euportal twitter euportal facebook

Marrakech agreement

16.11.2018 – A text on immigration, currently being drafted within the framework of the United Nations, constitutes, under the guise of good feelings, a means of putting pressure on Western countries, argues the legal historian. The final version of a document entitled “United Nations Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” is to be adopted at the Intergovernmental Conference to be held in Marrakech, Morocco, on 10 and 11 December. The idea behind this text is that migration will inevitably accelerate, that we must ensure that it takes place as smoothly as possible, abandoning any defensive approach. The document sets out 23 objectives that are organized around two main axes: guaranteeing greater security for migrants, and ensuring that they are welcomed where they settle in a more “inclusive” way. It is not a treaty, despite the misleading term “pact” chosen to describe it. It will not be legally binding on States. However, its recommendations will be a means of putting pressure on government immigration policies. And it forms a basis for the further development of binding standards. At first glance, the UN “pact” gives an impression of intellectual honesty. It wants controversies on immigration to move away from the emotional field, and for public debate to be based exclusively on facts and figures. The “pact” affirms its commitment to freedom of expression, to an open and free debate. But, strangely enough, this debate must necessarily “lead the public to consider the positive effects of safe, orderly and regular migration”. This means that the “pact” conveys an official truth: migration is by definition beneficial for all parties concerned. So, the debate is not free. Moreover, the “pact” recommends that States cut subsidies to the media broadcasting speeches considered xenophobic and intolerant. However, this is what will inevitably lead to the imposition of taxes on a newspaper that publishes figures and facts that contradict the dogma of the necessarily beneficial nature of migration phenomena. The “pact” wants to close its mouth to any criticism of migration. It can, therefore, be said that, as in the past in the USSR, the words change meaning: “open and free debate” actually means activism in favor of immigration. The UN “pact” on migration seems to be based on the principle that anyone in the world should be able to come and settle anywhere. However, particularly because of Africa’s huge population growth, there will be tens and even hundreds of millions of people in the coming decades who will want to reach Western countries. Welcoming huge masses in Europe in search of an Eldorado would be suicidal for Europeans without even benefiting the migrant crowds. A submerged Europe would inevitably be a ruined Europe. As Victor Hugo noted: “The day when the misery of all seizes the wealth of a few, the night is done, there is nothing left. There’s nothing left for anyone.” This is the regressive effect of egalitarianism, especially in its communist version. Because, paradoxically, there is a communist dimension to the ideology of free migration. It is based on the idea that the world is a common thing, that it belongs to everyone, that everyone can legitimately go and take advantage of advantageous situations wherever they may be. But taking what belongs to others is in line with the philosophy of communism. The ideology of free migration destroys the property of Western peoples over themselves. The sovereignty of a people is based on its ownership over itself, its destiny, its identity, its soil, its material and spiritual heritage. In your country, you must be able to feel, as they say, “at home”. And the expression refers to the idea of ownership: collective ownership [of the sovereign state] that generates the material, moral and “cultural” security necessary for a good life. Yet the ideology of free migration destroys this property, destroys the idea of a human group’s heritage, forces it to open it up to all, to share it with all without freedom of choice or conditions to be respected. It is therefore not excessive to conclude that this is indeed a form of communism on a global scale. The theme of free migration has become one of the main axes of human rights as we now understand them, i.e. transformed into a secular religion whose historian François Furet was the first to observe that it had replaced communism in its role as a utopia supposed to establish the kingdom of the good. The revolutionary militants were not mistaken. Since the 1980s, many activists orphaned by the implosion of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the secular communist religion have massively converted to the secular religion of human rights, which has allowed them to continue to practice communism in a less visible way, by attacking another form of property: the property of peoples over themselves. The “United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” is the expression of this philosophy. It is not surprising that the United States, Austria, Poland, Hungary [Czech Republic, Slovakia, Baltic states] and probably Switzerland have withdrawn from it. When will it be France’s turn?

By HAROUEL, JEAN-LOUIS Professor Emeritus [of history] at the University of Paris-II Panthéon-Assas. Jean-Louis Harouel published a notable book entitled “Les Droits de l’homme contre le peuple”" (Desclée de Brouwer, 2016).

Source: Le Figaro, Paris, November 15, 2018

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>