This phenomenon is not an ill exclusive to the Gulf. Society’s socially and economically disenfranchised populations are often the most vulnerable to inequitable legal systems. Migrant workers encompass the majority of such populations in the Gulf, but they are at even further risk for mistreatment because of their essentially invisible legal status as foreigners in marginalized occupations. Migrants struggle through arrests, trials, and convictions because of several factors unique to their position in Gulf societies. One of the most common juridical obstructions migrants face is the language barrier which can prevent their ability to understand, engage, and navigate through foreign legal systems. Migrants find it more difficult to determine appropriate behavior, including how they should address police, or how they should be treated by police, and the decisions they should make at various levels of detainment. Translators or attorneys who speak the same language are often not provided consistently, if at all, by the government. In the UAE, migrants do not receive access to a lawyer until the investigation is complete, limiting their ability to defend themselves.

Migrant-sending nations also contribute to the unfair or prolonged imprisonment of migrant workers. Embassies and political figures often fail to provide substantive support to detained workers, or to intervene into cases at all, until stories become internationalized or death sentences are issued. Many governments make little effort to compensate for the Gulf’s well-known legal inequities. This abandonment is compounded by the language barriers and restrictions on lawyer services to generate an overall isolating experience for detained migrants.  Migrants sometimes harm themselves or commit suicide to escape these conditions. 

Amar Bahadur Bam epitomizes this unfortunate pattern of injustice. Bam is a Nepali migrant on death row in Dubai for a crime he likely did not commit. He was sentenced in 2003 for conspiring in the murder of an Indian businessman. Bam states that he was driving the get-away car, but that he had no prior knowledge of the murder. The two men who committed the murder admitted that Bam was entirely unaware of their acts, but the court refused to admit their statements.

Like many migrants, Bam has endured years in prison because of a slow, blundered judicial processes. He alleges that the Dubai Police tortured him during this time, a reality many detained migrants risk when their governments ignore their imprisonment.

Advocates from around the globe are working to set Bam free by encouraging both Nepal and the UAE to revisit Bam’s case. Citizens have launched a Facebook campaign page has been started here and a Change.org petition here.

In the past, Nepal’s government has responded to public outcry. However, the Nepalese government should take proactive rather than reactive measures to ensure the fair and just treatment of detained migrants abroad, as their action can sometimes come too late. Migrants should not have to risk innocent imprisonment or endure the excruciating uncertainty that is bred by last-minute intervention.  

Since 2009, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, have each announced intentions to replace the employer-centric kafala system with variable schemes regulated by government bodies. While government regulation does exist at some level in the sponsorship system, these new bodies would be empowered with much more oversight capabilities in order to ensure the rights of both employers and migrants. However, little progress has been made in transforming these intentions into reality; instead, promises of reform remain largely in the treaties, conventions, and informal negotiations created to quell diplomatic relations with migrant-sending countries at a particular moment time. As with other facets of migrant labor reform, these commitments spend years in legislative limbo and are rarely fully implemented or enforced.

In 2009, Bahrain’s widely publicized “abolishment” of the system quickly proved a gesture in name only; small, technical features of the system were altered while leaving sponsorship’s legacy in tact: Sponsors became agencies rather than individual employers, while Migrants still maintain minimal occupation mobility because their legal residency remains dependent upon individual employer contracts. These cosmetic reforms were presented as an overhaul of a system that essentially still exists today.

Following Bahrain’s example, Qatar and Kuwait indicated intentions to abolish the sponsorship system as well. Both countries capitalized on the good press that followed these announcements, but neither implemented visible measures to secure permanent reform.

Recently, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon also announced schemes to replace the sponsorship system with more labor-friendly mechanisms. Neither offered a particularly concrete scope or timeline of their proposals, and both conditioned reform on approval from specific government bodies. Neither nation has historically fulfilled major commitments to migrant reform, which dampens hopes that these new programs will entail substantive change.

The functional difficulty in legislating such large-scale reform can only partly explain failures to replace the system. The absence of an authentic commitment to reform – and an ulterior motive behind reform – provides a more complete explanation; The negative attention cast on the Gulf over recent years has affected their relationship with migrant-sending nations, including their supply of preferred migrant workers. The Philippines, Indonesia, and Nepal have all implemented bans to various countries in the region. The effects of sponsorship are almost always directly or indirectly inculpated in the labor and rights abuses that these nations and NGOs cite. The image formed by the sponsorship system is consequently the primary concern of these nations – not the sponsorship system itself, nor the exploitation of migrant workers. Staes do not necessarily need to maintain safe and fair images to attract migrants, who are often willing to endure horrific conditions in order to provide remittances to their families, but rather to quell sending-countries that threaten to impede migrant supply. Image is also critical for tourism (and other international financial relationships), which rights-organizations particularly influence. 

Qatar is the latest country to consider abolishment, three years after initial plans to replace the system. But recent statements by the undersecretary of the Ministry of Labor demonstrate that the government’s primary interest lies in reforming its reputation rather than in establishing equitable labor rights. In an interview with Gulf Times, he explains that the mere word  “sponsor” invokes criticism of international organization:

“Consequently, we should eradicate this term and substitute it with a contract between the two parties guaranteed by the Ministry of Labour. They (international organizations) say  the word sponsor conveys a picture of enslaving the worker more than anything else,” he said. 

The term “sponsor” is troubling because it indicates the bond by which migrants are forcefully tied and subjugated to their employers. But substitution of the term “employer contract” for “sponsorship” implies that actual change to the current dynamic is not Qatar’s central goal. The minister’s explanation of these “reforms” is even more revealing: Under the proposed plan, migrants must still return home after resigning from a job in order to obtain a more preferable job, until the new employer creates a new contract.  That is, their legal residency and means of income is still dependent on the employer, and their occupational mobility remains constrained by conditions external to their qualifications and desires. While concern for public image is not exclusive of real reform, such strong emphasis on terminology coupled with Qatar’s previous broken promises indicate that nation is set to follow Bahrain’s hollow example.

In previous articles, we’ve expressed cautious hope that these efforts to abolish the sponsorship system would eventually, albeit slowly, manifest into tangible, positive, change for migrants. But if the system’s recently accumulated infamy is the main (or even only) motivation behind these efforts, how can genuine reform be achieved? While the apparent receptiveness of Gulf States to the opinions of NGOs and migrant-sending nations is a positive sign, it’s unfortunate they choose to dedicate time and resources to crafting an illusionary public image rather than to establishing an authentic framework to protect the rights of migrant workers.

Five days into May, a disturbing number of reports from Kuwait have already tallied up. A single article reports three separate instances of suicide or attempted suicide; an Ethiopian maid slit her throat in her sponsor’s home and later died in the hospital. A Filipina maid attempted to commit suicide by overdosing on pain killers, once again in her sponsor’s home. An Indian man also attempted suicide by jumping from the second floor of his apartment building.

Physical abuse, psychological degradation, and social marginalization represent the ‘triggers’ behind most migrant suicide cases. One inspiring story from Kuwait did stand out among the rest: A Kuwait family organized an elaborate celebration for their recently wed domestic workers. Such rare instances are unfortunately outshined by the regular experiences of migrant workers.

The Filipino Department of Foreign Affairs has stated they will “will let the parties resolve the issue through legal means.” However, the charges represent much more than the indecencies of a single employer against a domestic worker.

Alkhaja’s (alleged) attempts to take advantage of his domestic workers reflect the predatory relationship that currently exists between migrant-sending and receiving nations. Though the UAE, and the rest of the Gulf nations, recently accepted a Filipino proposal to secure protections for domestic workers, they have historically fought to exclude domestic workers from labor negotiations and regulations. The estrangement of domestic workers from society’s regular rules allows employers to exploit their services with little scrutiny or punishment. If the Filipino government fails to intervene in a such a public, high-profile case in their own country, there can be little hope for domestic worker reform abroad.

The situation also illustrates the Gulf government’s direct participation in the exploitation of domestic workers. Our previous article inculpated Middle Eastern governments and political figures in particular cases of migrant abuse and in perpetuating the wider dehumanization of foreign workers. Real change in the condition of migrant workers is impossible to achieve when the region’s leaders outwardly contradict their ‘commitments’ to reform.

However, the desire to work abroad does not ameliorate the conditions faced by foreign workers. Though migrants technically choose the nation of their employment, they do not choose the precarious working and substandard living conditions they typically face. In fact, migrants often have little say in the content of their employment contracts because of misrepresentation by both recruitment agencies and employers. Furthermore, once migrants become enveloped in the kafala (sponsorship) system, they are coerced into additional unfair arrangements, including lower-than-contracted wages, dangerously long working hours, negligible health care, and other by-products of the minimally regulated foreign employment structure.

The lure of Gulf economies in itself perpetuates exploitative conditions; because these states realize that that their demand can always be filled by migrants desperate for work, they can afford to ban entire nations of migrants if governments request “too much” reform. Saudi Arabia’s ban on Indonesian and Filipino maids last year demonstrates the reality of this relationship.

But migrants’ desire to work in Saudi Arabia illustrates another aspect of this dynamic; both parties benefit from the flow of labor. Much of the Gulf’s recent innovations in the past two decades would have been impossible without the labor of foreign workers. In turn, migrant-sending governments rely on remittances to satisfy the economic needs of their populations. Substantive bilateral and multilateral cooperation is thus essential to balancing the profits and responsibility in this critical relationship.

The Filipino government particularly emphasized the need for a more swift, efficient repatriation process for female migrant workers, who can risk abuse if they attempt to return home without the approval of their sponsors. However, the process must be addressed by both governments. A report on the 17,000 Filipino domestic workers currently stranded in Syria reflect the defects in both nations’ policies.

The framework faced the usual obstacles imposed by migrant-receiving nations. The Philippine’s Labor Secretary noted that most Gulf countries pushed to exclude domestic workers from the agenda in order to maintain the regulatory void that currently exists. However, the Dialogue still represents an important venue to share perspectives, and provides an important opportunity for multilateral negotiations that has the potential to benefit migrant laborers across the board.

The effects of Indonesia’s ratification may reverberate throughout the region; Gulf nations are encouraged to take preliminary steps to comply with the convention for all migrants, rather than to create a separate set of laws to employ Indonesian workers. Unfortunately, bilateral negotiations sometimes produce irregular rights that only benefit one particular nationality. For example, “minimum” wages for migrant workers varies in Saudi Arabia depending on the specific deals negotiated by each country. The minimum wage for Sri Lankans is $200/month while Filipinos make at least $400/month. Recently, domestic workers were guaranteed $160 to $213/month, but uniform conditions of employment still do not exist for foreign workers.

But because other migrant-sending nations have announced intentions to ratify several new requirements for migrant labor, Gulf nations can use this opportunity to avoid the disruption in migrant service often caused during negotiations by unilaterally enforcing the Convention. Most migrant-receiving nations have either not signed or not ratified the Convention, but the increasing demands for labor justice from migrant-sending nations inevitably pushes them towards compliance.

Fear-mongering is apparent in several recent reports on the “AIDS maid” in Saudi Arabia. A employer sent a mass picture message of his recently absconded maid, ‘warning’ his fellow citizens not to employ her because she reportedly contracted AIDS. The text incited enough unrest to garner a response from local authorities, who announced an investigation into the claims. Days later, a Saudi woman accused the maid, who she had employed two years ago, of spreading the virus to her family members. The articles fail to note that AIDS can only be transmitted via body fluids (such as blood or semen), and consequently contributes to the alarmist tone of the content. As of yet, the woman’s whereabouts are unknown; given the very public nature of this witch hunt, she is likely alone and afraid.

In another article, domestic workers in Saudi are reproached for their “abusive tendencies towards children”. The usual warnings are doled out to parents to scrutinize their maid’s behavior and to clench already commanding control of their day-to-day existence. The evidence provided is, as usual, anecdotal, and punctuated with generalities. The articles fail to promote dialogue between employer and employee, instead imploring ‘responsible parents’ to baselessly suspect their domestic staff (in some cases, to spy on them), promoting tense working environments that help no one.

These stories plainly cultivate a culture of suspicion that seriously impact the well-being of migrant workers. The maid is the default suspect no matter the crime. In a recent incident, a maid was accused of theft only for authorities to determine the employer’s daughter was in fact responsible. We can’t know how many falsely accused maids weren’t luck enough to have been recused and lost their jobs as a result, or worse.

The conception of migrants as threats to society – rather than the backbone of public works and modern comforts – bears severe consequences; inflated, negative sentiments towards migrant workers justifies abuse and exploitation because societies’ enemies can be treated harshly without remorse. Misguided fears and resentment also discourage citizens from advocating on behalf of migrant rights in both social and legal contexts.

This site aims to provide a counter-narrative to these stories by amplifying the voices of workers. So we’ll continue to feature these articles, highlight their irrationalities, and underscore their serious ramifications.

The predicament faced by the IOM is not a reflection of the organization’s own mismanagement, but of wider global failures to respond to migrants caught in the turmoil of the Arab Spring. Last week, an official report finally acknowledged the avoidable, unnecessary deaths of 63 migrants escaping from Libya in 2011. NATO and European Coastguards could have rescued the refugees, who starved to death after their boat set adrift, but simply did not. While the report cites some errors in miscommunication and operating procedures, it clearly determines that maritime officers failed to respond to the boat’s distress calls.

Cases of international negligence have been documented periodically throughout the revolutions – the images of migrants crowded nto buses and stranded in airports may be the most memorable. Yet, almost a full year later, the same issues remain: whether through deliberate negligence, or underfunding, the global community has still failed to sufficiently respond to the displacement crises.

There are instances where international rescues are unfeasible because of immediate dangers to rescue agencies. Sometimes risk assessments are miscalculated, and only later is the potential to provide aid to displaced migrants realized. But in the case of Yemen, there is no rational reason for migrants’ sustained suffering – besides the void in resources that donor countries have failed to relieve. This virtual desertion perpetuates the deterioration of migrants trapped in conflict; migrants desperate to return home quickly recognize the solitude of their suffering, and proceed to take desperate measures, such as piling into overweight boats. The escalation of situations otherwise easily remediable results in the gross loss of life and creates a number of issues for international agencies down the line – such as the image and internal reorganization complications now faced by Europe’s maritime forces.

An excellent piece published by The Brookings Institution addresses migrant displacement in a wider piece on the Arab Spring’s refugees. Senior Foreign Policy fellow Khalid Koser analyzes the actions of the global community and the prospectives of future responses to migrant displacement:

The lessons to be learned about migration and displacement learned from the Arab Spring over the last twelve months have clear implications for the coming year. Syria is characterized by a protracted and violent conflict, no political will to protect civilians, with weak civil institutions, and the presence of a very large migrant population, and significant displacement may be expected as a result. While this migrant population is largely comprised of refugees rather than migrant workers, the extent to which they will become further displaced by the conflict in Syria, and how they will be assisted and protected, is an important challenge for UNHCR and the international community. And it is clear that the EU will resist large-scale asylum flows, meaning that the burden of the displacement from Syria will continue to fall upon neighboring Turkey in particular.

Read the full piece here.