164 countries signed the politically binding UN Migration Pact during a summit in Morocco.
This piece of international legislation is marked by controversy after over a dozen countries got cold feet in the months following its provisional agreement over the summer by all UN member states except for the US. America led the way in raising awareness about the threat that this pact could pose to national sovereignty, with pro-government pundits pointing out that while it’snot legally binding, it could nevertheless be abused by regional institutions like the EU and especially the globalist one of the UN to put pressure on non-compliant states to treat migration – including its illegal variant – as a de-facto “human right”.
Serious concerns were also raised about some of the instruments suggested within the text for implementing its supposedly“voluntary” goals, such as the creation of multilingual websites explaining governments’ migration policies and coordinated information campaigns in“Global South” states as a means of fulfilling the pact’s third of twenty-three objectives pertaining to “providing accurate and timely information at all stages of migration.” Critics interpret this as having the inevitable effect of encouraging illegal migration instead of stopping it, pointing to objectives fifteen and sixteen which stipulate that destination states should “provide access to basic services for migrants” such as healthcare and schooling as well as “empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion”, which is a euphemism for implementing “affirmative action” programs.
Even worse, skeptics suspect that objective seventeen about “eliminating all forms of discrimination and promoting evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration” could be abused for totalitarian means after the UN “suggested” that signatory states“sensitize and educate media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology”, which if ultimately unsuccessful in its stated goal should lead to “stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants.” In other words, states are being asked to brainwash their populations into accepting more migrants and everything else that this entails.
It’s little wonder then that several states opted out of this pact, and even though Russia ended up signing onto it, a diplomatic source told one of its national media outlets that his country “has the right not to take note of those provisions of the Global Compact that may come into conflict with its national interests, legislation, as well as the international obligations it upholds.” This signifies that while Russia supports the spirit of the document in principle, it won’t allow it to be abused for stealthily surrendering the country’s sovereignty to globalist bodies, so it might just have signed on to it for soft power’s sake.
By Andrew Korybko
Source: Oriental Review