The point I was making is that the paragraph in question was taken totally out of context – in the rest of the report remmittances are considered, the reasons for migration are considered etc etc, the whole issue is presented as highly complex. Also restrictions on migration are rejected out of hand and a range of measures, including reparations from rich to developing countries (and explicitly not a tax on migrant labour), measures to increase the useful contribution of remittances, measures to increase international research networks, to share (on non-commercial terms) teaching materials and access to research facilities, to promote exchanges etc etc are all also suggested as areas for debate. In fact all the suggestions are not policy reccomendations but suggestions for debate. Conveniently the person that was quoted in the Guardian chose not to mention these things, leading in my opinion to a gross misrepresentation of the actuality, the tone and the argument of the whole report.

The point about protocols is not raised in the report as protectionism other than expansive protectionism of everyone, and trade unions standing in solidarity. Other suggestions include supporting the upholding of core labour standards, of mutual trade union recognition agreements, and supporting developing country trade unions through sharing membership fees etc. All this comes from a secondary review (i was never asked or given the resources to conduct primary research – the whole thing was ten days work) of literature produced mainly by African academics writing on the issue – look at the websites in SA and Zimbabwe in particular.

It is also explicitly stated that the numbers of foriegn nationals woirking in UK HE are insignificant in terms of the UK labour market – and that UK HE needs these workers, because of skills gaps in HE and an ageing workforce. The whole thrust of the report is that the UK benefits enormously from skilled (and indeed other migration). Protocols are suggested for debate as a means of leverage to try to enhance the benefits that could accrue to developing countries from the ‘brain drain’. I now recognise that this paragraph can be taken out of context and substantially misinterpreted – this is what the Guardian column does, and this is what I object to. As such that paragraph has been redrafted to ensure full clarity and that it cannot be taken out of context and misrepresented. However, the basic point is that the report was never about “a racist, discriminatory policy” against skilled black Africans”" as you say. It was about international solidarity and reflecting the concerns raised by African trade unions through Education International.

As I say, I have no intention of carrying on this debate as it seems clear that there is no way of making somebody believe the intentions behind the report and the material in it, if this is not what they want/choose to hear. However, (not that I suppose it matters) I would though point out that I find it absolutely objectionable/offensive/hurtful to be misrepresented in this way when such views are completely opposite to my own. I also think that it is highly dangerous to jump on anything that mentions migration and label it as right wing and racist – this risks vacating all that ground to the right – something that posts higher up in this thread seem not to want.

Finally, I think we are on the same side(!), and it is an enormous shame that unity in opposition to the racists who comment regularly on migration issues is fractured in this way.

“AFrican lecturers are quite rightly accusing the government and the trade unions of “using their benign concern about the brain drain as a cover for “a racist, discriminatory policy” against skilled black Africans”.

With regard to remittances why is it that people always assume that they consist simply of monies sent to individuals or families. Much of the remittances monies are actually used for start up busineses, such as factories, farms, shops, professional services, services and so on thus creating jobs and having a positive affect on the local economy. I personally know of many such businesses in Nigeria alone. Another example is the Moroccan town of Beni Mellal in the central Middle Atlas which I visited just two months ago. The town is prosperous and booming all due to the remittances sent home by its citizens mainly in Italy but a few in Spain over the past 15 years.

Finally, the report is clear that the UK (read wider developed world) benefits massively from skilled migration from developing countries, and that developed economies are seeking to gain further by designing differentiated immigration policies to attract the skilled (and this is associated with neo-colonialism) while rejecting others – who in fact might have a greater NEED to migrate. This criticism is though muted as the aim of the document was to inform lobbying with govt, who would not necessarilly listen to a rant against existing policy. The point is though that it was in no way part of the sort of immigration agenda that those who have criticised the work have tried to claim it is. In fact, the report also makes clear that the UK HE system needs immigration to fill skills gaps and that existing levels of immigration from the least developed countries are insignificant in terms of teh scale of the UK labour force, though not necessarilly in terms of developing country labour forces.

Not sure why I bothether to contribute to this list but I did think it worth putting the record straight.

“The Natfhe report calls for a new restrictive protocol on the recruitment of academics. It says: “Protocols should include minimum acceptable standards and ensure that collective bargaining and the relative position of academic labour in the UK is not disadvantaged by international recruitment.”

AFrican lecturers are quite rightly accusing the government and the trade unions of

“using their benign concern about the brain drain as a cover for “a racist, discriminatory policy” against skilled black Africans”.