Ladies and gentlemen,
I have the pleasure of welcoming
you all to the Seventh International Metropolis Conference here in
Oslo, the biggest and most multicultural city in Norway.
Migration is a politically charged
issue. Indeed, this is also my own experience, both as a member of
parliament in Norway for many years and now as the minister
responsible for immigration, refugee and integration policies.
Basically I have a positive view of
globalisation. I believe we have a chance in this century to
achieve an open global society with unprecedented opportunities for
people and business. However, I am well aware that there are a
number stumbling blocks ahead. The tragic events almost a year ago
made it painfully clear that it is difficult to promote openness
when facing extreme violence and terror.
The shape and magnitude of
migration, which affect life in almost every corner of the world,
have a significant impact on the chances to make us of our
opportunities. Increasing migration is a result of globalisation
processes, while some forms of irregular migration could make it
very difficult to achieve a more open world.
The positive aspects of
international migration are obvious, both for individuals and for
societies in general. For example, migrants are needed to keep the
wheels turning in some of the industries, businesses and public
services in many countries. Due to demographic factors this need
will probably increase in the years to come.
On the other hand, we should not
underestimate the negative aspects. Migration of persons who
request asylum although they are not in need of international
protection, threaten to undermine the refugee and asylum systems in
receiving countries. Internationally well-organized criminals
benefit from such movements, while individual migrants suffer.
Migration presents increasingly
complex challenges to governments and other actors concerned. The
temperature of the debate about migration, integration, diversity,
social cohesion, multiculturalism varies in different countries.
But the underlying issues – whatever label we choose - are
the same in most countries. I am told that this understanding is an
important part of the platform for the international Metropolis
cooperation.
As a politician I am responsible
for selecting workable solutions to dilemmas and challenges. For
example, in Norway we are trying to find a balance between curbing
the inflow of asylum-seekers who are not in need of international
protection on one side, and increasing the recruitment of
certain types of labour migrants on the other.
Active promotion of economic
development and the respect for basic human rights worldwide is an
important aspect of a comprehensive approach to migration. In the
long term such measures might reduce strong migration pressure in
some countries and make it easier to manage migration flows in an
orderly manner. It’s important to discuss how to manage migration
and the relation between sending and receiving societies, and I
note that it also will be addressed at the Metropolis
conference.
It is often difficult to appreciate
fully the impact of policies pursued by several states. The need
for better international co-operation in complex refugee and
migration matters is obvious. The Nordic countries have had
regional information and consultative fora since the middle of
1980s. Governments increasingly recognise that migration must be
managed at the regional rather than solely at the national or
bilateral levels. Regional processes are a sign of recognition that
there is a greater need for a multilateral response if the
challenges of managing migration are to be met successfully. Such
cooperation is increasingly and explicitly called for by
governments. In the past ten years, there has been a marked
increase in the number of regional consultative processes focussing
on migration-related issues. On each continent some type of
regional consultative process exists. We support constructive
efforts in this respect.
The Schengen agreement, which most
of the EU-countries, Iceland and Norway are party to, is a good
example of an internationally binding agreement on important
aspects of migration control. It has had a significant impact on
our immigration policy.
Meanwhile, on the national level we
are well aware of that how we regulate and control migration, might
have implications for integration and minority policies. Permit me
to mention one concrete example of how such implications may
influence our policy-making in relation to work-permits:
Some employers face problems in
recruiting unskilled labour. Our estimates of the need for labour
in the years to come indicate that this situation will persist. On
this background the Norwegian government has proposed
liberalisation of labour immigration, also of regulations
pertaining to unskilled work. In the presentation of this proposal
we have underlined that foreigners should only be recruited from
third countries for unskilled jobs if recruitment in Norway and
within the European Economic Area is impossible.
Immigrant workers from third
countries should have equal rights and duties, as other immigrants.
In the same way as skilled workers and specialists they should be
entitled to permanent residency after working and contributing to
the economic development of Norway for three years. We do not
intend to establish a guest-worker system, because it might have
negative side-effects on the integration processes and on relations
between migrants and the society at large.
Current migration to Europe is
increasingly female. Female migration is linked to new global
economic transformations and the resulting restructuring of the
labour force. In Europe many women find employment as domestic
workers or in the broader service sector. Some enter the sex
industry, at times involuntarily through trafficking in
prostitution networks.
Immigrants and refugees are often
perceived as homogenous groups in public debates, in policy making
as well as in research. Gender or individual traits seem to be of
less concern if not irrelevant. Migration and development policies
often ignore migrants’ gendered identities and practices and there
is little recognition of the gendered nature of refugee groups and
the specific needs of female immigrants.
I think we are making a huge
mistake when failing to consider these facts because they may be
crucial. In my opinion this becomes obvious when we are talking
about gender-based persecution and how the 1951 Geneva Convention
should be applied. There is increasing evidence that refugee women
may be unable to benefit equitably from protection and assistance
efforts. As we know UNHCR supports a gender sensitive
interpretation of all the convention grounds. Some countries have
begun to take these facts into consideration and appropriate
measures are taken to ensure women’s access to protection and
material assistance. My government is taking steps in what I
believe is the right direction, but more need to be done. In this
respect I believe Metropolis may contribute to putting the topic on
the agenda and stimulate debate and research that may create a
foundation for policy making.
Of no less importance is the need
to consider the gender issue in integration policies. Measures
taken to deal with different problems have to be targeted which
require consideration of aspects as gender, educational level,
personal skills, family background and so on. One of the challenges
we meet in a modern western society with expressed ideals of gender
equality is the immigration of people from countries with totally
different views on these matters. One may argue that a country or
society does not have opinions and again migrants are individuals
that should not be chained to stereotype pictures of their country
of origin. I totally agree, and still we do this all the time
because we tend to focus on the group and not at the
individual.
This is a core issue in my opinion,
and I welcome the debate on multiculturalism we will have
tomorrow. We need to address the difficult questions as how
we are going to enforce an ideal of gender equality in a
multicultural society. How can we ensure the individual woman’s
human rights when she is captured by ideas of culture and tradition
that places her in a subordinate position within a group? How
should we understand a commitment to equality in a world of
multiple differences, hierarchies of power and division of life
circumstances? We need to reflect on the practical prospects of the
idea of human equality and our understanding of both feminism and
multiculturalism.
Every day women are being harassed,
abused, beaten, mutilated and forced into marriage. They are
discriminated against, deprived of education, kept indoors and
denied basic human rights - all in the name of some culture,
tradition and some times even religion. The share of minority women
in shelters in Norway is high and increasing. We will not tolerate
the abuse and violence many women are submitted to.
In this context a relevant question
to pose is how far it is possible and desirable for
governments to attempt to control the private sphere. Where should
we draw the line between showing restraint due to pluralism and, on
the other side, uncompromising enforcement of equal opportunities
and rights for men and women? Our goal must be both to ensure
diversity in every aspect and the individual’s human rights. The
Norwegian Gender Equality Act is violated every day and some
critical voices argue that little is done about it because we are
afraid of showing disrespect for minority communities. We shall
take legal actions when women are threatened. We have an obligation
to interfere when we witness actions that obviously contradict our
ideas of democracy and the right to participation in society on the
individual’s own terms.
In a multicultural society it must
be accepted that there are different ways of organising things;
that lives may be lived in various ways. But I like to stress that
everyone must have a choice. This means that we also have to know
what our options are. To be able to make such choices everyone
needs basic language skills. Norway offers extended language
courses free of charge to all immigrants, but not everyone attends
these courses for different reasons. Structured introduction
programmes for newcomers will now be made available. We are
currently debating if Norwegian language skills should be a
requirement for obtaining Norwegian citizenship and maybe even for
permanent settlement permits.
Crucial factors are access to
general education and to the labour market. Due to various reasons,
one of them being restrictions on free movement in the public
sphere, a number of immigrant women are deprived of the
possibilities our society offers. I am very concerned about
children growing up in our society not knowing Norwegian, many of
them are even born in Norway. They get a rough start when they
enter the school system at the age of six. Many of these children
do not have the necessary support in their home environments.
Obviously it is quite a challenge to bring up children in our
society if one does not have knowledge of how it works. It has been
said that when you educate a man you educate one person, but when
you educate a woman you educate a whole nation. I believe that it
is of utmost importance that women have access to education for
their own sake but also to enable their children to succeed in our
society.
I think this reflects the problems
of the ongoing debate of what we mean by integration and how we can
achieve an integrated society or social cohesion for that matter.
We are not even sure that we all have the same understanding of the
concept, and probably we do not. It is a political question as well
as a personal one. Integration is a process that requires an effort
from everyone and it is impossible to integrate people who are
reluctant. And how do we know when someone is integrated and what
are the criteria? To hold a job implies that one is integrated on
an economic level but the person may have no social contacts with
the majority population.
We hear many critical voices these
days. “Integration has failed” they claim, but how can we state
this as a fact if we do not even have a shared definition on what
we actually mean by integration? It is very hard to reach an
agreement on these questions because there are different views on
what the problems actually are and how they should be addressed. We
need an adequate legislative framework. We also need quick actions
in acute situations. But most important, we need time and a long
term and persistent policy based on research and the important
competence that many of you possess from practical experience. I am
confident of the ability of Metropolis to bring the debate
forward. The fact that this forum brings together policy makers,
NGOs and researchers from more than 25 countries gives us a unique
opportunity.
I wish you good luck with the
conference!