Every day, the list of defects goes on, In Europe, Austria, Hungary and Poland (members of the Visegrad group) have already made clear that they were rejecting the pact global migration. The Czech Republic has followed suit, while Bulgaria and Belgium are considering doing so. Moreover, Israel has already withdrawn, as the United States did so from the end of 2017. Even the Swiss, who has yet participated in the drafting of the text and had to approve it with no problem, has done a volte face on Wednesday, stating that she was postponing his decision in the face of opposition of several parliamentary committees helvetians.
in the Face of this front of the opposition, other countries support the text in the image of France, by the voice of Emmanuel Macron. In front of the press in Belgium, the French president has called the pact “good text”. “It seems to me that the solutions it proposes are going exactly in the direction of both the values of Europe, and Europe’s interests”, he concluded.
That contains a really this pact, which divide once again the european States, and, beyond that, between the proponents of openness and proponents of a policy of firmness?
● A non-binding text
As emphasized by Emmanuel Macron in Brussels, the pact for migration is not legally binding. Approved on 11 July by the general Assembly of the united Nations, the text should be adopted, on 10 and 11 December next, at a summit in Rabat. Structured in 23 goals, he created so no new obligations, but sets out general principles intended to allow the “migration safe, orderly and regular”.
● A text focused on the migrants… and the national sovereignty
In the preamble, the “human dimension, inherent to the migration experience” is invoked as a guiding principle. But national sovereignty is also addressed by a sentence without any ambiguity: “The global compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national policy in the area of immigration, and their prerogative to regulate immigration within its area of national jurisdiction(…).” The covenant specifies it is also explicit that it applies only to migrant and not refugees, who benefit from a specific legal regime.
● A text wave with a few concrete steps
Each of the 23 objectives are formulated in fairly general terms, expected to find their translation into facts by a series of “concrete steps”. But for the most part remain equally vague. It includes, for example, collect data that is “accurate and broken down” on the migration flows (objective 1), to “minimize the structural factors that push people to leave their countries of origin” (objective 2), to limit the abuse of migrant workers (objective 6), or “prevent, combat and eradicate the trafficking in human beings” (objective 10). The text also includes strengthening the access to information on the legal options, “all stages of migration”.
● But a text on the general tone being challenged by the advocates of a firm line…
Unless the proposed action, it is the general spirit of the text, which tenses up his opponents. They accused him a presentation unique to immigration, which is presented as an inevitable phenomenon and necessarily beneficial, both for the country of departure as the host country. “The global compact on migration provides the international community with the opportunity to abandon defensive approaches, to consider a common future in which the migration is safe, orderly and regular”, we read in the text published by the international Organization for migration (IOM) on the topic.
● … and especially controversial for the press
To combat racism, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants (goal 17), the covenant employs large means: it is to “reframe the discourse on migration, so that it ceases to convey ideas misleading or biased and gives an accurate picture of the importance of migration and the positive role it can play in the contemporary world”, one can read in the explanatory paper of the IOM.
The press is not spared ; The signatory States are invited to promote the “independent reporting and objectives”, to “raise awareness and educate the professionals of the media” on these issues. This can range from guidance on the “terminology” to use, setting up of “ethical standards” regarding the reports… until the cut-off of public funds to the media “, which are the systematic promotion of intolerance, xenophobia, racism, and other forms of discrimination against migrants”.