Postcard from Bishkek

On 18th December, 1990, the UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and ten years later, (on 4th December, 2000),  they designated that every year this should be commemorated as International Migrants Day.

The decision underscored the fact that international migration is a growing phenomenon – in recent years the number of migrants worldwide has increased significantly as official statistics show – according to some estimates every 35th person on earth is a migrant … many far from home, in strange and unfamiliar circumstances and often in need of help and support … and I suppose that includes me.

In addition, it was felt that the phenomenon could make a positive contribution to development, both in countries of origin where the migrants hailed from and also their countries of destination …  provided that it was supported by the right policies.

That included respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of all migrants as an essential to reap the benefits of international migration, and in order to achieve this it was necessary to recognize the importance of strengthening international cooperation on bilateral, regional and global bases.

To this end, UN Member States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations are invited to observe the day by disseminating information by carrying out various activities such as workshops and seminars, giving people the opportunity to share experiences and establish activities to help ensure the protection of the rights of migrant workers and their families.

One of the questions I am asked here is “Why is it so difficult to obtain a British visa?” … and I have to explain that, in addition to our form of bureaucracy, immigration is, (and has been for as long as I can remember), one of the hottest issues in British domestic politics.

There is often concern expressed about the number of foreigners who travel to Britain and stay – taking jobs, (even though many of those jobs are ones that the Brits themselves aren’t interested in doing); drawing state benefits of one sort or another, that are designed for and paid for by the British taxpayer, (although the system is such that it’s not always that easy to do – I know having accompanied a Kyrgyz citizen to a London Hospital Outpatients Clinic … I think that the fee we paid was far more than for the service we received – and is constantly being tightened); and a sense that something distinctive about our way of life and society, (“Britishness”?), is in some way under threat by the number of “aliens” living among us.

I also point out that none of this is unique to Britain … I have heard similar comments expressed about the situation in France, Germany, Switzerland, America, Russia and even, dare I say it, Kyrgyzstan.

 

In fact the situation surrounding the plight of migrant workers has been somewhat of a hot topic here recently.  There seems, however, to be some confusion about how many migrant workers there are, both from Kyrgyzstan and in Kyrgyzstan.  Regular readers of my postcards will know that I take a somewhat sanguine view of official statistics … and will not be surprised when I point out that there seems to be conflicting figures on this topic:

According to the Foreign Ministry in February, there were over 500,000 migrant workers from Kyrgyzstan in Russia and another 200,000 in Kazakhstan – although the spokesman did concede that these were “approximate estimations”.

Then in April the Kyrgyz Consul General, (who works for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), was reported as saying that there “around 50-60 thousand citizens of Kyrgyzstan” in Kazakhstan … apart from the startling difference in the actual figures – note that the basis changed from “migrant workers from Kyrgyzstan” to “citizens of Kyrgyzstan” … which could well include family members, pensioners … and so on.

In August the Ministry of Labout – a different government department, to be fair – reported that over 30,000 were abroad, in “developed countries”, adding that around 350,000 to 500,000 citizens of Kyrgyzstan work outside the country at different times of the year … varying between 5% and 10% of the economically active population.

The population of Kyrgyzstan is just over five million – so 500,000 would be about 10% of the population … but not all of those five million represents the “economically active” population … so there seems to be some confusion here.

The highest number, the report added, being “approximately 350,000 in Russia” – so, so much for 500,000 and for all the other countries if that figure is accurate.

In September, an announcement of a planned TV series to be shot which would depict the problems and achievements of Kyrgyz citizens abroad, included the assertion that “about a third of the population stays abroad for different reasons”, most of them in Russia – so everyone seems to be agreed on that point … if not on the actual number of proportion of the population.

Also in September, the Russian Federal Migration Service announced that 576,400 migrants from Kyrgyzstan in the country – 358,000 men and 218,400 women.   (Is it just me, I wonder, or does that 358,ooo figure look suspiciously similar to the 350,000 quoted elsewhere … and if so, is this an example of women being, once more, “overlooked”?)

Then, in October, the Deputy Minister of Labour, Migration and Youth reported that there were 495,000 migrant workers currently in Russia … 120,000 of them had work permits and another 80,000 worked using “patents”, (a sort of license granted for one off payments accounting for their tax obligations and granting the holder certain rights), but the rest were basically illegal migrants.

That was, at least in keeping with comments and complaints coming out of Russia … so far this year something like 1000 Kyrgyz citizens have been deported from Russia for violations of the migration law … apparently one of their biggest complaints concerns the number of Kyrgyz who overstay their allotted 90 days.

A few days later, however, Consular Department of the Foreign Ministry was reported as saying that there were 571,716 Kyrgyz citizens in Russia – and that this figure included 78,000 minors, and 8,600 pensioners over 60 … I suppose that assuming all of the others were migrant workers – and some of the pensioners might also be, then that almost tallies with the 495,000 figure …

In November it was admitted that Kyrgyz and Russian figures on the number of migrant workers from Kyrgyzstan in the Russian Federation differed from each other – and this time the Eurasian Economic Commission quoted a figure of 530,000.

That figure, (well, 529000), was repeated yesterday at a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Social Policy – when it was also reported / confirmed that just over half (52%) were located in Moscow and the Moscow region.  One further interesting snippet from that meeting was that in the last 20 years, some 450,000 Kyrgyz received Russian citizenship … I presume that means Kyrgyz citizens rather than people of Kyrgyz ethnicity.

Also in November, it was reported by the Foreign Ministry that, during the first nine months of the year some 496,000 Kyrgyz citizens had left for Russia … but only 67,000 had the necessary work permits – with another 60,000 receiving patents or licenses.  That report also went on to say that the vast majority,  85%, traveled to Moscow and the surrounding region – however, it is interesting to note that the parliament has suggested opening consulates in St. Petersburg and Krasnoyarsk … so, presumably, as there is a perceived need for them, there are probably a significant number of Kyrgyz living in these areas as well.

 Even if the detail of the statistics appear contradictory – they do give an overall scale of the issue and its associated problems.

In theory, at least, the Russian statistics are supported by the decision earlier this year to create a special database of migrant workers which has helped to identify some of the major violations of the legislation … and led to the deportations.

As well as running the official gauntlet and risking deportation, Migrant workers also face considerable social prejudice and even what could be described as xenophobia … with the number and severity of incidents against them increasing – both individual attacks and riots (in one case leading to some 380 people being detained) – which are often blamed on reaction to the illegal status of many migrant workers.

One of the ways suggested for dealing with violations of the legislation dealing with migration is to introduce a visa regime – not just for Kyrgyz citizens but for all Central Asian countries.  This has been mooted by several parties in Russia, perhaps most worryingly by the Health Ministry who claim that migrant workers bring with them health problems.  Other government departments, and the Duma, (the Russian parliament), have denied any plans to implement such a measure – and even President Putin has expressed his opposition to it, saying it would introduce more problems than it would solve.

Actually, health issues do appear to be a problem – especially getting access to medical assistance … just as it was for my friend in London.  Without the necessary registration, migrants have no right to access medical services – and, on top of that, most of the migrants from Kyrgyzstan do ot have any form of health insurance, and this has been the subject of discussions with both Kazakhstan and Russia.

Another long term social issue is the provision of pensions for migrant workers.  Apparently, a special pension has been proposed to help provide them with one.

If there are currently almost eighty thousand minors currently in living Russia, there are many more left behind in the country of origin – often living in what is effectively a single parent family or being cared for by grandparents – reliant on the remittances sent home by the migrant worker.

Apart from the social strains and stresses that this places on the home community, the remittances are a vital part of the Kyrgyz economy – indeed one commentary last year described them as a “lifeline” – a lifeline worth one and a half billion dollars in 2011.

For the record: According to a report on AkiPress, yesterday, “Natural persons transfer $1.87 billion from abroad for the first 10 months 2013“.

The volume of cash flows to Kyrgyzstan transferred by natural persons in January-October 2013 amounted to $1.874 billion. $1.834 billion or 97.8% accounts for Russia, according to the National Bank of Kyrgyzstan.

$21.8 million were transferred from Kazakhstan, $17.8 million – from non-CIS countries. The volume of cash outflows amounted to $294.5 million. $287.7 million or 97.6% were transferred to Russia.

For 10 months of 2013, net balance of transfers amounted to $1.579 billion.

The volume of outflows increased by 43.6%, and inflows – by 12.3% compared to the same period in 2012.

Kyrgyz exports are far outweighed by imports – according to some sources by a factor of three to one.  This shortfall is ameliorated by the funds sent back to Kyrgyzstan which not only help the families to cope financially but also to helps to reduce the foreign debt thus incurred.

That’s a clear example of how Migrant workers help both the host country (by providing much needed labour) and the country of origin (providing much needed financial resources and helping to maintain  an improved standard of living.)

 

One of the big question marks which now faces the migrant worker … is the prospect of Kyrgyzstan joining Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus in the Customs Union.  Along with the accession of Kyrgyzstan to the Customs Union there is supposed to be an agreement allowing migrant workers to travel freely within the member countries – similar to the arrangements in the European Union – which, as I understand it, would remove the need to receive work permits and other forms of permissions.  

If, however, as recent developments suggest, this may not be imminent – it was all supposed to be settled by the end of this year – then the status of migrant workers in each of the member countries still represents an issue that has to be addressed. 

Interestingly, a couple of days ago, the President made a suggestion that, instead of travelling abroad in order to find work, the youth of the country should look for work at home … most of the employment that they usually end up taking is basically “low paid service industry jobs”.  He thinks it is possible for them find work here, (although I suspect of people – young people especially – might take issue with that sentiment … and it is not clear how the economy might cope without the influx of foreign capital that people in these “low paid service industry jobs” do manage to save and send home to their families).  If they feel that they must travel abroad, he added, then

1. they should make sure that they learn the language and laws of their host country
2. it is better to go to study
3. unless they manage to obtain “good jobs” – by which I presume he means high value, skilled, high paying jobs.

Interestingly, the Prime Minister also made an intervention in the debate yesterday, with the news that Kyrgyzstan is proposing that of solving the various issues for both Russia and Kyrgyzstan arising out of the current situation is to impose quotas … I am not sure how well that will go down.

It would be wrong to leave this topic without acknowledging that Kyrgyzstan is not only the source of migrant workers – it also plays host to a large number of them – many from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China.

According to a report on AkiPress yesterday, “Kyrgyzstan issues 10,500 work quotas for foreigners in 2013, mostly Chinese citizens” – 70% going to the Chinese.

It has been mooted to introduce Identity Cards for migrant workers to help control their numbers, movement and employment.

If Kyrgyz migrant workers in Russia are accused of working without the necessary documentation, (work permits, registration, overstaying the time they are allowed to remain in the country and so forth), the Kyrgyz also accuse the migrant workers to whom they play host, of the same violations … and they have deported many. 

There also seems to be what looks suspiciously like an element of xenophobia creeping into relationships with some of the groups of migrant workers – especially those from China … with fights breaking out between workers and members of the local population and, recently, reports of attacks on Chinese citizens – even in their own homes.

 

So, the statistics are not clear … but the issues are … and are pretty universal … in Britain, Russia, Kyrgyzstan and, no doubt across the globe – that’s probably why we need am International Migrants Day – or should that be International Migrants’ Day.

Tags: Calendar, Society, Statistics