Hello and welcome to the Migration Oxford Podcast. I'm Jackie Broadhead, and I'm Rob McNeil.
Today we're talking about diaspora engagement. But what do we mean when we say the word diaspora?
Well, I mean, I think this is a really complicated question in some respects, because it's it's a word that's changed in meaning, I think,
over the last 50 or 60 years from the original idea that it was something that related to communities like the Jewish
and the Armenian communities that had been effectively exiled for many generations and had held together a community,
that diaspora community, and through, you know,
traditions and membership of that social group over a long period of time through
to something which really now describes just communities and communities that
are living overseas or in different countries or that are held together by those
bonds of community when they come from one place and are living in another. And importantly, those those groups have political power,
and that is these are groups that exercise political power both in their countries of destination and in the countries of origin often.
And there are efforts commonly to engage those communities.
And that's what a lot of our conversation today has been about.
And this is something that is common and is understood socially as part of the fabric of modern society.
And that's, I think, one of the most interesting shifts that we're looking at here,
this move from perhaps seeing diasporas as something vulnerable or quite fragmented,
struggling to maybe maintain those connections with each other and also with their country of origin
and the ways in which they do that through to actually being agents of quite a lot of power,
whether that's kind of hard and soft political power, whether that's the idea of diasporas as agents within diplomacy,
but also economically through things like remittances.
What do we know about that shift in the way that we're perceiving the power of diaspora?
Well, I think that it's clear and it was very clear in the conversation that we both had on, you know,
until it was recorded and in the conversation that we had afterwards,
that there have been massive shifts in the way that we perceive these communities even.
But but also, I mean, just things like the sort of digital revolution that we've had, the ease of communicating with people now,
the ease of just speaking to your 2 to 2 family members that may be thousands of
miles away and being involved in the day to day politics of the of your country
of origin and also your country of residence has made a fundamental change to
the way that diaspora communities are engaged with modern with modern society,
and has really highlighted that they can have profound power in, you know,
both political power at home and political power in those countries of origin as well.
I mean, that shift is evident, as you say,
in everything from the enormous importance of remittances as a as a as a means of as a means of bringing about international development dwarfs that
the money generated for developing economies from from from and from remittances absolutely dwarfs international aid budgets all the way through to,
you know, fundamental political shifts, changes in the way that people perceive how their countries should function.
And and this is enormous. It's a massive, massive thing and something that we really can't ignore.
Absolutely. And are the other risks, do you think, to having this kind of approach?
I mean, you know, one example of a person we could describe as being from a diaspora community would be our own prime minister,
which is do not and his his background. But at a certain point, as you become, you know, these terms like second or third generation,
they can also become a little bit problematic because they in some ways call into
question your membership of being British of the community that you now live in.
How do you think we manage that will to want to engage with diaspora communities, understand our global connectedness,
but also not inadvertently even discriminate or or describe people as being in some ways not fully part of the communities that they now belong to.
A really key part of this is the recognition that that we all have multiple identities.
You know, we're all I mean, I'm from I mean, I grew up in Wiltshire.
I see myself very much as a sort of Wiltshire boy, but I'm British as well.
I can also be European, and I'm also I have Scottish and Irish heritage and all of these are things that comprise me as an individual, you know,
And I think that all of us have components of that and the fact that, you know,
being British doesn't stop me from being from malmesbury, you know, to me, it doesn't stop me from having Irish heritage.
It doesn't stop any of those kinds of things from being a part of who I am at the same time.
And I think it's perfectly reasonable,
perfectly possible for people to have these multiple identities and all of these things can coexist without actually having any conflict.
There's no reason why it's not possible to be a multitude of different things at the same time.
Now, obviously, that can sometimes mean that, you know, you prioritise one component of your identity over another every now and then,
but that doesn't mean that you're other completely the other components of your of your identity are irrelevant in these situations.
And I think that depending on how we operate, depending on who we are and what we're doing,
we can, we can quite comfortably be these different things at different times.
It's perfectly possible for Rishi Sunak to be a very British, very conservative prime minister,
representing very conservative ideals and very and things that are fundamentally related to, you know,
like what it means to be a British citizen whilst at the same time not running away from his from his own heritage and not ignoring who he is,
because you can be something which is which, which is multiple, which is different.
I think organisations like British Future in the work that syndicate Walter has done at
British Future have really helped to identify that to be British in the modern world.
It doesn't mean being white and it doesn't mean, you know, singing Jerusalem in church on Sunday or anything.
It can be something which is about your origins that are much more complex than that.
And there's no reason why that Britishness is necessarily any more or less than anybody else's Britishness.
So I think that it's really important to remember that, you know, being part of a diaspora is an important part of who you are,
but it doesn't mean that it defines everything that you do always.
That feels like the perfect point for us to. Without further ado, get to our conversation with our experts.
I'm here with Alan Gamblin, who's Professor of Migration governance at the Australian National University, with Martin Russell,
who's the Director of Global Diaspora Insights, and with Larissa Lara,
who is Diaspora Engagement Officer for the International Organisation for Migration.
So Alan, I want to start with the basics. What are diaspora engagement policies and what are they designed to achieve?
Thanks, Rob, and thanks for the invite to be with you here today, tonight or whatever it is where you are.
So yeah, Diaspora engagement policies are essentially government policies and programs directed
towards or dedicated to immigrants and their descendants who are living abroad.
So I say the word immigrants carefully so that you don't get my Kiwi accent mixed up.
So people, people who leave.
So we typically think of migration policy as policy towards people who arrive, but actually for probably the majority of countries around the world,
it's actually towards people who leave those people leaving at their most interested in.
And so there's a whole range of things that countries, governments and countries of origins want from or with people who leave,
often diaspora engagement policies, you know, about negotiating bilateral agreements,
oversupply of labour, or preparing migrants to undertake their journeys or protecting the rights and
interests of those migrants when they're abroad trying to address their concerns,
facilitating their remittances back to the country of origin, preserving their identities and ties through cultural exchange programs,
cultivating networks of influential and affluent compatriots who are living in other countries might be able to help their country of origin.
So there's a whole range of things. Fantastic.
So, Larissa, can I just ask you, why do you think now is a key time to talk about diaspora community driving change?
Thank you. In the past few years, there has been a lot of attention given to diasporas.
And this is really great. And in particular, it has been pushed by member states and a lot of great partners.
So last year in April, we co-organised with the Government of Ireland the Global Diaspora Summit,
and we had a really great opportunity to bring together diasporas in the same on the same table with the governments.
So they were really exchanging and putting out their what their needs are and
also what they can bring to the table in development and in humanitarianism.
So I would say it's a very key and excited moment to engage with diasporas and recognise them as development and humanitarian actors,
specifically because we have together after the Declaration, we have a very concrete, concrete plan which is the outcome document from it.
It's called the Dublin Declaration and it really sets up step by step goals of what
the global community will be doing in the next year to maximise diaspora engagement.
And through it particularly, I just want to highlight the Global Diaspora Policy Alliance,
which is really that environment to institutionalise the relationship between governments, diasporas,
partners in the private sector and other partners across the world that want to engage with diasporas
and partner with them to to maximise development in their countries of origin and destination.
Okay. So, Martin I'm the term don't ask for itself seems to have evolved quite a lot in the last few decades.
So we've been talking so far about the role of diaspora in bringing about things
like change in development context in countries of origin and that sort of thing.
But what do we actually mean when we talk about diaspora now?
Alan kind of gave us the early kind of answers to that.
On one level when we began to think about immigrants and their descendants.
And, you know, I think as you mentioned over the last I think kind of 10 to 15 years,
there's been a real acceleration of interest not just from countries of origin, but also countries of destination and not just government as well.
I think private sector are getting more and more interest in this area. I think foundations of the third sector are beginning to pick up on this.
And the word I would use is that I think diaspora has gone mainstream over the last 10 to 15 years.
And I mean, 15, 20 years ago, if you said to somebody I'm working on Diaspora, they'd say to you, Have you found a cure yet?
No, Nobody really kind of knew what it meant on one level, to be frank,
you know, And I think people kind of understood that it's related to migration.
But then I think the level of kind of critical thinking and analysis and particularly academic debate,
the evolution of diaspora studies, kind of with the breakdown of the Cold War, began to really kind of refocus the mind on the topic.
So I think we talk about immigrants and descendants, but the word that captures it for me, I think is belonging.
When we talk about diaspora, the word I would say it's about having a sense of belonging.
And that belonging is it's not just for the government anymore.
As I see, organisations of different are beginning to look at this topic.
Universities have diasporas, what they call them alumni. But you know, we begin to kind of take lessons and insights from there.
So so that's what I would say. And just to kind of close out what we talk about, at least for me and my understanding of diaspora,
I think it's important that we do try to unpack those relationships between migration and diaspora.
So I often say that migration is the language of borders and identity, but diaspora is the language of belonging and identification.
I think it's a bit more of a fluid concept. So so that's how I would kind of bring those two together, in essence.
Okay, excellent. So, Larissa, how should we think about the role of diaspora engagement compared to community leadership and empowerment?
And where do you think that diaspora engagement is going to shape communities or even the world in the coming years?
And can you give us some ideas about where we can see this happening already?
Thank you. I think Martin put the perfect word to it.
It is belonging and how to to really understand belonging and how we can make that into positive change.
I think that's the key area of study is in diaspora.
Just to add to that, I really think diasporas are unique.
They are actors that really understand at least two or three settings.
And even when you're doing your bureaucracy, it's really interesting to see how diaspora can manage to navigate those spaces in a very easy way.
So they they really serve as bridges in society.
They reduce the gaps and distances, they maximise strategic connections, they fully foster partnerships and resource mobilisation.
So I think in the future we will continue to see diaspora engaging, especially at the humanitarian level.
I would say unfortunately we will keep looking at conflicts and all the issues that are driven by climate emergency
and I'm a truly believer the diasporas will be at the forefront because they have done so for many years.
So I think those are the the engagements that we have to look at and to be concise, really to learn from them,
to tailor much better the programs and responses in this, in this,
in these countries and settings that are going to be facing, sadly, more and more challenges.
So that would be the answer for for those questions. Okay.
So, Alan, in a world which is ever more diverse and in which large numbers of high profile
politicians and even world leaders are themselves members of diaspora communities,
is there a point where membership of a diaspora community ceases to be something that should really be a subject for efforts?
Engagement? I mean, my obvious example here is our own Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak.
Now Rishi Sunak is of East African Indian descent.
So is it appropriate for people to be looking at Rishi Sunak and thinking, you know,
you're a member of our diaspora and therefore we should be active entering your membership of that diaspora
or should he be representing something fundamentally different as Prime Minister of Britain specifically?
I suppose my key question is, is there is this basically something that should always be fundamental in the way that we deal with people,
or is it something that should become irrelevant? It's a great question, Rob.
I think the key words in your in your question are a should and appropriate.
And then the question really becomes, well, should from whose perspective?
From whose perspective is it the is it the right thing to do?
So so one of the most interesting and controversial things about this type of politics or policy is that, well, first of all.
They've proliferated rapidly in the last few decades.
So that's sort of surprising. But theoretically, they're also in violation of some of the key norms of the international system.
But what we what we typically understand of as norms of the international system.
So, you know, people make complaints that perhaps, you know, when, say,
the Turkish prime minister goes to a European country and says something like integration is a crime against humanity,
that that is somehow Turkey interfering in the domestic affairs of those European countries.
And there are similar examples of those kinds of fears in many other countries as well.
There are also concerns about how these types of policies give voice to people who don't
have to bear the consequences of the rest of the decisions that they're involved in making.
And this is particularly a debate when it comes to external voting,
but it has wider relevance to the issue of whether government should be spending its time
and energy and resources on empowering and giving voice to people who live abroad and who,
you know, won't be around too, to live under the laws that they helped to make.
There's also the question of, you know, for throughout the whole modern period,
particularly in the West, we've seen Freedom of Exit as a defining feature of liberal democracy.
So when people leave a country,
we assumed in liberal democracies that they're kind of off limits because they might be leaving in order to vote with their feet to express dissent.
And so these are sometimes questions raised when countries like, you know,
Russia goes out and poisons dissident dissidents in London or when, you know,
Saudi Arabia doesn't like it when journalists in the US are saying bad things about Saudi Arabia
and they engage those journalists by chopping them up and dissolving them in the in the consulate.
And, you know, increasingly authoritarian regimes like China,
like Myanmar and others sort of use extraterritorial surveillance and coercion to to force people to do things abroad.
So, for example, dissidents who are living abroad, they'll say, you know, well, your family's at home.
So if you don't say or do the things we want, even though you're living in Singapore or wherever it might be Australia, we've got your family here.
So, you know, if you say the wrong thing, we'll get to them. So there are a lot of legitimate concerns about these types of policies,
how they they might represent a violation of what it means to be a modern nation state.
But but if you think back to I mean, these questions of should and appropriate.
Well, at one end of the spectrum, we might say that, you know, all group identities are really, in a sense,
political projects that are mobilised by particular people in order to increase their power,
whether that's simply protection through safety in numbers or whether it's to gain power over others.
And so therefore, you know, if you can get people to join your cause and sign up with a diaspora T-shirt waves the diaspora flags and their money,
and then, you know, more power to you, go ahead and do that.
That's all any political project ever is that that would be one sort of end of the political spectrum.
And then at the other end, you know, from another perspective would be would be saying it's a question of how
strongly are we committed to the principles of the modern international system,
and particularly the sort of liberal international world order that's been in place, particularly since World War Two.
Clearly, some of those principles exist for very good reasons, but some of them might be kind of outdated,
like the idea of one territory, one power, which has been in place since the Treaties of Westphalia, the beginning of the modern period,
you know, hundreds of years ago, don't really make a lot of sense in the age of the Internet when, you know,
a lot of geopolitical contestation is taking place, not in real space, in real territory, but in cyberspace.
So it might be the case that, you know, we're committed to some principles of the modern international system.
We need to be careful about some aspects of diaspora and.
Judgement and the extraterritorial interference that it might involve,
but that other aspects of it are really to be welcomed and that the modern international system needs some updating in
order to account for the fact that people around the world are just much more connected than they ever were before.
As a fascinating answer, Alan, thanks. So so MARTIN Let me, I suppose, to wrap up with a question for you,
which is what should the end point or end point of diaspora engagement be if such a thing is possible?
It's a loaded question to end on, Robert. It's a little. Yeah.
Look, I think out of the LA that have kind of signal points of it. Look, I think that to unpack a couple of Alan's key points.
Look, I think the entry point is critical in terms of deciding where the end game is going to be.
And I think, you know, sometimes we forget to take a little bit of a pause button and look at the world around us sometimes.
You know, I don't think we're going to a place where we're living in a world of an incredible pace of change.
And you see that not just in an industry and different non-scripted.
You see a geopolitically. You just have to look at the news of the last couple of weeks to get a handle on this.
And I think what really captured me about this episode of the podcast is,
is the word powerful in the title and sometimes where we're a bit naive to not think about the power of diasporic communities.
And I think that's what that's what's really capturing the attention of a lot of governments or connotations of power have long evolved from,
from hard power to soft power to smart power. You know, and you mentioned the word connect in the cell.
And I think towards the end of your previous answer, you know,
and Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter, when you begin to think through power in the networked age,
you know, her great line that's essentially to paraphrase is that the measure of power is connectedness in the networked age.
And when you begin to look at what the diaspora communities can bring in terms of connectedness,
there's there's probably very few other global constituencies there that that have the reach.
And that is that's because the numbers don't lie.
I mean, going back to the the mundane but important issue of definition, then immigrants and their descendants,
you know, we talk we talk I think in 1990 there was 150 million migrants in the world.
Today it is 282. You put in the word descendants on top of that growth and you're talking about a pretty powerful size of community globally.
You know, and I think what's important as well in terms of what the end game should be coming back to revisit this points is,
you know, it's really important to understand what you're trying to achieve within your diaspora engagement,
you know, the diaspora that way to engage for humanitarian level to the networks of affluence and influence that I didn't talked about.
They're fundamentally different diasporas and they need different approaches and they need different skills and techniques to engage with them.
So, I mean, look, there's been some flagship successes.
I mean, to kind of give you some, I suppose, key in the field insights that have been guiding this,
we talk a lot about diaspora capital in terms of cultural capital, economic capital, human capital and social capital primarily.
I think it's economic capital, as I mentioned, for a lot of country of origin governments.
You know, you look at projects like the U.S. aid project in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is diaspora invests,
where no getting to the stage, where we have the evidence to back up what we're talking about.
So that was, you know, the first phase of that project, for example, was a $6 million commitment by U.S. aid generate generated 28 million investment,
created 2000 jobs in about 150 minutes of challenges across the country and in the region.
So we have the evidence base now. So what it should do and where it should go.
One thing I would say, particularly for entry point, this country of country of origin government, I'm a big believer in the old adage of life.
The more that you give, the more you get, you know,
So but diaspora engagement policy should be to begin with is to give to the diaspora communities abroad.
I think a lot of governments have that blind spot.
They look at the potential return because of the big numbers, remittances, everything that attracts us.
But I think you have to look at our sense of, you know, take and adapt that we at JFK quote,
ask not what your diaspora can do for you, but what you can do for your diaspora.
Begin there. Source that balance between giving to the diaspora before expecting to get.
But then it's about being incredibly intentional about how you engaging for humanitarian purposes.
Are you engaging for economic development, philanthropic purposes, skills transfer and give you a kind of a tagline to close?
I see a diasporas of time, talent and treasure, the all the different approaches,
and that's where I think most policies probably do go tried to go, but whether they achieve impact or not is open to debate.
Well, I think that time, talent and treasure seems like a perfect place to wrap up.
So Alan, Larissa and Martin, thanks so much for taking the time to talk to me today.
It's been a fascinating conversation. So yeah, thank you very much.
Thanks, Rob. Thanks. Seriously, Martin Thanks for you've been listening to the Migration Oxford podcast.
I'm Robert Neill. And I'm Jackie Broadhead.