[Ed: Please refer to the editorial remarks preceding Part I which was republished earlier today here]

 

INTO THE BELLY OF THE GCM

The whole GCM (Global Compact for Migration) is 34 pages long. So let’s start at the beginning, with a quick look at the Preamble. In Point 2 we read with amazement that a whole host of worthy UN declarations – from ‘Universal Human Rights’ to ‘Climate Change’ – influenced the creation of this document. The Points following are mainly self-congratulatory, until we come to the last point, Point 7:

“This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.” (link)

And there we have the first main contention I mentioned in Part 1: this GCM is not legally binding and ‘upholds the sovereignty of states and their obligations under international law.’ So – why sign such framework in the first place? Are the existing UN declarations not sufficient? If not, why not? Because, as Judith Bergman points out in her analysis (see here):

“[…] this agreement is not about refugees fleeing persecution, or their rights to protection under international law. Instead, the agreement propagates the radical idea that migration — for any reason — is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected. […] The UN has no interest in admitting that the agreement promotes migration as a human right; until recently there has been little debate about it. More debate might risk jeopardizing the entire project. The wording of the agreement […] leaves little doubt, however, that with the signing of the agreement, migration will indeed become a human right.” (link)

Therefore, signing up to the GCM means our government signs up to yet another ‘Human Right’ which our human-right-lawyers will be delighted to enforce. The sovereignty of our state is consequently neither here nor there.

Let’s move on to Points 8 to 15 in which the drafters describe their ’Vision and Guiding Principles’. Once you’ve got over the well-meaning words and look at single points you’ll find that the cat – to make migration a human right protected by the UN – has indeed been let out of the bag, e.g. in Points 11 and 12. In Point 13 there are these gems to be found:

“[…] we must cooperate to respond to the needs of migrants in situations of vulnerability, and address the respective challenges. […] We must save lives and keep migrants out of harm’s way. We must empower migrants to become full members of our societies, highlight their positive contributions, and promote inclusion and social cohesion. […] To achieve this, we commit to facilitate and ensure safe, orderly and regular migration for the benefit of all.” (link)

IAW – to ‘save lives’ states must receive migrants with open arms, or something like that? Point 15 takes the proverbial. Here, the drafters have listed “Cross-Cutting and Interdependent Guiding Principles”:

“People-centred […]; International cooperation […]; National sovereignty […]; Rule of law and due process […];  Sustainable development […]; Human rights […]; Gender-responsive […] Child-sensitive […]; Whole-of-government approach […]; Whole-of-society approach.” (link)

These headings document nicely that this text is using all the preferred labels with which our PC Left has strangeld our society already. But there is worse to come. 

The next part sets out “Our Cooperative Framework”, under the heading of “Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration”, listing them separately under Point 16. There are 23 ‘Objectives’ and I’ll quote them in full:

“(1)  Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies

(2)  Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin

(3)  Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration

(4)  Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation

(5)  Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration

(6)  Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work

(7)  Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration

(8)  Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants

(9)  Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants

(10)  Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration

(11)  Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner

(12)  Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral

(13)  Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives

(14)  Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle

(15)  Provide access to basic services for migrants

(16)  Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion

(17)  Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration

(18)  Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences

(19)  Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries

(20)  Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants

(21)  Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration

(22)  Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits

(23)  Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration” (link)

I draw your attention to Objectives Nos 13 to 23 which indeed will ‘empower’ migrants; the states they migrate to – not so much …

These Objectives are fleshed out in more detail in the following pages of that text. I suggest you open the whole document (here’s the link again) to see for yourselves to what the signatories to this pact will commit their governments, highfalutin words about sovereignty notwithstanding.

Items g) and h) under Objective 1 (Point 17) on data collection are especially worrying, as is item a) under Objective 3 (Point 19). Wasn’t there some directive recently about privacy and data security? Details for Objective 5 (Point 21) read like a programme for a global labour market, as does Objective 6 (Point 22). Objective 8 (Point 24) looks like exonerating all the various NGO ‘rescue’ ships who’ve picked up migrants in the Mediterranean these last years.

Objective 13 (Point 29) is there to prevent the establishment of detention centres for migrants “because: Human Rights!” Objective 15 (Point 31) is a demand for all migrants to have access to social benefits, including health provisions and education, unto the ‘establishment of ‘National Human Rights Institutions’ to ‘receive …and investigate … migrants’ complaints’. Objective 17 (Point 33) demands legislation to combat hate speech and racism … ah, we have that already, well done us!

Moving along to Objective 20 (Point 36) we find that it’s all about money: facilitating remittances, i.e. the easy transfer of money from migrants in a host country to the country they migrated from. One wonders if the esteemed drafters of this GCM have ever heard of money laundering. A less kind view might be that this is yet another scheme to facilitate money flowing from Western countries’ taxpayers to Third World countries. 

Objective 21 (Point 37) is meant to prohibit the deportation of migrants, with a little bow to demanding that their home countries ought to facilitate the return of their migrants by, well, developing their own countries. Objective 22 (Point 38) is about allowing migrants to ‘port’ their benefits (‘applicable social security entitlements’) to other countries. Use your imagination as to what this implies.

Finally, Objective 23 (Point 39) is a framework for future international agreements between states to implement all these objectives. The concluding sections (Points 40 to 47) are about ‘Implementation’ and ‘Follow up and Review’ (Points 48 to 54). 

I’ll finish with these two observations: anyone who says that this GCM is not legally binding should be shown Objective 23. This gives the direct lie to that claim because our government obeys International Laws. The GCM provides the framework for creating such laws. Additionally, the expression ‘commit’, as in: ‘committing states to …’, occurs 88 times in the text! You draw your own conclusions, based on our experience with EU Directives.

I regard this innocent-looking GCM as a huge machine to lock the world into unending migration from poor to rich countries, creating a world-wide Migration Industry. It reminds me of the UN Climate Change Declaration, so innocent when it was first set up, and see where we are now.

I applaud all countries who withdrew from signing this Pact and wish our benighted government would do the same.

~~~   ***   ~~~

 

Ed: Four years later, we can observe the outworking of this ‘Global Compact’. Perhaps we can now understand why our Home Office Secs and mandarins are so remarkably ‘unable’ to stop the flood coming to our shores, why there are no deportations, why ‘human rights lawyers’ can block them, and why they’re housed in hotels, fed and kept warm while our own poor and pensioners can see how they feed themselves, never mind keep warm. The only way out would be the PM resigning from that ‘Compact’. As we all know: that’s a pious dream …

Print Friendly, PDF & Email