I‘ve had several requests recently to re-publish the two articles on this ‘Pact’ which I wrote and published in November 2018. They were pruned during the weeks last autumn when we briefly closed and restructured this site. Here they are again, both now with ‘live links’ which you can hand around. Given the ongoing invasion of our country, these two articles demonstrate why our governments, why the three PMs we had during those years, look so supine and incapable of addressing this issue.
I’ve not edited this text except for inserting the year where relevant. So please do keep the date of writing and publication in mind when reading: 2018 was a very long time ago!
~~~ *** ~~~
This ‘Pact’ is a complicated disgrace: the way it has been formulated, the way it has been reported (not!), the way it has been debated in our Parliament (not!) and the way it will influence our lives. To make the most important point first, the outcry used everywhere by those who love this Pact: it is not legally binding anyway, so why not sign it – whereupon the opponents keep saying: if it’s not legally binding, why sign it? Obfuscation by TPTB reigns supreme …
INTRODUCTION
Have you heard of the “Marrakesh Pact”? If you are a regular consumer of our wonderful British MSM, you might think this is about a hot holiday destination for the next summer, hotels offering a package deal.
If you regularly scan the “alt” news sites, you may have heard that this is a UN proposal, to be signed next month by all UN members, to ‘regulate’ Migration, but will have wondered why we have heard nothing about it either from our government or in our MSM. This isn’t strange because as usual, since the online national papers from across the Channel – from Le Monde to the ‘Neue Züricher Zeitung’ – only reported in October 2018 that Austria would not sign our MSM followed suite.
So – what is it about? And why are some countries not signing up to it? Of course, the actual text was not precisely disseminated – one had to dig for it. Here is the text of the final draft:
GLOBAL COMPACT FOR SAFE, ORDERLY AND REGULAR MIGRATION
Why, you might ask when you see that title, is such a ‘Compact’ a bad thing? Surely we’re all good people and want to help? Surely it’s high time to deal with migration? And refugees? Well, yes – and you might also ask why our MSM didn’t see fit to report on this, given that our Government is poised to sign it next month in Marrakesh. These are valid questions, especially since one of the top Nations to undersign this pact is Germany which was deeply involved in negotiating it.
In contrast to here in the UK, over there the debate has been kicked off with a vengeance since Austria’s chancellor Mr Kurz (Ed: now gone) declared his country would not sign. Suddenly people learned that the USA and Australia had withdrawn already … and that was in July this year (2018)! Summer holidays, heatwave: people surely had other things on their minds, thought our Establishment, so why waste air time and pixels. Better not to stir things up, especially as people might ask inconvenient questions, such as how did this Compact come about? Were there negotiations, and why was that not reported?
There are three aspects to the story of the disgrace that is this Compact. One is the history of it, of how it came about, which I’ll look at in Part I. The other two aspects are the way the governments involved and their handmaidens, the MSM, have kept us informed, and the actual text itself. I’ll address those points in Part II.
A BRIEF LOOK BACK AT THE CREATION OF THE GLOBAL COMPACT
First, take a look at the IOM – the International Organization for Migration. Here is their ‘mission statement’, and here you’ll find a bit on its history. Like many organisations founded on noble ideas, it evolved and became the unashamed promoter of migration from poor countries to the rich it is today. From the map provided in the wiki page it looks as if only Antarctica is not a member.
On the basis of the work of the IOM and under its auspices, other countries organised themselves, mostly as NGOs, and received financial help from humanitarian billionaires. It is fair to say that the IOM has encouraged economic migration for some time. In the wake of 2015 (we all remember what happened …), the UN General Assembly decided to take action:
“In September 2016 the General Assembly decided, through the adoption of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, to develop a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.The process to develop this global compact started in April 2017. The pages in this section detail 18 months of consultation and negotiation, and provide the relevant documentation for each of the events. On 13 July 2018 UN Member States finalized the text for the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (Text available in all official languages). The Intergovernmental Conference to Adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration will be held on 10 – 11 December in Marrakech, Morocco.” (Source).
Other agencies also got involved, e.g. the UN’s Refugee agency UNHCR stepped up to the plate, as did a group calling itself “Rabat Process – European-African Dialogue on Migration and Development”. The UNHCR submitted their final draft (read it here) on the “Global Compact” on June 26th 2018. The “Rabat Process” came on the 2nd of May 2018 – you can read their proposals, and the list of participants here.
When the final draft of this ‘Global Compact’ was on the table in July of that year, President Trump withdrew the USA’s participation. So did Australia. This is the list so far of countries who will not sign this Global Compact, a.k.a Marrakesh Treaty:
United States, China, Japan, Canada, Australia, Austria, Poland, Italy, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Greece, Croatia, Denmark, Norway, Slovenia, Israel and South Korea. Bulgaria is the latest state to announce its withdrawal. Other countries may well join this list. Estonia is debating it and so are the Swiss. Both countries’ parliamentarians believe this decision should be made in their Parliaments and not done behind closed doors by their governments.
However, Brussels is all for it. France will sign, opposition notwithstanding. And so will Germany. However, because of Austria’s withdrawal, publicly announced by Chancellor Mr Kurz, the German MSM had to report on this Pact – and were suddenly overwhelmed with comments from irate readers as to why they hadn’t reported on this sooner. Then the AfD insisted on a debate in the Bundestag, which followed the usual spectacle of the rest of the German Parliamentarians ganging up on them and declaring that all opposition to this fine treaty was pure neonazism. It didn’t help – the floodgates opened and the text was handed around …
THE NON-REPORTING OF A UN COMPACT WHICH OUR GOVERNMENT WILL SIGN
While everything was and still is quiet on the GCM (Global Compact for Migration) front in our country this didn’t mean people were totally unaware. There were a goodly number of people sending out links to sites where the problem was reported on. But we all know how it is: if it’s not on the BBC, it’s not happening and didn’t happen. Of course, to be fair, our massed commentariat in the MSM and our politicians of all rosette colours do have something which has been occupying their minds: Brexit. One cannot, after all, expect them to multi-task and look at what’s happening outside Brussels and our country, can one! And anyway, only nasty racists on their horrible alt-news sites were chattering about it: just disregard it.
The same happened in Germany until the Austria-Bomb burst. Suddenly there were reports and people delved into the actual text of that GCM, finding one horror after the other. Even the readers of the predominantly green-left papers were horrified, especially when they heard one of their top Green politicians demand that the points of the still-to-sign GCM must be instituted in Germany immediately.
A German Green politician [Ed: Boris Palmer, Mayor of Tübingen, re-elected in 2022 as independent, having been thrown out of the German Green party] stated publicly that he hadn’t seen the thing before now and thought it was all something stirred up by the AfD, but now, upon reading it, had to concede that the points raised by them demanded debate in Parliament at the very least.
And then another paper found something rather nasty. (If you have a good machine translator, it’s worth taking a look here). This is not a right-wing, conservative paper and the readers are firmly on the green-red spectrum, but this was too much even for them. A reporter for the paper investigated and asked the German Foreign Office for information, especially on the involvement in and compromises made by the German Government. The German FO refused point-blank, “because: confidentiality!”. This is common but bad practice because the journalists thus become part of the political business.
So – what did the UN delegates negotiate, what was their final draft which made so many countries withdraw or debate a withdrawal?
Continued in Part II which we republish today as well, here.
