Introduction
Are philosophy and ethics powerless?
I felt that the UNHCR’s principle of non-refoulement, compared to 1951, has become an empty formality as something “beyond dispute” in today’s world where population has increased and society has become more complex.
I am not a politician. However, I can think about speeches. I wondered if I could support those who actually solve problems.
This is because I believe that if there is a possibility to contribute as a citizen, it is the responsibility of those with intelligence to put it into words.
Fictional Speech Manuscript
This fictional speech was written with the hope of contributing to international society by sharing issues through this speech manuscript.
Creating a World Where No One Needs to Flee”: A New Solution to International Migration Issues
Hello everyone. Today, I’d like to talk about one of the most complex issues facing our world—international migration—from a completely new perspective.
Reexamining the Essence of the Problem
We typically discuss this issue from the viewpoint that “we must help refugees” or “we should accept immigrants.” Of course, that’s correct. Both you and I believe that the human rights of all people are important. But there’s a major blind spot here.
Think about it for a moment. Why do people flee their own countries? Whether you’ve experienced being a refugee or are from a receiving country, try to visualize the global picture beyond your perspective.
War, political oppression, extreme poverty, natural disasters, collapse of social infrastructure… These are all evidence that a country’s government and society have fallen into dysfunction. In other words, at the root of migration issues lies “state abandonment of responsibility.” Of course, I understand there are difficult problems that cannot be solved at the national level, such as global environmental issues.
I also understand that we cannot simply criticize sending countries one-sidedly, as they may still be recovering from the damage of colonial policies and slave trade since the Age of Exploration.
Facing Reality
Let’s look at Sweden as an example. It was once one of the world’s most tolerant countries regarding immigration policies, but now it’s shifting to the right. Why? Because even Sweden, which has tried hardest to uphold ideals, cannot endure indefinitely. In other words, receiving countries alone have been bearing the responsibility and have reached their limits.
The Kurdish people in Kawaguchi City, Japan face a similar situation. Turkey claims “there is no persecution,” and Japan’s immigration authorities say “there is no basis to recognize them as refugees.” However, the people there, especially children born in Japan, have no health insurance and may become stateless. Japan follows jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood), not jus soli (citizenship by birthplace). This is a concrete example of how rules differ by country. Ultimately, it becomes the responsibility of a single municipality, Kawaguchi City, to support them.
One day, when a Kurdish person goes to the hospital, they might receive a bill for 500,000 yen because they have no insurance. Humanely, hospitals cannot refuse to treat suffering Kurdish people. This results in unpaid bills. Can municipalities and hospitals continue to bear such burdens? Social integration, like in Singapore, requires many considerations including language education and housing issues. This is where Sweden also struggled, resulting in some youths turning to gangs.
This is reality.
500,000 yen per month, 6 million yen per year, 180 million yen over 30 years. This is what I’ve estimated as the “human rights cost” per person. Not everyone goes to the hospital frequently, but education and welfare are necessary.
The Proposal for a “World Human Rights Responsibility Principle”
So I propose a new framework called the “World Human Rights Responsibility Principle.”
The fundamental premise is that the human rights of both immigrants and the people of receiving countries are equally important. For example, an immigrant baby, a child from a poor family in Japan, a second-generation immigrant driven to suicide in a developed country—all lives have the same value.
Based on this, the following reforms are necessary:
First, clarify “human rights costs” and establish a “no-statute-of-limitations claim system” that can bill sending countries. Using a standard of 6 million yen annually per immigrant, totaling 180 million yen over 30 years. I believe that countries that produced emigrants should bear the cost of failing to protect their citizens’ human rights. What do you think? Securing financial resources makes social integration more likely to succeed.
Second, manage these funds as an “Immigrant Support Fund.” Provide up to 100 million yen in self-reliance support for each immigrant, and use the remainder as social security resources for the receiving country.
This would be paid as a right to education and vocational training to prevent immigrants from being exploited by fraudsters or malicious organizations, and cannot be converted to cash. This creates an incentive to learn and develop skills.
Third, redefine the roles of the UN and UNHCR. They should not only “protect those who flee” but devote themselves fully to “creating societies where no one needs to flee.” Rather than responding after the cup overflows, shouldn’t we first turn off the faucet causing the problem? Rather than suppressing the movement of migrants and refugees, a world where people can safely participate in international competition regardless of which country they were born in should align better with the noble principles of the UN and UNHCR.
Therefore, investigating the root causes of migration outflows, holding sending countries accountable, and raising funds on a global scale—these are their proper roles.
Specifically, if organizations conducting social enterprises are empowered to operate more easily, they will raise funds. Collaboration with people in the private sector who can produce results is important. Of course, partnership with NGOs and NPOs is also essential. We share the common goal of protecting peace and human rights.
Balancing “Ideals” and “Reality”
You might think, “But isn’t it cold to quantify human life and rights in monetary terms?”
No, it’s the opposite. Human rights should be respected unconditionally, but concrete resources are needed to realize this. For example, if I collapse and need emergency transport, what should be done if there’s no budget for emergency medical services?
Therefore, when advocating for human rights ideals, don’t we need to consider the fiscal and political responsibilities that support them? Isn’t this one reason why countries struggle with international migration issues? We don’t discriminate. We want to protect human rights.
However, in Japan, suicide is the leading cause of death among teenagers, accounting for half of all deaths among those 15 and older. For instance, in 2022, approximately 800 people aged 10 to 19 took their own lives.
This is the reality that there are people we couldn’t help despite addressing various problems in Japan. Furthermore, Japan’s population is projected to fall below 90 million by 2070, with a high proportion of elderly people. Every country must have various internal problems.
Therefore, realizing infinite ideals without a budget makes mutual respect impossible. That’s why sharing responsibility is essential to protect everyone’s human rights within limited resources.
Toward a New International Order
“If you impose ideals, take responsibility”
“Mobilize funds globally for human rights in earnest”
“Protect people from irresponsible states”
These are the principles of action I propose. Migration issues cannot be solved merely by “protecting those who flee.” The true solution is “creating a world where no one needs to flee.”
For this, sending countries, receiving countries, and international organizations must bear clear responsibilities and share human rights costs fairly in a new international order.
- The practical difficulties of UN reform
(The veto power problem of permanent members, conflicts of interest among member states, etc.) - The issue of migrant autonomy
(They are not merely objects of protection but subjects who create a new society) - Detailed transparency measures for operating the Immigrant Support Fund
(“Who will manage it?” “How independent will it be?”) → This is at the proposal stage and is open to discussion
If we spent 10 years perfecting this speech, people whose human rights are not protected would suffer for 10 years. Even at the idea level, if the UN hypothetically becomes dysfunctional in terms of protecting stateless babies or people who cannot go to hospitals because they lack health insurance, that would be the UN’s responsibility. What can we, migrants, refugees, and countries worldwide do besides worry?
We need to redefine refugee and migration issues. This is not simply a humanitarian issue but a matter of international order and responsibility sharing. Let’s create a future where everyone around the world can live with hope in the country where they were born.
Thank you for your attention.