On 13 July 2018, all UN member states—except for the USA—agreed to the draft. At the summit meeting on 10 and 11 December 2018 in Marrakesh, Morocco, the pact was formally accepted and there was an additional resolution at the UN General Assembly. The Migration Pact represents a non-legally binding cooperative framework that contains 23 goals encompassing important action points for improving international cooperation. A formal “signing,” which was declined by certain parties, didn’t occur and was also never planned. The passing of the agreement within the context of a specially held international conference does elevate its status beyond that of a regular UN resolution, however. This distinguishes it from its predecessor, the “New Yorker Declaration” of 2016. A document such as this will always have points that will be interpreted differently, whether positively or negatively. That means that the intention, the ultimate aim, is all the more important.
The initiative for this pact came from Europe after the refugee crisis of 2015. In the past, the United Nations hasn’t been as involved in global migration. The goal is now to better regulate all aspects of migration through international cooperation. According to Louise Arbour, a Canadian lawyer and a UN Special Commissioner for International Migration since 2017, the pact doesn’t promote migration, but instead aims to reduce an increase of it. There’s also no judgement on whether migration is good or bad. Migration is simply a reality of our century, and it’s in everyone’s best interest to ensure that it’s safer and less chaotic. The goal of the pact is to ensure cooperation between countries in developing a safer and more regulated migration. It’s about managing migration, not promoting it.
What Are Critics Afraid of?
The agreement encompasses 23 goals that can’t all individually be described here. A “right to migration,” which has been described and attacked in right-leaning populist commentary, is not encompassed in the document, so that claim is false. Whoever claims that better management of migration slyly supports it anyway can’t be convinced otherwise, so it’s a lost cause. That logic would mean that rehabilitating people with a history of violence promotes criminality. The document frankly differentiates between refugees and economic migrants. The states are very clearly instructed on how to treat these two groups separately. It’s still in the hands of countries or regional unions whether they want to accept foreign workers. The pact doesn’t oblige them to.
What are the concerns of the states that haven’t (yet) signed the pact? Austria is concerned that it won’t be able to self-determine who’s allowed to come into the country. This concern was also shared by the Polish government. The USA seemed at first to be fundamentally opposed to the new international agreement, and they abandoned negotiations pretty early on. Australia explained that the pact could encourage illegal immigration. There was also some criticism over the rush with which the agreement was ratified, and—especially in Germany—some concern over the lack of information extended to the population, and the limited involvement of the parliament. Since there’s no constitutional agreement, the Bundestag didn’t have to give its consent.
Shared Responsibility with Countries of Origin
It’s perhaps puzzling how little the pact describes and defines the responsibility of the countries of origin. The goal number two (minimising the causes of flight) is the only one that addresses it. Natural catastrophes are certainly responsible for migration, but they’re not the main cause of the massive numbers of refugees. Can governments such as that of Venezuela be held responsible for the stream of refugees they’ve created? There is also state expulsion. The disregard for legal foundations in countries of origins is only marginally addressed in the pact, as is the increase in overall population as an accelerator for migration.
The declaration within the preamble saying that migration is a “source of prosperity, innovation, and development,” stands in contrast to the declaration of the German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, who said in September 2018 that migration is the “mother of all problems.” Since the former declaration is repeated so often, here’s the actual statement (preamble, point 8): “Migration has always been a part of human history, and we recognise that in our globalised world it represents a source of prosperity, innovation, and sustainable development…” This is not a false statement, and these 23 sentences should be read and interpreted closely by critics.
Where are the fundamentally German interests, which also include economic ones? Some of them are:
- International measures against smuggling and trafficking (goal number 9)
- Protecting the borders and establishing identity (goal number 4)
- Fighting human trafficking (goal number 10)
- Improving coordination with repatriation (goal number 21)
Especially this last point has created difficulties in home countries when trying to repatriate foreign nationals from Germany. In the future, treaty states will be able to expect better cooperation thanks to the pact. Even if the points, as described, aren’t binding, their existence is of great interest for the German state. Therefore joining a Migration Pact is in Germany’s best interest.
About the Author:
Ferry Wittchen is a lawyer and accountant in the Stuttgart region, and advises especially mediumsized enterprises within the context of internationalisation.