Le Pacte de l’ONU sur les migrants va encourager l’immigration au lieu de l’encadrer FIGAROVOX/TRIBUNE, 21st November 2018. A United Nations Pact “for safe, orderly and regular migration” will be signed by many countries, including France, in December. Yves Mamou fears that the text will deprive the signatory States of their sovereignty, by elevating the right to migrate to the status of a Human Right.
Yves Mamou is a journalist, formerly for Le Monde. He has also contributed to Le Canard Enchaîné, Libération and La Tribune. A regular contributor to the American internet site, The Gatestone Institute, he is also the author of many works, including Hezbollah, the Last Act (éd. Plein jour, 2013) and The Great Abandonment: The French Elites and Islamism (éd. L’Artilleur), published on 25th September, 2018.
A new human right seems about to be born: the right to migrate. Under the auspices of the United Nations Organization, a “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” will be tabled on the 10th and 11th December in Morocco, for adoption by all UN Member States. While the Global Compact does not deal with refugees, who fall under the Geneva Convention, it concerns each and every one of them: it proposes in effect that to migrate is an individual “choice”, as opposed to a “necessity” — an elective course of action that must be supported and rendered secure in perpetuity.
This Global Compact for Migration is meant to be “non-binding” for the signatory states. This explains why Switzerland, which has enacted some of the most restrictive legislation in the world and has contributed, with Mexico, to the drafting of the text, is prepared to sign it, albeit with eyes tightly closed. Non-binding means that “States retain the sovereign power to decide which non-citizens are allowed to enter and remain on their territory”. The alliance between the globalist elites (mobile by vocation), and the global poor (driven by the desire for a better life), will thus be engraved in marble — to the detriment of “sedentary” people, who are attached to their city or village, their culture, and their history.
The accord to be signed in Morocco includes 23 “Objectives” (⇒), which range from the development of a standardized local-national-global statistical system on migration (Objective 1), to strengthening international cooperation for orderly and secure migration (Objective 23), through to the fight against people-smugglers (Objective 9), and the management of frontiers (Objective 11).
“The alliance between the globalist elites (mobile by vocation), and the global poor (driven by the desire for a better life), will thus be engraved in marble.”
To reduce the hazards of the migratory adventure, a website (Objective 3) will be set up to provide information to those contemplating emigration, covering “all their possible migration options”, including the “laws and migration policies” of as many [destination] countries as possible, “visa restrictions, forms to be filled in, visa fees and exchange rates, work permits, job requirements, skills assessment and validity of diplomas, opportunities for vocational training or enrolment in a school or university, the cost of living etc.” The same Objective 3 indicates that all along the migratory routes, offices and the means of access to information will be available, to “refer migrants to support and counselling services, adapted to the needs of children and women, allowing them to communicate with consular representatives of their countries of origin, and to place at their disposal relevant information on, for example, human rights and basic freedoms, protection and appropriate assistance, options and regular migration routes, the possibility of return, etc. — all in a language that the person concerned can understand”.
Objective 16, which is drafted in surprisingly naive language, aims to “promote mutual respect for the cultures, traditions and customs of host and migrant communities, by exchanging and implementing best practices on integration policies, programmes and activities, including on ways to promote acceptance of diversity and facilitate social cohesion and inclusion.” “Acceptance of diversity”, faced with the very different cultural practices amongst migrants compared with those of the host population, can only leave one sceptical when it is observed how migrants arriving in Europe generally tend to congregate in homogeneous urban enclaves. The lawyer and editorialist, Judith Bergmann, writing on the American website Gatestone, enquires whether respect for other cultures, as is encouraged by the UN, extends to respecting and installing in Europe, the female genital mutilation that is imposed on women in Somalia. Remember that in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015, single Muslim men were little concerned by the right of German women to circulate in public as they pleased.
“The accord then spells out the obligations of states in accommodating each individual migrant.”
The accord then spells out the obligations of states in accommodating each individual migrant. To imagine that the oil monarchies of the Persian Gulf — presumably signatories to the accord, and renowned for their mistreatment of migrant workers — will sign contracts (Objective 6) with Filipino domestic workers, promising to track down bad behaviour on the part of recruitment agencies (regarding taxation of immigrants); to prevent employers from confiscating the passports of domestic workers (Objective 6h); and to mobilize a Labour Corps of inspectors (Objective 6f) to ensure that the social rights of migrants meet international standards, disposes one to smile.
Objective 8 requires governments to come to the aid of migrants who take dangerous routes; and Objective 9 obliges them also to fight against traffickers in cheap labour, and other smugglers.
Objective 5 requires governments to promote “family reunion”, and to provide migrants with the same rights to “social security and social services” enjoyed by native-born citizens of the host country (Objective 5i). Europeans who have consented to taxation, and have contributed over generations to education and social security systems worthy of the name, will have to share their rights with newcomers who have never made any such contributions.
The architects of the accord naturally anticipate that friction between host and migrant populations could occur. Objective 17, therefore, provides a double discourse in inimitable style: on the one hand, the signatory States must undertake to “eliminate all forms of discrimination; and to condemn and oppose any expressions, acts, or manifestations of racism, discrimination, violence, xenophobia, and intolerance towards migrants”. But in the same paragraph, the signatory states pledge to “protect freedom of expression”, and affirm that a “free and open debate contributes to a better understanding of all aspects of migration”. It is not yet clear how the states will arbitrate between the fight against expressions of dissent, and freedom of expression.
Implicit in all the paragraphs of Objective 17 is the proposition that racism and violence can arise only in the host populations; whereas the reality is that the reverse is just as likely. Paragraph 17c requires signatory states to promote “independent, objective and serious reporting in the media and on the internet, on the entitlement to migrate; as well as to raise awareness, and inform media professionals on migration issues and the appropriate terminology to employ, by setting ethical standards for reporting and publicity”. The same Paragraph 17c also requires signatory states to “withdraw subventions or material assistance from media organizations that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, and racism, or other forms of discrimination against migrants — while at the same time fully respecting media freedom”. How debate and “media freedom” are to be promoted while critics and recalcitrants operate under threat of cuts to aid and funding, is not explained. This deliciously Orwellian question foreshadows a hardening of rules governing freedom of expression.
“Implicit in all the paragraphs of Objective 17 is the proposition that racism and violence can arise only in the host populations.”
On the 1st November in The Guardian, Louise Arbor, the United Nations Special Representative for Migration, strongly denied any implication that the right to migrate was becoming a new Human Right: “This is completely false and it’s not in the text. There is no ulterior project of this sort”, she declared. Indeed, the expression Human Right appears nowhere in the Compact, but the proliferation and precision of the Objectives might well justify the inference.
The silence that has surrounded the drafting of the text, and the fact that it exists only in English, have allowed the United Nations to escape public scrutiny until only recently. Nevertheless, the noisy withdrawal of support of some countries has finally attracted attention. Donald Trump made it known in September 2018, from the platform of the UN, that he “rejected the globalist ideology and recognized only patriotism.” The United States was the first country to announce, in 2017, that it would not sign the Pact for Migration. Hungary followed in July 2018. Peter Szijjarto, Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, explained that the accord was “hostile to common sense and to the need to restore security in Europe”. In the same month, Australia indicated that it would not sign for the same reasons of “sovereignty” and “border protection”. On 1st November 2018, Austria announced its intention not to sign, fearing that the Pact would establish migration as a “Human Right”. The Poles and the Czechs, in the same month, also threw in the towel, affirming that “the protection of frontiers was an absolute priority”. Belgium is divided on the subject, as is Germany. Israel has made it clear to the UN since 2017 that it favours bilateral agreements for the recruitment of unskilled labor, and will also not be a signatory to the Pact. And the list of non-signatories is certainly not yet closed.
“Israel has made it clear to the UN since 2017 that it favours bilateral agreements for the recruitment of unskilled labor, and will also not be a signatory to the Pact.”
According to the United Nations Organization, 250 million people are currently on the move around the world, being 3.4% of the world’s population. “The phenomenon will last for centuries”, said Miroslav Lajčák, President of the United Nations General Assembly, on 14th July 2018. The real question, however, is whether or not this Pact risks intensifying the very phenomenon it seeks to control. ⇒ Le Figaro