interviews
Working at the Supranational Level
by Daniel Naujoks
July 31, 2019
This interview with Daniel Naujoks was conducted and condensed by frank news. It is part two of our conversation on The Mobility Mandala.
frank: Today, we often hear about a crisis of cooperation at the international level. It seems that many countries are reluctant to work together and many wonder about the place of the United Nations in today’s world. This is broad – but what influence does the UN have on nations today?
Daniel Naujoks: When we think about the influence of the UN it’s important to recognize that the UN isn't one entity. What we call “the UN” includes many different ways in which states interact with each other, often mitigated or moderated by certain entities of the UN. You have the General Assembly, which, for many people is the quintessential UN. And the Security Council – a highly political body and the only UN organ that has the power to take decisions infringing on states’ sovereignty. On the other hand, there is the UN of the many programs and agencies that have specific mandates and that work with governments and non-state actors to achieve something, like the UN Development Programme, the International Labour Organization, or the UN Environment Programme, to name a few.
When it comes to migration and displacement, we actually had several discussions on these topics at the General Assembly. In 2006, the UN organized the first high level dialogue on international migration and development, for which I was part of the organization team at the UN Population Division. In 2013, we had another high-level dialogue at the UN General Assembly. And after preparing and negotiating for two years, in December 2018, the global community adopted two new compacts. The UN adopted the UN Global Compact for Migration, for safe, orderly and regular migration, and the UN Global Compact on Refugees. These are non-binding agreements but the entire process of drafting these compacts was influential for spurring discussions among countries, between countries and civil society at the international level, and, even more importantly, at the national level.
Often we think of UN issues as matters at the supranational level, happening at the UN General Assembly hall here in New York or in Geneva. And that's true, that is an important venue. But, when we have a UN event or UN treaty, or in this case, a compact, there are also national stakeholders, human rights commissions, NGO networks, ministries at the national level, who have an interest in promoting certain issues. And they have consultations, the press picks up issues. Each country is a little different and it depends on the strength of certain stakeholders and their interests. For example, the U.S. government was largely absent from the process of the UN Global Compact for Migration.
Already in the beginning of the negotiations, the US declared, "We're out." Which, in my opinion, was not a very smart move, because even at that point, it was clear that it would be non-binding.
The risk of somewhat being held accountable would actually be low. And remaining in the discussions would have given the US a way to influence the content. But I think it was more about sending a political message to certain local constituents than an actual policy move in the international sphere.
What is remarkable is that even though the national government withdrew from the process, many U.S. cities said, "Can we be part of that?" New York, Chicago,and other cities really stepped in. Thus, in the end, there was a lot of participation in the U.S., even though the national government declared they don't want to have anything to do with it. So, sometimes, how the UN works is a little more complex than just what the official state department position is on an issue. And there are many venues. There are bilateral consultations, there are regional consultations on human trafficking, on labor migration and so on. There is a Global Forum on Migration and Development, the GFMD, which, since 2007, takes place every year. Governments come, they exchange notes on good policies, and on what can be done, mostly at the working level. At the working level, government officials cooperate and learn from each other. Again, it's non-binding. And the UN provides inputs, they chair sessions, they write background papers, they present case studies.
This is to exemplify that there are systems where policy learning happens in a much more informal setting, than through rigid rules-setting and treaty-making. This is something students in the UN Studies specialization here at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, that I direct, focus on when studying global governance. There are many different ways in which local and national governments, countries’ specific ministries, institutions, and agencies, international organizations, NGOs, and other groups negotiate and collaborate.
And then in the developing world, of course, the UN has a different role, because they are not just advising, they're working with local partners and in actual programs, like funding. And they're advising governments directly on how to do things.
But even there, what people from the outside often don't understand, the UN cannot work without the explicit consent of the host government.
So, when Kenya says that they want to close the refugee camps for Somalia refugees, UNHCR can plead, "Oh, please, refugees have rights and camps are bad." But, unless the Kenyan government gives UNHCR authority to work on certain programs, and provides UNDP consent to implement initiatives on livelihood strategies targeting refugees, these agencies can't do much. This being said, because of certain power asymmetries and donor interests, the so-called technical assistance from UN agencies in the Global South has the potential to influence policy decisions and exemplifies how the work of the UN can have an impact. But the political leverage of many agencies is not as large as is often seen. Which is why there's a lot of bargaining in the background. The things that you don't see that are not official.
Can you give an example?
DN: An example for the fact that the UN has to always ask for permission to work on certain issues is the persistence of the use of refugee camps. For the last 15 to 20 years, we know that refugee camps are not good for refugees. In the very short term, in the immediate aftermath of an atrocity, of a civil war, of a calamity, in the case of a sudden influx, camps may make sense to provide shelter and food and medical services to a large number of people. But, even in the medium term, they're very bad for the human development outcomes of people.
They lend themselves to a range of human rights violations, because people live in close vicinity to each other, people who are very heterogeneous among themselves. Just because they're all refugees, just because they're all from one country, doesn't mean they all get along well.
Camps generally don't provide sufficient economic opportunities for people, et cetera. That's why for some time now, we know that limited humanitarian responses to large refugee and IDP movements are not good for development. Definitely not for those people who are displaced, but mostly equally for surrounding communities. I actually developed a role-play simulation on the reasons for and against refugee camps and participants understand quite clearly the mix of international development and human rights logic with local politics and interests.
Addressing the shortcomings of classic humanitarian approaches, different UN agencies have been very strong in advocating for a more development-based strategy. For example, in the Syrian context, there has been the 3RP, the regional refugee and resilience plan, which is headed by UNDP and UNHCR, with I think, about 270 partners. It’s implemented in Syria’s neighboring countries, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt. In addition to each country’s national plan there's a regional plan, which focuses not only on the humanitarian side but also development side. UNDP has been leading these efforts to provide livelihood support, skills, training, et cetera. But even there, we see that the implementation is hampered by a lot of challenges. Take Jordan. In the 2013 donor conference in London, Jordan pledged to give work permits to 200,000 Syrian refugees. They were very committed at the highest level of government.
But, a year later, there were almost no permits for refugees, and everyone asked why. We did a project with Better Work Jordan, which is a collaboration between the International Labour Organization and the World Bank. BetterWork Jordan published a report that my students drafted on why Syrian refugees did not get more official work permits. There are many reasons why employers couldn't employ refugees or couldn't expand their production. The refugees could only work in the export-oriented zones, mostly in the garment sector. They couldn't work in other areas. There was a distance they had to travel. Refugees often didn't want these jobs for a variety of reasons. There were many bottlenecks in the bureaucratic procedure to get work permits. In brief, there were many challenges at the supply side, the demand side, as well as on the bureaucratic transaction side.
These issues combined led to a situation in which this great policy that was mediated by the UN and other donors to actually empower refugees to be economic actors, didn't have the impact people had hoped for. While much of what the UN does can have important impacts, this shows that what can be done at the national level depends a lot on national priorities and politics. How politicians are afraid of negative impacts for the local voting populations. And then, of course, it has also to do with the commitment of the international donors to actually put in money to say, "Yes, we will not only give you minor funds to warehouse refugees but we will partner with you to empower them and your populations." Part of the agreement with Jordan that I mentioned was a pact with the EU. The EU said, "If refugees are employed you can export garments and other goods from export-oriented zones to us duty free." The idea was to use trade and the increase in production in the Jordanian garment sector as a way to increase employment opportunities for refugees. A great idea.
But, you probably need to do more to help Jordanian products to be competitive on the EU market. There's also a time lag. Even if you open up the market right away, these products may not satisfy the EU standards for garments. So, there are many things that the partners need to do to support these endeavors and to really make sure that local leaders are not afraid that if they open the labor market, if they open chances for local integration, that in two years, donors will pull out. And then, they will get stuck with the additional population without the support financial community. So, that's where the UN can help a lot. But, without real commitments from large donor countries or any countries to resettle and share the responsibility for refugees, there's only that much the UN can do.
Thank you so much for your time.
Image via Hannah Wallace Bowman (above).
interviews
Eric Stoltz Is Determined To Bring El Paso Voices Back To City Hall.
by Eric Stoltz
July 18, 2018
This interivew with Eric Stoltz, a young native El Pasoan running for City Council in District 6, was conducted and condensed by frank news.
Eric Stoltz: My name is Eric Stoltz, I grew up in the Lower Valley in El Paso, raised there for my whole life, lived in the same place for 25 years. It's the outskirts of El Paso and it's a farm ranch area.
Tatti: What is the population like there?
Eric Stoltz: Very Spanish-speaking. El Paso is probably 80% Hispanic, but I think my areas about 93%. English is spoken but Spanish is a lot more common where I live.
Tatti: How does immigration policy affect your daily life?
Eric Stoltz: It's affected me with my neighbors, family, friends that I've known for a long time. I've had friends that had their parents deported when they were young. Even today I have a really close friend whose dad was deported. I think I've seen immigration in a complete context of people that were able to get papers or were able to get citizenship or residency, but then also saw people that had to live secretly and live in the shadows. My grandma actually owned a trailer park and a lot of her residents were people that didn't have documents, so she made sure they felt comfortable and that they knew she was okay with people that didn't have documents to live openly and live without fear.
When we talk about immigration people talk about border security. I think border security brings a militarized presence anywhere you go. Even if I am documented and I have papers I feel a little bit uncomfortable having to deal with being watched, you have a bunch of helicopters disturbing you. People also have an idea that immigration is like jumping over a border when in reality it's also people getting visas and crossing back and forth.
There's a lot of people from El Paso that work in El Paso and live in Juarez because of the cost of living. A lot of people go to school back and forth. The strict hard policy doesn't make sense, especially to someone living on the border, because you see that it's just one large city and one large interconnected area rather than a hard invisible line that people want to invent.
Tatti: Is there a tangible difference between presidents and policy?
Eric Stoltz: Not so much, not during my time. My parents saw a big difference with the building of the current wall.
Tatti: When was that?
Eric Stoltz: That was in 1996 I think, that was when they had Operation Hold The Line, when they put more Border Patrol in the cities and drove immigrants out to the desert, which made it more dangerous for people. Then they built the wall, which I think actually was in 2000. That was the only time I experienced something different like, whoa we had fences and now we have a wall. I was younger so I didn't really understand what it was or what the meaning of it was. Nothing is really different than from Obama and Bush to me in the presence of Border Patrol because you just see them everywhere, I'm just so used to seeing them everywhere. Not much has changed aside from like rhetoric and hateful things being said towards immigrants.
Tatti: Do you think it’s right to focus anger on this administration or do you think that negates years of other similar policy?
Eric Stoltz: I think that while Trump has terrible rhetoric and obviously he has no idea what he's talking about I think that it does go a lot further and back into past presidencies and the real root reason of issues that are happening.
It does go back further and I think that right now Trump is taking it to an extreme level and actually an even scarier level where he allows law enforcement to basically spread fear around our community. That's something that we haven't seen, a more fearful area, a more fearful time. I know people whose parents are very scared. But it does go back to years and years of neglect on immigration issues, but also ignoring the reasons why people are leaving their countries.
Tatti: What do you want to ask elected officials, in positions of power in Texas, about immigration?
Eric Stoltz: I would have two separate questions. One, do they support allowing all families to be together, would they continue to support a family migration and allow a quicker process for family migration.I have friends whose parents have been waiting for 12 years, 15 years. And I think when you don't have the ability to be with your family for 15 years it is contrary to a family value system for many. The second question of course would be the root of everything, can they ensure us that the United States is no longer in the game of toppling socialist or left-wing governments that are democratically elected.
Tatti: The argument we keep hearing is if you break the law as an American you’re sent to jail, why would it be any different for non Americans?
Eric Stoltz:
But to me, at the end of the day, we're all humans regardless of your ethnicity or citizenship. When you take humanity away from people, that’s when you start to lose a part of your humanity. When you look at El Paso, we are a city that has immigrants undocumented and with documents and we live a great life. We live as a community, we live as one, and we benefit from each other. We are not a crutch on each other, we are united as one and we progress with each other. I think that people don't understand and don't see people in their communities because every community has immigrants. They might not know, but I think when people start understanding that their neighbors, that their co-workers, that business owners are undocumented people and that they are also benefiting our economy and giving jobs and helping our country in a profound way, people will actually see and understand that immigration and undocumented people are not an enemy.
They are helping people, and they are helping U.S. citizens. A lot of people think that undocumented people don't pay taxes, undocumented people pay taxes and it goes straight to the government, and they don't receive that back. We need to think of everything as humanity before we get into ideas of citizenship.
Why do people leave their countries to begin with? I wouldn't want to leave my country but if I felt I had to, look, the law is not going to stop somebody. And at the moment, people are seeking legal asylum and being denied legal asylum at the border and are forced to go through other means which are illegal to get to the United States. There are people in this country that live 300 miles from the border who have never seen it, never visited it. They need to observe and actually learn from people at the border and ask us what we see and what our daily life is. I wouldn’t tell someone who lives by the ocean that I know everything about the currents when I’ve never been to an ocean before.
Tatti: How do you think the media has handled the immigration issue in the last couple of weeks?
Eric Stoltz: I'm happy that they’re a little more concerned about border issues and immigration issues. I do wish that they talked about it year round and really went in depth on these particular issues. When we have a population of the U.S. that is completely anti media I think that you, as the media, need to show the facts and use recent evidence about what’s happening, video and audio and images that are recent, from right now, because you have a whole segment of people demonizing the media, who don't believe the media. If you use an image that's two years old people are going to say that you’re lying.