Labor Export as Foreign Policy: How Countries Leverage Overseas Workers Strategically
The discussion around foreign workers in Israel typically focuses on the receiving end: labor shortages, recruitment costs, agricultural worker quotas, employment conditions, expedited visas, point systems, and immigration agreements. However, the other side of the equation, the sending countries, tells a very different story. For these nations, overseas workers are not just labor but a strategic asset.
Tajikistan, for example, sends a workforce to Russia whose remittances account for an estimated 45% of its national GDP. This dependency has geopolitical implications; when Russia signed a military base agreement with Tajikistan in 2006, labor migration was a key factor. In 2025, Russia intensified crackdowns on Central Asian migrants, forcing them to choose between military conscription for Ukraine or deportation, with 19,000 migrants expelled by November under "Operation Norgil." This reveals how labor migration can be leveraged for political control.
India manages its overseas workforce, approximately 18.5 million people, half in the Persian Gulf, with a comprehensive strategy. In 2024, Indian workers abroad sent home a record $129 billion. The government enacted a law in 2025 to regulate international labor mobility, signed over 20 mobility agreements since 2014, and transformed its embassies into management hubs for this global human asset. Indian migrant workers thus represent not only financial inflows but also geopolitical influence and strategic presence.
Similarly, the Philippines has institutionalized labor migration as a national mythos, calling overseas workers "Bagong Bayani" (New Heroes) since 1988. The state agency trains, supervises, insures, and supports workers according to foreign market demands, turning labor export into a precise state mechanism.
In 2025, the U.S. imposed a 1% tax on remittances sent abroad, a seemingly small levy that structurally impacts economies like Nepal’s, where remittances are a significant GDP component. This move exemplifies how control over financial flows can become a geopolitical tool.
When Israel recruits Indian workers through government-to-government agreements, it may view the process as a simple labor deal. Yet, the sending country operates a strategic system involving legislation, international agreements, and diplomatic control over its human capital. Entering this system without understanding its rules means becoming part of a broader geopolitical game. The question remains: what happens if the sending country decides the value of its labor asset has increased?
