UN migration package ‘Europe’s betrayal’, says Hungarian foreign minister in Vienna

One comment

1. And again: Hungary is right!
   The UN has agreed that migration will be arranged in a Global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration (original document). It seems that most of the UN member states will sign this document in Marrakesh on 11.12.2018. This Global compact is a straight squeeze contract for the following reasons:
   First: it is binding. Compact is another word for treaty or agreement. Anyone who signs an agreement is then bound by the contents of that agreement. If that were not the case, it would not make sense to sign agreements. Although the agreement is ‘a legally non-binding partnership’ in the preamble, this provision only applies between states. International pressure to enforce compliance with the treaty by legal means will prove redundant because domestic pressure groups will be happy to take over this work. If an EU country treats 1 illegal migrant according to the Global Compact, then any subsequent migrant can claim the same treatment on the basis of the principle of equal treatment.
   Second: the Global Compact is a strangulation contract, consisting of the fact that the countries signing it are not equivalent in rights and obligations. There is a group of countries where migrants want to go and another group of countries where they want to go. The benefits lie almost exclusively with the first group and the costs almost exclusively with the second group. The first group provides poverty and the other group provides wealth. The first group has rights, the second duties.
   Third: the Global compact is a strangulation contract and is not in the contract itself. As with all international agreements, Member States are given a great deal of freedom in their interpretation and the implementation of the articles in the Convention. However, from the day the treaty is to be implemented, customary law and precedent action will arise. From that moment on there is no way back, other than stepping out of the treaty.
   Fourth: the non-binding of the Global compact is in a way a disadvantage. If it were binding, the commitments would not have been made so freely and broadly that control is possible. Now they are recommendations for a policy line, a course of action that can be stretched endlessly without any end to it. In the Kyoto Climate Convention, the reduction of CO2 emissions was linked to a percentage. That was binding, but if you made it, you were done with it. The Global Compact is not a result obligation but an effort commitment: whether 10,000 or 210,000 migrants arrive annually, the receiving country will have to make an equal effort in all cases. Even in this way, the non-binding character is actually binding.
   So far the formal side. What is actually in the Global compact?
   First of all, this agreement does not concern refugees. It is only about people who, for reasons other than political persecution, want to leave for another country. The intentions of the Global compact are apparent from the section ‘vision and guiding principles’. It is stated that migration has always been (it has also been countered many times) that the challenges of migration unite more than divide us (just check with the Indians in America). The text shows an extremely positive vision on migration. After the introduction, 23 goals are listed which almost only concern the facilitation and administration of the migration process. That means: actively and passively guiding, enabling and promoting migration. Most articles facilitate the migrant in many ways. The migrant must have sufficient documentation (purpose 4) which, curiously enough, is left blank or must be provided by the country of origin or arrival country of the migration. Legal avenues need to be created to enable migration (goal 5), to enable recruitment and fair working conditions (goal 6), the difficulties that migrants may experience on the way, must be appointed and reduced as much as possible (goal 7). If the migrant has arrived in the country of arrival, he must have access to consular protection (purpose 14), the migrants must have access to basic services (purpose 15) and they must be able to fully establish themselves in the country of arrival (purpose). 16). And to make this integration possible, the arrival country must invest in the migrant’s competences, recognize them and enable them to participate in sustainable development (goals 18 and 19). Naturally, the migrant must also be able to transfer money more easily to the country of origin (target 20). Finally, if the migrant wants to return to the country of origin, this must be done in a dignified manner, with support for sustainable reintegration (goal 21). Since all the phases mentioned above will take place in the country of arrival or on the initiative of the arrival country, the message is clear: the poor countries supply migrants and the rich countries have to pay, even though the migrants do not contribute to their economy. As if this were not enough, we also find a number of provisions covering the administrative support among the 23 goals. The signing countries must build accurate and detailed information about the migrants (target 1) and provide accurate and timely information about the migration process (goal 3). If the migrant has arrived at the border, it must be managed safely and coherently (purpose 11) in such a way that there is certainty for the migrant for appropriate screening, assessment and referral (purpose 12). Detention should be limited as much as possible, preferably replaced by alternatives (target 13). If the migrant returns to the country of origin, he must be able to take with him his social contributions (goal 22). The compilers of the Global compact also realized that human smuggling is an inhibiting factor for migration: not every migrant can afford the money and dares to face the dangers. Therefore, they propose to save lives by actively searching for them and bringing them to safety and contacting their families. Moreover, people smuggling must be more actively counteracted (objectives 8 and 9). Apparently this refers to migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea. Special attention is given to the people who were customers of a smuggler because, regardless of the fact that they have committed illegal border crossing and are illegal migrants, they can not only claim the same rights as other migrants, but even special protection because of their vulnerability (purpose 7, point 23b in the explanatory notes). In other words: a bonus is set on illegal migration.
   The 3 points of attention I have discussed above – namely the promotion and administrative support of migration in general and the rewarding of illegal migration in particular – are shocking to read because of its one-sided nature. The compilers of the Global compact have apparently realized that an agreement that unilaterally grants the benefits to a group of countries and the burdens of another group of countries might generate resistance in the last group of countries. In order to suppress these resistances the text calls for all forms of discrimination against migrants (Objective 17), with special attention to the training of law enforcement officers in this respect, enabling migrants to submit complaints, to the media. instructing, developing mechanisms to recognize and combat any resistance, eg through awareness campaigns (read: brainwashing) (point 33 of the explanation). The conclusion is that with the Global compact the arrival countries are in every respect the victims of what has been agreed. These countries get a power unwanted migrants have to take care of them, pay their possible return and suppress resistance among their own population. Perhaps the biggest objection to this agreement is that many European countries are already dealing generously with refugees and migration out of their own free will. A foreigner without a residence permit must make it very colorful before he is expelled. The will of Western European countries to refuse entry or return refugees and migrants who have no right of residence is almost completely absent. This is in contrast to the decisiveness of countries in Eastern Europe. All this could be explained if it could integrate migrants into our society without too many problems. But that is precisely the problem: a large proportion of the migrants come from a culture with a world view that is hostile to the secular state, has much less education than the average European and does not speak the language. In the Global compact the word ‘migrants’ is always used, but actually the story is about rejected asylum seekers. The regular migrants almost always come with a permit for work or study or internship. Their migration is already ‘safe, orderly and regular’ and for them the Global compact is superfluous. Every rejected asylum seeker who does not want to return automatically becomes a migrant and henceforth falls under the Global compact. It seems likely that the flow of people who abuse the right of asylum for purely economic reasons will only increase. For the migrants it is simply too easy and too lucrative to stop.