The International Organization for Migration: Establishment in 1951 and Early Cooperation

The institutional starting point of the International Organization for Migration was the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe, or PICMME, established in 1951. Initially concerned with postwar European migration, it focused on arranging international movement for people with opportunities for admission elsewhere but lacking transport and financial support. The name International Organization for Migration belongs to a later institutional stage and was not already in use at the 1951 conference.

The International Refugee Organization was then preparing to wind down its main operations, while large numbers of refugees and prospective emigrants remained in Germany, Austria, Italy and elsewhere. The U.S. government viewed overseas migration as a way to reduce employment pressure in Europe and connect European labor with receiving-country demand. “Surplus population” was contemporary economic and political terminology, not a reason to reduce these people's lives and rights to transportation figures.

References: [1] [5]

At the United States' suggestion, Belgium convened a migration conference in Brussels from 26 November to 5 December 1951, with 27 countries participating, some as observers. U.S. representative George Warren proposed a provisional committee. On 5 December, the founding resolution passed by sixteen votes to none with one abstention. Supporters included Italy, West Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada and the United States; the United Kingdom abstained.

Adoption of a resolution was not the same as completion of national membership and funding procedures. Some supportive countries still had domestic processes to complete. The committee also had Cold War political boundaries: the U.S. proposal restricted participation to non-communist governments, while U.S. funding conditions excluded international bodies involving communist states. It was therefore a cooperative arrangement among particular countries, not a universal institution jointly established by all countries of the world.

References: [1]

The initial U.S. plan proposed taking over twelve ships becoming available as the International Refugee Organization withdrew, moving about 115,000 people in one year at an estimated total cost of roughly $34 million, with $10 million proposed from the United States. These were conference proposals and budget scales, not completed movements or funds already received in full. Governments also stressed minimizing administrative costs so that as many resources as possible supported actual migration.

Funding was divided between administration and an operational fund. Members would bear the former in agreed proportions, while the operational fund accepted voluntary contributions. Italian and British representatives questioned the need for dedicated ships, arguing that commercial shipping might suffice. Discussion favored using commercial transport when berths, ports, routes, health and safety, and prices were suitable, while retaining supplementary capacity to avoid unnecessarily displacing existing markets with public funds.

References: [1]

On 6–8 December, participants held the first organizational meeting under Belgian representative Franz Leemans, addressing procedures, administrative assessments and staffing. The director's position remained unfilled at that meeting. By autumn 1952, Hugh Gibson was director, and the committee met in Geneva, with national representatives considering reports after a finance subcommittee examined budget matters. Political decisions and daily execution operated at different levels.

Coordination among institutions also required individual negotiations. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees sought special status allowing participation in discussion without a vote; the U.S. representative feared other international bodies would request the same. Trade-union observers criticized the absence of direct organized-labor participation. Early cooperation thus concerned not only moving people but also who could speak and represent migrants' and refugees' interests.

References: [1] [2]

Practical work in 1952 had already produced identifiable results. That year's UNHCR supplementary report recorded committee assistance to 9,807 refugees within the High Commissioner's mandate leaving Austria between 1 February and 31 July, including 9,215 traveling to the United States. The corresponding number leaving Italy was 1,044. These figures covered particular origins and refugee categories, not the committee's entire operations.

Despite disputes over status, the transport and protection bodies could cooperate. They jointly established representation in Hong Kong to continue care and resettlement work inherited from the International Refugee Organization. The committee's 1953 annual report also stated that some family-reunification programmes to Brazil and Venezuela had begun in 1952, followed by an Argentine programme. Government cooperation and travel subsidies helped relatives join people who had gone ahead for employment.

References: [3] [4]

Continuation of the trial was contested. At the October 1952 meeting, Australia, Brazil, France, West Germany and Italy wanted a broader, more stable mandate. The United States supported only a further year initially and opposed the committee directly operating or financing land-settlement projects. The eventual compromise continued operations in 1953 while permitting study of services and financing directly related to migration.

A resolution of 17 October 1952 adopted the name Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration, or ICEM. Its constitution was adopted on 19 October 1953 but did not enter into force until 30 November 1954. Amendments adopted in 1987 and effective on 14 November 1989 produced the International Organization for Migration name and broader scope. The key event of 1951 was therefore establishment of a provisional cooperative mechanism, gradually connecting ships, funds, admission opportunities and administrative services before developing a more stable organization.

References: [2] [4] [5]