More United Nations Chicanery
The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration -- which seeks to criminalize criticism of migration -- is nothing more or less than a dangerous effort to weaken national borders, to normalize mass migration, to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration, and to bolster the idea that people claiming to be refugees enjoy a panoply of rights in countries where they have never before set foot (or they did not enjoy in their own countries.)
One thing about the agreement, in any event, is irrefutable: almost nobody in the Western world has been clamoring for this. It is, quite simply, a project of the globalist elites. It is a UN power-grab.
It is something else, too: it is an effort to enhance the clout of the UN's largest and most influential power bloc -- namely, the Arab and Muslim states. Briefly put, whatever this deal is or is not, it is definitely not good news for the West, for freedom, or for national identity and security.
In Britain, the rage over Muslim rape gangs and Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit foul-up is spreading. In Germany, anger about Merkel's recklessly transformative refugee policies is mounting. In France, the growing cost of immigrant freeloaders to taxpayers has sparked the most sensational public demonstrations since 1968. In Italy and Austria, opponents of the Islamization of Europe now hold the reins of power. Elsewhere in Western Europe, more and more citizens are standing up to their masters' open-borders dhimmitude.
[In Finland, the estimated cost of sustaining an Iraqi or a Somali ‘refugee’ is over one million dollars each for the next decades of his/her life. There is zero liability for the government to sustain the regular citizen of the country.]
Yet much of this principled and patriotic resistance may turn out to be for naught, thanks to the so-called Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which was signed by representatives of the UN member states in December last.
Supporters of the compact are quick to reassure its critics that it is not a binding treaty and that it reaffirms the concept of national sovereignty. Nevertheless, when you come right down to it, it is nothing more or less than a dangerous effort to weaken national borders, to normalize mass migration, to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration, and to bolster the idea that people claiming to be refugees enjoy a panoply of rights in countries where they have never before set foot.
As for the 34-page-long document itself, it is written in the kind of numbing, abstraction-heavy prose that will be familiar to anyone who has ever read anything issued by the UN. It declares that "migration is a defining feature of our globalized world, connecting societies within and across all regions, making us all countries of origin, transit and destination." It states that the goal of the Global Compact is "to create conducive conditions that enable all [!] migrants to enrich our societies through their human, economic and social capacities, and thus facilitate their contributions to sustainable development at the local, national, regional and global levels."
It also affirms that:
"[w]e 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. We must generate greater predictability and certainty for States, communities and migrants alike. To achieve this, we commit to facilitate and ensure safe, orderly and regular migration for the benefit of all."
There is a lot more where this came from, and it is not entirely clear what most of it means. Is it just a load of empty, feel-good rhetoric, or is it meant to commit signatories to specific action?
What does it mean to say that the Global Compact "mainstreams a gender perspective" or that "a whole-of-government approach is needed to ensure horizontal and vertical policy coherence across all sectors and levels of government"?
On the other hand, the document certainly does appear to encourage illegal migration. It unambiguously urges governments to feed their citizens propaganda about the delights of migrants and migration and to "sensitiz[e] and educat[e] media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology" and, in effect, to strong-arm journalists who refuse to play ball.
Some readers of the document say that it calls for the criminalization of any criticism of migration, although its backers deny this.
One thing about the agreement, in any event, is irrefutable: almost nobody in the Western world has been clamoring for this. It is, quite simply, a project of the globalist elites. It is a UN power-grab. As the Guardian reported last year, Louise Arbour, the hack put in charge of this project, "regards the global compact as a chance to shift world opinion on the need to address future migration, in the same way that the UN had managed to persuade the world it needed to address climate change."
In short, this is yet another reminder that the UN is run by power-hungry busybodies who see it as their job not to respond to and act upon world opinion but to shape it and, if necessary, punish it.
It is something else, too: it is an effort to enhance the clout of the UN's largest and most influential power bloc – namely, the Arab and Muslim states. Just check out the UN website devoted to this Global Compact -- it's illustrated by a picture of a young man and woman holding their index fingers and thumbs together to form a heart. She is in hijab. Repeat: she is in hijab. Briefly put, whatever this deal is or is not, it is definitely not good news for the West, for freedom, or for national identity and security. It was fitting that the December 10-11 signing ceremony took place in Marrakesh, Morocco, an Islamic state..
US President Donald J. Trump, to his credit, saw through this mischievous piece of work when he announced that the U.S. wanted nothing to do with it. He got flak for that move. In a UN vote this past July, the Global Compact was approved by every member nation except for the U.S. But then at least some media starting paying attention and a resistance formed. In recent weeks, more and more governments have said that they are not going to sign the deal after all. So far, the list includes Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, Slovakia, and Switzerland. [More would be joining.]
In several other Western European countries, the issue is still being debated. I suspect the situation in Norway, where I live, is not unique. Most of the political parties here ardently support the Global Compact and, had striven -- with the collaboration of the country's mainstream media -- to keep this potentially controversial agreement out of the public eye in the run-up to the signing ceremony. After a handful of alternative news and opinion websites sounded the alarm about the deal, however, it was reported that the Progress Party had forced the government to allow a parliamentary discussion of the proposed accord.
Alas, the Big Three countries of Western Europe are all in. Theresa May has committed her government to the deal. Ditto Angela Merkel. Emmanuel Macron has stuck to his line that the Global Compact is "admirable." What's more, thanks to Justin Trudeau, whose mantra continues to be "diversity is a source of strength," Canada is on board as well.
So while there is no need to worry that the Global Compact will supersede the U.S. Constitution any time soon, there is legitimate reason for concern that this devious deal will constitute yet another obstacle to citizens of the free world who care about protecting and preserving their countries -- but whose elites are dead set on thwarting their will.
[Bruce Bawer is the author of the new novel The Alhambra (Swamp Fox Editions). His book While Europe Slept (2006) was a New York Times bestseller and National Book Critics Circle Award finalist. His other books include A Place at the Table (1993), Stealing Jesus (1997), Surrender (2009), and The Victims' Revolution (2012). A native New Yorker, he has lived in Europe since 1998. Courtesy: Gatestone Institute.]
Democratic Countries Should Back out of the UN Global Compact
Götz Schmidt-Bremme, head of the UN's Global Forum on Migration and Development, has admitted that the UN's Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is a "controversial text," adding: "Maybe the benefits of legal migration were over-emphasized and we forgot about the challenges... we underestimated the need of communities that above all want to see migrants integrate."
The ongoing and bitter dispute between the EU and its Eastern European member states -- countries such as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic -- that have refused to take in migrants as part of the EU's quota system, might be approaching some sort of compromise. In an internal document circulated to EU interior ministers in Brussels in early December, Reuters reported, EU member states that refuse to host migrants in their countries could be exempted from doing so, if instead they show "alternative measures of solidarity."
According to diplomats, these "alternative measures" are apparently EU code for "paying into the EU budget or paying toward development projects in Africa".
"The document," Reuters noted, "said the European Union would need a proper mechanism to avoid a situation in which all EU governments opted to pay their way out of any hosting responsibilities and would set an eight-year period for any arrangements".
Already in October, European Parliament President Antonio Tajani had said that EU countries who refused to host refugees could instead pay more for EU migration and development projects in Africa. "No relocation - (then) more money for Africa," Tajani said.
"We cannot force (others to take in refugees)," German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also said in October, "but those that do not do so must possibly contribute in another way such as... in Africa. Everyone needs to take on some of the responsibility that we all have" .
The idea of paying for development projects in Africa to keep African migrants from coming to Europe is not new. It was aired by Tajani himself in July 2017. At the time, he warned that Europe is "underestimating" the scale and severity of the migration crisis and that unless urgent action is taken, "millions of Africans" will flood the continent in the next five years. He added that there would be an exodus [from Africa] "of biblical proportions that would be impossible to stop if we don't confront the problem now".
The only solution, according to Tajani, is massive investment in Africa to dissuade people from leaving in the first place:
"Population growth, climate change, desertification, wars, famine in Somalia and Sudan. These are the factors that are forcing people to leave... If we don't confront this soon, we will find ourselves with millions of people on our doorstep within five years... Today we are trying to solve a problem of a few thousand people, but we need to have a strategy for millions of people."
The EU has, in fact, been paying particularly North African governments for years to keep migrants away from the European continent, especially through the Union of the Mediterranean. The effort seems to have yielded few results in terms of stopping migration to the European continent.
As recently as September 2018, the EU agreed to pay Morocco $275 million in aid "to stem illegal migration to the continent". Indicating how large an enterprise illegal migration is from Morocco alone, its government announced in September that in 2018, security authorities had thwarted more than 54,000 illegal immigration attempts, dismantled 74 criminal networks active in human trafficking and smuggling, and seized more than 1,900 human trafficking vehicles.
The prospect of encouraging millions of migrants to come to the West has persuaded increasing numbers of predominantly Western UN member states to back out of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.
Currently, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, the Dominican Republic, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland have declared that they will not be adopting the UN Migration Compact. The US had already withdrawn from negotiations on the Compact in December 2017.
"Louise Arbour, the UN's special representative for international migration commented, said in response to the mass withdrawal of countries from the Compact: "I think it reflects very poorly on those who participated in negotiations... it's very disappointing to see that kind of reversal so shortly after a text was agreed upon."
Arbour stressed that the states backing out will not be "harvesting the benefits" of migration:
"There are many, many countries in the world today that will need to import a part of their workforce... The demographics are suggesting that if they want to maintain their current economic standards or even grow their economy, they're going to have to receive well-trained foreigners to meet the labour market demands in their countries."
She added that, "To foster a culture of exclusion" is "entirely counterproductive". She did not state what guarantees, if any, were being planned to assure that these "foreigners" would be "well-trained".
The UN Global Compact objective 17 (paragraph 33 c) also stipulates that, "media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants" should not receive "public funding or material support." Meanwhile, the Compact tries to claim that it is "in full respect for the freedom of the media".
Already, it is clear what this stipulation means in practice -- even before the UN member states have formally adopted the Compact.
The UN recently banned the Canadian outlet Rebel Media from attending the Conference for the Adoption of the UN Global Migration Compact. When Rebel Media asked for an explanation, they were told that the UN, "reserves the right to deny or withdraw accreditation of journalists from media organizations whose activities run counter to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or who abuse the privileges so extended or put the accreditation to improper use or act in a way not consistent with the principles of the Organization. The decisions are final".
This form of totalitarian behavior on the part of the UN should encourage more states that still value democracy, immediately to back out of the Compact.
[Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.]
Courtesy of Gatestone Institute.