An illuminating – and disquieting – dissection of the mechanisms and motivations behind U.N. law.
The United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was signed on December 19, 2018 by 164 members of the U.N. General Assembly. Twenty-nine U.N. member states did not sign the compact, including the USA, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Chile, Israel and Australia. Apologists for the agreement state that it does not undermine national sovereignty, that it will make migration a more ordered, humane process, and eliminate people smuggling. For example, Lord Bates, Britain’s Minister of State at the Department for International Development, states: ‘The compact “protects every state’s right to determine its own immigration policies, including in areas such as asylum, border controls and returns of illegal migrants.”’1 New Zealand’s foreign affairs minister and deputy prime minister, Winston Peters, head of the populist New Zealand First Party, and part of the Labour Government coalition, having based his political career largely around stricter migration control since the founding of NZ First, has vehemently adopted the line of Lord Bates, Angela Merkel, et al.; this accords with his role as apologist for the Labour Government, and as the New Zealand representative who signed the compact. Like Merkel and other European leaders who have blamed the ‘Right’ for spreading false information, Peters claims that the ‘Alt Right’ in New Zealand has been responsible for spreading misinformation about the compact, but just what he thinks the Alt Right in New Zealand might be is uncertain; possibly a blogsite with less than 200 followers. What is real is the backlash from among his own party grassroots. If Peters had been in Opposition he would surely have been the most vociferous opponent of the compact.
The USA rejected the compact, as Trump had to appease his own populist supporters, explicitly stating a year ago that ‘our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone.’2 Yet the legal advice to the New Zealand Government was that the compact is ‘non-binding’, and the apologists have used this to repudiate opposition.3
The Nature of U.N. Declarations and Covenants
However, when viewed from the perspective of how the U.N.O. functions, and how its declarations and compacts are implemented, it is pure cant for the politicos to claim that there is no justification for popular misgivings. While the declaration is called ‘non-binding’ on signatory states, and supposedly does not subvert national laws, myriad U.N. declarations have become ‘international law’, and it is ‘international law’ to which the Migration Compact appeals. Therefore the Migration Compact is being sold through Orwellian ‘double-speak’. For example, the human rights and race relations acts, implemented across the world, are examples of the types of ‘international law’ to which the Migration Compact alludes, and they were based on the 1948 U.N. Declaration on Human Rights. These acts are draconian and biased. New Zealand, and of course the other U.N. members are signatories to many U.N. ‘covenants’ and as such are ‘obligated’ to report to the U.N. regularly in regard to how these ‘covenants’ are being implemented. Such ‘covenants’ which are under ‘universal periodic reviews’ include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and others still. What, precisely, is a U.N. ‘universal periodic review’? In regard to U.N. conceptions on ‘human rights’, for example, the New Zealand Government explains:
Under this mechanism, the human rights situation of all UN Member States is reviewed every 5 years. 42 UN Member States are reviewed each year in Geneva during three sessions dedicated to 14 States each. These three sessions are usually held in January/February, April/May and October/November.4
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade also explains U.N. sanctions against states that do not abide by ‘international law’.5 When sanctions do not work, the bombing tends to start. Since the Migration Compact is a reflection and outcome of U.N. ‘international law’ it is nonsense to claim that it will not impact state sovereignty or the right of states to determine their own migration policies.
That the Migration Compact is based around other U.N. ‘covenants’ that have become ‘international law’, with U.N. sanctions against those states deemed offenders, is indicated within the Compact ‘preamble’ itself.6 As with other U.N. declarations and covenants, much of the Migration Compact outlines the monitoring of compliance of signatory states. Sections entitled ‘follow-up’ and ‘implementation’ are devoted to this, with the International Organization for Migration as the U.N. policing agency.
In arguing for an increase of harsh measures against states deemed to be in violation of ‘international law’, particularly with respect to ‘human rights’ as defined by the U.N., an academic paper points out that, while the U.N. claims not to intervene in the internal affairs of members states,
Humanitarian intervention is based upon the doctrine that there are limits to the freedoms states have in dealing with their own nationals. It should be distinguished from actions to protect a state’s own nationals abroad. When this doctrine was defined by Dutch international scholar Hugo Grotius and other 17th century legal scholars, it allowed one or more states to use force to prevent another state from mistreating its own nationals in circumstances so brutal and widespread that they shocked the conscience of the international community. Such interference in a state’s domestic affairs is defended by the argument that if certain practices continue to take place in a state despite protest and objections by neighboring states, then humanitarian considerations outweigh the prohibition of intervention and justify a decision to interfere.7
It is thus double-speak when the U.N. states that it will not intervene in a state’s internal affairs, whether by economic sanctions or by armed force. As is often the case, ‘atrocity propaganda’ is a prelude to the invasion of some targeted state that somehow offends the ‘international community’. An early example is the British invasion of the Afrikaner republics to secure their mineral wealth, under the pretext of defending the ‘Uitlanders’ from ‘Boer oppression’. Then it was called imperialism; now it’s called globalization. There is seldom more perfect a justification for such propaganda against a state than the claim that it is mistreating migrants or ethnic minorities. In calling for an increase in the powers of intervention by the U.N., Buhm Suk Baek, author of the cited paper, concludes that ‘[a]dmittedly, humanitarian intervention had been abused in the past by strong states to pursue other political, economic or military objectives.’8 Baek approvingly cites the example of the way Yugoslavia was targeted and reduced to ruin in the name of ‘human rights’:
Under Security Council Resolution 757, the Council imposed a wide range of economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) on May, 1992. These sanctions are also related to the protection of human rights as the Council announced its concern for the continued expulsion of non-Serb civilians and noted the ‘urgent need for humanitarian assistance and the various appeals made in this connection’ under the former Resolution.9
Serbia is a particularly poignant example of how the ‘human rights’ ploy was used to dismember a state for the purposes of privatizing and globalizing its economy, with particular reference to the mining region of Kosovo, where the privatization of the economy was made an official war aim. The Rambouillet peace agreement which was imposed on Serbia states: ‘the economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles.’10 Prior to the gang-up of Serbia, for years the Kosovar Albanian separatists were known for their anti-Serbian and anti-Orthodox terrorism. It did not take long for ‘the international community’ to change terrorists and narco-gangsters into ‘freedom fighters’ defending the oppressed Kosovar Albanians.11 In 2011 the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on how international capital, in conjunction with the U.N. in 2006, celebrated ‘the conclusion of the biggest privatisation deal signed since the end of the war with Serbia, involving the Drenas mining complex, shut down by NATO bombs during the war.’12 That is the reality behind wars waged by the ‘international community’ in the name of ‘human rights’.
U.N. Global Migration Compact
So what does the Migration Compact state? The fundamental premises are that (1) humans should have the right to move across the Earth without regard to barriers, (2) this is a natural part of the economic globalization process, (3) international capital has a significant role to play in this, and (4) the compact is part of ‘international law’, and ‘global governance’.
When the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution on global migration in 2017, affirming the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants in 2016, it did so with the explicit statement that this involves ‘global governance’; it also refers to ‘actionable commitments’ and formalizes what appears to be a policing role for the U.N. International Organisation for Migration.13
Like U.N. declarations in general, the Migration Compact uses the language of Orwellian double-speak. Hence, while apologists allude to the compact being ‘non-legally binding’, the compact explicitly upholds ‘the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.’14 On ‘implementation’, the Compact states that ‘We reaffirm our commitment to international law and emphasize that the Global Compact is to be implemented in a manner that is consistent with our rights and obligations under international law.’15
The ‘sovereignty of states’ is meaningless in the face of ‘international law’. The U.N. has operated behind this duplicity since its founding.
The first ‘vision and guiding principle’ of the Compact states:
This Global Compact expresses our collective commitment to improving cooperation on international migration. Migration has been part of the human experience throughout history, and we recognize that it is a source of prosperity, innovation and sustainable development in our globalized world, and that these positive impacts can be optimized by improving migration governance.16
In ‘Common Understanding’, we read:
We learned that migration is a defining feature of our globalized world, connecting societies within and across all regions, making us all countries of origin, transit and destination.17
This is the crux of the issue – the real aim buried beneath the usual moralising. Economic globalization is the real push for open borders, and a primary means of destroying the barriers to international capital, not only economically, but socially, culturally and ethnically. This explains why the international oligarchs hatched this Compact, under the guise of what is now called ‘social investment’. While the U.N. refers to the integrity of the states, this is simply more double-speak, as it also refers to states as being fluid and without fixity of heritage or destiny, ‘making us all countries of origin, transit and destination.’ This means a globalized mass humanity without roots, able to be relocated across the world as marketing needs require; the perfect scenario for what G. Pascal Zachary lauded as ‘the global me’.18
While ‘national sovereignty’ is affirmed19 in Orwellian manner, again the concept is negated already with the next passage, ‘that the State, public and private institutions and entities, as well as persons themselves are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international law.’20 These are the repressive laws that have been enacted in many states, based on ‘legally non-binding’ U.N. covenants, where criticism of immigration policies can result in the jailing of dissidents. This is affirmed in the following passage:
Human rights: The Global Compact is based on international human rights law and upholds the principles of non-regression and non-discrimination. By implementing the Global Compact, we ensure effective respect, protection and fulfilment of the human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, across all stages of the migration cycle. We also reaffirm the commitment to eliminate all forms of discrimination, including racism, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants and their families.21
Any dissent is called ‘racism and xenophobia’, and the legal prohibitions against these have long been enacted through race relations and human rights laws, while the news media in all Western states can be relied on to make pariahs out of anyone who objects. A primary ‘objective’ is the utilization of data to promote global migration agendas. The Compact also alludes to co-operation between a broad range of ‘stakeholder’, including trades unions, media, academia, civil society, business in what it calls a ‘whole of society approach’.22 It seems evident that the purpose is a mobilization against the spectre of ‘populism’.
Politicians are selling the Migration Compact with the idea that its aim is to reduce ‘refugees’ by ensuring that they are not compelled by their home states to seek refuge in other states. This is being used to implement another U.N. initiative, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The whole of Objective 2, ‘Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin’, is designed to restructure states socially and economically. This means ‘private and foreign direct investment’ (d), and there can be little doubt that the aim is to allow predatory capital to take over state resources and utilities under the guise of the U.N. definition of ‘human rights’, ‘inclusive economy’, ‘gender equity’, etc.
The Migration Compact might be seen therefore as providing an added factor to the sundry U.N. globalist agendas that are justified on spurious moral grounds in order to create a standardized, global economy. Where traditional culture gets in the way of, for example, the total integration of women into the workforce because of a strong heritage focused on family and children, feminism and abortion liberalization are promoted in the name of ‘equal rights’, and ‘reproductive health’ (synonym for abortion) and states that resist are castigated and embargoed and eventually invaded after being portrayed as ‘regressive’, ‘oppressive’, a ‘threat to world peace’. We have seen this time and again with Yugoslavia, Libya (the war against Gaddafi largely creating the present migration crisis), and Syria (again resulting in a refugee crisis). It is the dialectical tactic of creating a problem, then offering the solution to advance a long-range agenda.
Labour Market Fodder
The Compact refers to using migration to facilitate ‘labour market needs’, ‘labour mobility agreements’, ‘free movement regimes’, ‘visa liberalisation’, speed up of visa and permit processing,23 and addressing ‘demographic realities’, meaning addressing the demographic decline of the European states through migration, through ‘consultation with the private sector and other stakeholders’, and hence changing the character of the state according to the requirements of global capital.
Objective 16 aims to integrate migrants into host communities, while ensuring their own identities are retained. Hence, there remains the quandary of whether a society is to be a melting-pot or multicultural. When politicians a few years ago, such as Angela Merkel and David Cameron, realized that multiculturalism was not working, and that ghettoization was taking place instead, they started expounding the old American ideal of the melting-pot. The U.N. gets around the quandary by employing yet again an Orwellian double-speak. The ultimate aim remains an ‘inclusive economy’, as the oligarchic think tanks call it, where the laws of social production will level out any dissimilarities between hosts and migrants, especially after several generations, in the hope that a standardized population will then have emerged – one based on production and consumption, a population formed by a nebulous ‘homo economicus’. Hence ‘labour market integration’24 is a key aim – and ultimately the real aim.
Objective 17 aims at the remoulding of the attitudes of the host peoples: ‘We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law.’25 This is a reiteration of present U.N. covenants, long enacted as human rights and race relations laws in many states. The same passage concludes: ‘We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.’26 This is unadulterated cant – again, Orwellian double-speak. Any criticism of open borders, and defence of the host people is defined ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’ by U.N. ‘international human rights law’. Under the U.N. covenants there never has been ‘freedom of expression’ for dissent. There have instead been jail sentences and crippling fines for speaking out. Paragraph (c) of this section states that there should be indoctrination of media to ensure that there is standardized reporting in support of migrant globalization:
Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and 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 full respect for the freedom of the media.27
How can there be ‘independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets’ and ‘full respect for the freedom of the media’, when the aim is to impose a common standard of journalism and eliminate anything deemed ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’? Although the news media in the Western world has long been compliant anyway, all of this is part of a projected indoctrination programme aimed at ‘awareness-raising campaigns targeted at communities of origin, transit and destination in order to inform public perceptions regarding the positive contributions of safe, orderly and regular migration, based on evidence and facts, and to end racism, xenophobia and stigmatization against all migrants.’28
Interference in the internal political process is also urged to suppress and smear any sign of political resistance:
Engage migrants, political, religious and community leaders, as well as educators and service providers to detect and prevent incidences of intolerance, racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination against migrants and diasporas and support activities in local communities to promote mutual respect, including in the context of electoral campaigns.29
Again, this appears to be an appeal to mobilization against political dissidence. We have already seen how the National Endowment for Democracy, the Soros network and many others establish ‘civil society’ organizations, train and fund them, to the point of instigating so-called ‘color revolutions’. Will organizations the likes of Antifa and ‘Black Lives Matter’ be used as street fodder to confront ‘populist’ reaction?30 We have seen at Charlottesville in 2017 what happens when lawfully assembled citizens attempt to defend their heritage, and are confronted not only by street mobs, but by police, courts and media. What possible sincerity can we perceive then in these references to respect for the rights and cultures of host peoples?
What is Behind the U.N. Global Compact?
The U.N. Global Migration Compact is an initiative of global capital. The aim is the free flow of labour, as part of the free flow of resources and capital to benefit an international oligarchy. As is usually the case, this is carried out behind a humanitarian façade. The Migration Compact refers frequently to the role to be played by private business. In implementing the Compact, it is stated:
We decide to establish a capacity-building mechanism in the United Nations, building upon existing initiatives, that supports efforts of Member States to implement the Global Compact. It allows Members States, the United Nations and other relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and philanthropic foundations, to contribute technical, financial and human resources on a voluntary basis in order to strengthen capacities and foster multi-partner cooperation.31
The philanthropic foundations are the long-established means by which globalist oligarchy pursues its agendas, now called ‘social investment’, by creating and funding a vast international network of NGOs called ‘civil society’.
The Migration Compact originates from the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. The Compact states: ‘This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants.’ The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), the monitoring organization for the Compact, also states that ‘Annex II of the New York Declaration set in motion a process of intergovernmental consultations and negotiations culminating in the planned adoption of the Global Compact for Migration at an intergovernmental conference on international migration in 2018.’32
The seeding of the New York Declaration, and hence the U.N. Migration Compact, leads back to a Rockefeller Foundation plan for city crisis management across the world. The planning originates with a concept called ‘100 Resilient Cities’, established in 2013, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation ‘and managed as a sponsored project by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors with support from the Brookings Institution.’33 Resilient Cities explains:
Heads of state and government gathered at the UN General Assembly in New York last month against the backdrop of a burgeoning refugee crisis in South Asia and a lingering one across the Middle East and Europe. City leaders from across the globe also convened to discuss the role that cities play in providing assistance to refugees.
These discussions were facilitated by two major events. The Brookings Institution – together with the International Rescue Committee and 100 Resilient Cities – Pioneered by The Rockefeller Foundation – convened a high-level working group to elicit best practice recommendations for local communities grappling with displacement-related challenges. At the same time, New York City convened a Global Mayors Summit on Migration and Refugee Policy and Practice designed to uncover how cities overcome obstacles to implementing policies that promote, among other things, refugee integration, rights protection, and empowerment.34
Among the ‘platform partners’ of Resilient Cities is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the century-old Zionist smear-mongering and private investigation organization. Why does Resilient Cities need the partnership of the ADL? It is notable, but predictable, that while the ADL and other Zionist entities throughout the world are at the forefront of opposing immigration restrictions and advocating for ‘refugees’, none of this applies to Israel, which has not signed the U.N. Migration Compact.35 Another Resilient Cities partner is the Asia Society, formed by the Rockefeller dynasty. Yet another partner is the World Bank.36
Most explicitly, Bloomberg reports:
The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration gets backing from global business community.
Numerous leaders of major multinational companies endorsed the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (Global Compact for Migration) today at the second annual Bloomberg Global Business Forum, a gathering of more than 70 heads of state and delegation, and 200 of the world’s most prominent business leaders, to strengthen economic prosperity and collaborate on trade issues, globalization, innovation, and competition.
In a press conference with the Presidents of Switzerland and Mexico, Alain Berset and Enrique Peña Nieto, whose Permanent Representatives to the United Nations led the negotiations, Michael R. Bloomberg, the Founder of Bloomberg L.P. and Bloomberg Philanthropies, and Mayor of New York City (2002–2013), announced the first wave of support from global business leaders for the Global Compact for Migration. These founding signers include Jim Coulter and Jon Winkelried, Co-CEOs of TPG; Dawn Fitzpatrick, Chief Investment Officer of the Soros Fund Management; Joe Gebbia, Co-founder and Chief Product Officer of Airbnb; Dara Khosrowshahi, CEO of Uber; Rich Lesser, CEO of BCG; Hamdi Ulukaya, Founder, Chairman and CEO of Chobani; and John Zimmer, President and Co-Founder of Lyft.37
Bloomberg proceeds to unequivocally state the purpose behind the rhetoric, albeit still retaining some of that rhetoric in regards to ‘national sovereignty’ and the ‘rule of law’:
Every nation has a role to play in addressing this crisis, and this Compact is designed to help guide them. It provides a framework for how the international community can reap the economic benefits of immigration without sacrificing national sovereignty or rule of law – and I want to thank all of the government and business leaders who are supporting its implementation.38
President Berset of Switzerland, who has combined a career as a financial adviser with that of being a Social Democratic politician, in a nexus between capital and socialism that has proved all too common, also stressed the economic motive for migration: ‘Without the foreign labor force, many of our industries would not function as they do now. Notwithstanding difficulties, migration must be seen as an enrichment – economically and culturally.’39
3Collette Devlin, ‘NZ votes for U.N. migration compact after legacy advice’, December 19, 2018.
7 Buhm Suk Baek, ‘Economic Sanctions Against Human Rights Violations’, (2008), 2.1.2. Humanitarian Intervention, Cornell Law School Inter-University Graduate Student Conference Papers, Paper 11; Cornell Law School Inter-University Graduate Student Conference Papers. Paper 11.
8 Buhm suk Baek, ibid., p. 19 (2.3).
9 Buhm Suk Baek, ibid., p. 31 (3.2.3), Sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
10 Rambouillet Agreement, Article I (1), 1.
11 See: K. R. Bolton, Babel Inc. (London Black House Publishing, 2013), pp. 161–173.
15 Ibid., (41), p. 32.
16 Ibid. (8) ‘Our Vision and Guiding Principles’.
17 Ibid., (10) ‘Common Understanding’.
18 G. Pascal Zachary, The Global Me (New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, 2000).On ‘creating the world consume’, see: Bolton, Babel Inc., op. cit., pp. 117–119.
19 Global Compact for Migration, ‘National sovereignty’, (15).
20 Ibid., ‘Rule of law and due process’.
21 Ibid., ‘Human Rights’.
22 Ibid., p. 4 (15).
23 Ibid, ‘Objective 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration’, p. 11.
24 Ibid., ‘Objective 16: Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion’, p. 23.
25 Ibid., ‘Objective 17 (33): Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration’, p. 24.
27 Ibid., 17. 33 (c), p. 24.
28 Ibid., (f).
29 Ibid., (g), p. 25.
31 Global Compact for Migration, ‘Implementation’, (43), p. 32.
33 ‘About Us’, Resilient Cities, managed as a sponsored project by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.
34 ‘Engaging City Leaders in the Global Compact Process: Recommendations for Action’, Resilient Cities, October 19, 2017.
35 ‘Netanyahu: Israel won’t sign global migration pact, must protect its border’, The Times of Israel, November 20, 2018.
37 ‘Renowned Business Leaders Welcome Landmark Agreement on International Migration’, Bloomberg Global Business Forum, Bloomberg Press Release, September 26, 2018.