The growth of tourism and the economic development of the border provinces have generated an increased demand for women to provide sexual services to tourists as well as Burmese workers and Thai businessmen. In an all too familiar pattern, after economic growth comes a rise of the sex industry; and similar to other sectors, when scarcity of local labor force is experienced, migrants are imported from abroad. The difference is that migrant women are drawn into prostitution through force and abuse and are kept in it because of the illegality of status.

Stories of migrant women forced into prostitution bear a resemblance, which begins with a situation of poverty in the country of origin and the dream of a better life; the allurance of some respectable job in a developed country flashed by traffickers who appear as recruiting agents; the confiscation of documents and the threat of imprisonment and deportation because of illegal status; and the work as prostitutes as the only remaining choice. Those who reject the conclusion are forced into it through physical violence.

As well expressed by a report from Asia Watch, in Thailand "the Immigration Act is often used not to keep Burmese from entering Thailand, but to ensure compliance and obedience once they are there." Soldiers who patrol the border are instructed to turn back young and unmarried women. However, the instruction is utilized to solicit bribes and bribing is widespread on both sides of the border, involving also public tour bus drivers. Law enforcement is utilized for personal profits also in the "working" place. Brothels are illegal in Thailand, as is prostitution, but such illegality is only a source of illegal revenues for officials and a threat to control the women and their working conditions.

The Philippines constitute an interesting case to address the two questions. Throughout the Indochinese crisis the Philippines ran one of the most successful refugee program, funded by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), concerning almost 350,000 Vietnamese who were resettled in the United States under the American Orderly Departure Program, and 50,000 boat people, most of whom were resettled in third countries. To handle the situation of the remaining Vietnamese still present at the end of the CPA the government has established an agreement with the Center for Assistance to Displaced Persons, a catholic NGO that will administer the first asylum camp until a more durable solution is found. It is certainly a creative approach to avoid confrontation and to ensure a dignified transition; however, a durable solution might require the political will to provide for integration.

At the same time, a small number (146) of refugees of various nationalities recognized by the UNCHR have been present in the Philippines for quite some time, but without legal status and solely dependent on the protection provided by UNHCR. The Philippines, in fact, although a signatory to the Geneva Convention and its 1967 Protocol, has not introduced the necessary legislative and administrative procedures for the determination of the refugee status, nor met the standards provided for in the relevant international instruments. Therefore, these refugees cannot have access to a remunerated activity and integrate in the local society.

The Asian Peril

Pauline Hanson is a name hardly unknown since the newly elected representative in Queensland pronounced her maiden speech to parliament. She called for an end to Asian immigration to Australia. "I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians," she said. "They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate."

Public reaction to that speech was quick and Hanson received sharp criticism from all sides. After all, Australia is a land of immigrants and, aside from the Aborigines, everyone can trace the origin to another country. In addition, since the change in the early 1970s, Australia has invested a lot in affirming the concept of multiculturalism as the basic idea to unify its ethnic diversity. In this regard, the Australian experience has differed from the US experience, where the ethnic groups were left to "melt" without official direction. Obviously, the melting pot was never completely successful and generated the ethnic movement in the 1960s. Currently, the perspective for assimilation of the new migration waves is also discussed, because of social and economic distances with the traditional majority.

The clamor surrounding Hanson’s intervention did not consist just of criticism, but also support from some fringes of the Australian society. Expressions from groups opposed to Asian immigration were already evident on the occasion of the conference organized in Adelaide by the now defunct Bureau of Immigration, Multiculturalism, and Population Research, where they disrupted the television show recorded at the event. And ethnic slur is increasing on the street. The fear which is fomented is of an invasion of migrants from Asia, modifying the traditional fabric of Australian society. In fact, even though Asians might constitute approximately 50 percent of immigrants entering Australia, the overall number of annual intake has been severely reduced to a little over 70,000 and only 4.5 percent of the population is of Asian origin.

Racism is not a phenomenon limited to a particular nation, even though in some countries it acquired forms of exasperation. However, racism, when not the consequence of ideological intolerance, appears to have strong foundations on economic reasons for its bursting even in communities with a tolerant tradition. In this regard, migrants have been a target of racist attacks in many societies, but particularly in times of economic uncertainties. Regardless of sound facts, proving that migrants do not steal the jobs of nationals, since they take the jobs the nationals are refusing, or of still debated issues, like whether migrants constitute a social burden to the local society, they are easily turned into scapegoats for failures which have different origins. Specifically, the leaders of Australia have realized the crucial importance of relations with Asia for the economic future of that country and it would be hardly sustainable to interact with Asian nations for investment and trade, but close the door to their people.

The issue, however, is not just of ill placed fear or myopic political views. It is one of insufficient awareness of the changes in our society. Globalization is the word of the day, and it is not just confined to the liberalization of trade and investment. Even if opposed, globalization is bringing about an increased movement of people across borders, who will settle in societies in which they were not born. This will result in necessary changes in views and values of people of all nations. We are not advocating the surrender to a global culture, which would probably mean just a flat consumerist culture. We are indicating that immigration brings enrichment because of the ideas and values migrants bring to their new society. The search for the unifying elements in respect of diversity is the task of everyone. To simply oppose the other because he is different is cultural suicide.

However, APEC leaders are adamant in insisting to maintain the agenda strictly on economic terms and avoid any social issue. Specifically, the issue of international migration cannot even be mentioned. To justify such an approach, the excuse is invoked that APEC is an association of economies, not of countries. In fact, it allows the simultaneous participation of China and Taiwan, which cannot occur in any other international political gathering. Issues related to people figure in the various programs only under the heading of human resource development. For business persons and technicians a special visa is envisioned to facilitate their movement across borders. Obviously, business is what dictates the agenda, not people.

The excuse that APEC is an association of economies is so poor that it cannot explain why country leaders are the ones to meet. Also the political aspect is so evident that Taiwan can certainly participate in the discussion, but not with its political leader. Moreover, to limit attention to only human resource development, while neglecting consideration to the international flow of migrants in the region is to close the eyes to one of the components of economic growth, migrant labor, and one of the groups most directly affected by increasing economic integration in the region. In fact, it is not just business people who are in demand and travel across borders, but also migrants, filling in the needs for workers to do the dangerous, dirty and difficult jobs.

The same trend of discussing on issues related to trade and ignoring the impact of such issues for society, and for workers in particular, is espoused by the World Trade Organization. It is becoming more and more evident that governments are neglecting their overall responsibilities and becoming subservient to the trasnational corporate agenda. The undercurrent philosophy seems to be that it is important to create wealth. How wealth will benefit people is something that will take care of itself. But reality, with increasing unemployment and insecurity also in developed countries, seems to speak a different language.

Globalization has extended economic integration to the whole world, which requires concerted dialogue among nations. It is just surprising to notice how the need for such dialogue is felt for issues related to capital and goods, but not for issues related to people. Migration in particular remains an issue to be dealt with at the national level, and there is no will power to acknowledge the benefits of internationally agreed minimum standards for migrants. Actually, one suspects that this is not accidental omissis, but part of a design intending to maintain migrants poor and exploitable, because beneficial to the corporate agenda.