A few days from now (10-11 December 2018) will be held in Marrakesh (Morocco) a United Nations conference for the adoption of the Global Compact for Migration (from now on, GCM). This will be the end of a long journey for GCM, and a very important step in the fulfilling of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants.
As previously stated in the title of this post, I’m all against this agreement. I’m also fully aware of the growing problem of forced migration all around the world, not to mention the growth of a number of endogen factors that will likely cause more migration in the near future. To state the obvious, I’m not some kind of racist nutcase.
I’ve spent a bit of time reading the full GCM text, available here courtesy of the UN. Well, it’s not what the mainstream media are trying to sell.
The first reason to say “no” is about who will apply such agreement. In the preamble, it is stated that the GCM rests on 13 different previous treaties or conventions. A great number of the UN countries do not sign, or do not approve, or do not apply one or more of such treaties or conventions. We’re talking about big players here. Russia, China, USA, India, Australia and many more. If the preamble is void, the whole text is meaningless.
The second reason to say “no” is about the same argument but in the general direction of the countries that are compliant to the same 13 treaties or conventions. If a country, like Italy or Canada, is already aligned with such agreements, then what is the reason to add one more to the count? Why any country should mobilize more resources to accomplish the same tasks?
The third reason to say “no” is about a blatant lie. UN sources and mainstream media sources are telling us that accepting the GCM will have no direct consequences for any nation, setting up a framework useful for further negotiations or other actions in the future. A pity that the same agreement sets up 23 objectives for those who will sign it, each one to be realized with successive legal commitments in the next few years.
The fourth reasons to say “no” is about the framework itself of the GCM. The “OUR VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES” section set up a lot of legal boundaries about this complex matter, not to mention the very definitions of how to cooperate and how to act in such circumstances. The so-called “common understanding” is not shared worldwide, as a number of independent commentators have already pointed out.
The fifth reason to say “no” is about the idea of the forced migration as a phenomenon that cannot be avoided, no matter the causes. I cannot accept that the UN considered the current and future crisis as something that simply happens. In the next 12 to 20 years we will have to face the biggest challenge in our history, trying to overcome climate change, and this will require a different attitude from the most important international organization.