior officials to respond quickly to sudden displacement was created, along with an operational taskforce. A government and business forum has been added as a separate track of the Bali Process to tackle human trafficking, forced labour, and modern slavery.

These developments have helped to build trust, overcome information gaps and spur action. Importantly, they have kept Myanmar and Bangladesh at the table over the past year as the Rohingya crisis puts millions of lives at grave risk.

Coverage of Prime Minister Morrison’s decision has already pointed to a previous joint position paper from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs that supported the GCM and the opportunity it presents for Australia and the region.

The GCM doesn’t require Australia to change its policy but it’s our entry ticket to much larger regional exchanges on key objectives to building more safe, orderly and regular migration pathways. These regional exchanges are critical, as objectives 11 and 23 of the GCM outline, to managing borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner.

The GCM offers a springboard to strengthen regional coordination on multiple migration matters, including collaboration between the Bali Process and ASEAN on human trafficking issues. This opportunity was at the heart of discussions earlier this week at the seventh Asia Dialogue on Forced Migration meeting, held once again in Bangkok. The meeting, which was attended in a personal capacity by senior officials from eight countries in the region, wrapped up only hours before Prime Minister Morrison’s decision was announced. “Unconscionable” was how one official described Australia’s decision. There was a general sense of sadness at an opportunity lost.

Many people might dispute the utility of compacts like the GCM. What they don’t see is the hard work of multiple senior officials, including Australians, who negotiated the text in the hope of galvanising a more coordinated approach. At a time when Australia is trying to reassert itself in the region, including at last week’s APEC Summit, these compacts matter.

Australia will come to regret this decision. It gives the impression that Australia wants to go it alone instead of aligning its interests with friends in the Indo-Pacific region and across the wider world. It seems a far cry from the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper’s call for “active and determined diplomacy and strong partnerships to help advance a secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific and strengthen the rules-based international order”.

Travers McLeod is chief executive of the Centre for Policy Development, which co-convenes the second track Asia Dialogue on Forced Migration, and an advisor to the International Organisation for Migration’s Research Leaders’ Syndicate.

 

 

print

This entry was posted in Asia, International Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.