Intro by John R. Houk
Intro © January 19, 2019
Since the MSM primary propaganda agenda is to publish as
much fake news as possible hoping to lead to President Trump’s impeachment, you
may not catch too much info on a United Nations globalist agenda.
The UN has spent the last half century doing all it can to
undermine the sovereignty of successful Capitalist-minded UN member nations.
This undermining is especially aimed at the sovereignty of the United States of
America.
I used to pay attention to this UN Leftist-globalist agenda
that smacks of a One-World -Government paradigm. You can brush up on this UN
paradigm by searching for all thing Agenda 21. Be warned in your search on Agenda 21,
much if not most of Left-Wing sources (too
often government friendly sources) paint a utopian picture land management,
food production and population management (which
really is human depopulation).
In relation to National Sovereignty and a UN globalist
paradigm, Claudia Rosett looks how the UN’s globalist migration policies threatens
the U.S. rule of law with the attempt to make rules/international laws
supersede U.S. sovereignty and by extension the supremacy of the U.S.
Constitution within our national borders.
Points I found of
interest I placed in bold text.
JRH 1/19/19
Your generosity is always appreciated:
************************
The UN is trying to
grab control of worldwide immigration policies*
By Claudia Rosett*
January 18th, 2019
3:55PM
While President Donald Trump seeks funding for a
bordering! wall, the United Nations is seeking control of migration policies
worldwide, with a campaign configured to undermine America’s sovereignty and
control over its own borders. And, yes, if the U.N. has its way, America will
help pay for it. [Bold text Blog Editor]
As with many of the U.N.’s turf grabs, this campaign to
co-opt national migration policy has been years in the making. Incremental in
its origins, and swaddled in U.N. jargon and procedure, it has largely escaped
the U.S. headlines. But it’s now reached the stage of becoming dangerous.
The spearhead of this U.N. campaign is an international
agreement with the high-minded name of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and
Regular Migration. That’s not remotely what this document boils down to. While
proclaiming a utopian “unity of purpose” among the 193 highly diverse member
states, this Global Compact would have the U.N.’s largely unaccountable,
self-aggrandizing and often opaque bureaucracy, operating in service of its
despot-infested collective of governments, set the terms for all.
The lengthy text reads like a template for setting up the
world’s most politically correct welfare state, with a colossal menu of
entitlements and central planning for migrants; never mind the cost to the
pockets, rights and freedoms of the existing citizens. This “compact” does not restrict itself to refugees. It anoints the
U.N. as arbiter of how to handle cross-border human mobility worldwide,
meaning migrants, permanent or temporary, whatever their reasons for wanting to
move. In this scheme of the universe, the
U.N. proposes to become the overarching authority “addressing migration in
all its dimensions.” [Bold text Blog
Editor’s]
Coming from a United Nations that has yet to solve its own
problems with peacekeeper rape of minors, that’s ambitious.
In a section on eliminating “all forms of discrimination,”
this compact also aims to “shape perceptions of migration,” not least by smothering free speech and promoting gags
and penalties for news coverage or debate that the U.N., in its collective
majesty, deems unfriendly to migrants. [Bold text Blog Editor’s]
This compact was adopted without a vote at an international
conference last month in Morocco, in which the U.S. declined to take part. The
resulting draft was endorsed on Dec. 19 by the U.N. General Assembly in New
York, over U.S. protests.
It is telling that among 193 member states, the 152
countries voting in favor of the compact
included such brazen human-rights abusers as Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela,
Myanmar and Iran. The five countries
voting no were the U.S., Israel, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
The remaining 36 member states either officially abstained or did nothing. [Bold text Blog Editor’s]
At the U.N., such big vote tallies in favor of U.N. turf
grabs are business as usual. In practice, the
Global Compact would entail virtually no costs for rogue, despotic or failing
member states, which routinely vote for resolutions that they themselves
ignore. The main costs would fall on the
law-abiding, free countries that provide the most desirable destinations for
migrants, and notably on the biggest
single contributor to the U.N., the
United States. [Bold text Blog
Editor’s]
The U.S. Mission to
the U.N. denounced the compact, accurately, as amounting to a bid “to advance global governance at
the expense of the sovereign right of States to manage their immigration
systems in accordance with their national laws, policies and interests.” A
U.S. envoy warned that this compact could translate into a “long-term means of
building customary international law or so-called ‘soft law’ in the area of
migration,” and expressed particular concern that the term “compact” is an
amorphous word in international law, “but implies legal obligation.” [Bold text Blog Editor’s]
The U.N.’s rejoinder has been that General Assembly resolutions
are nonbinding; participation by member states is voluntary.
Which brings us to the real pressure tactics with which the
UN is attempting an end-run around the United States. In concert with a vision
outlined in 2017 by Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the Compact itself
calls for the U.N. to set up a sprawling “network on migration,” to embed,
coordinate and promote the compact’s methods and goals throughout the U.N.
system and around the globe. The UN Terms of Reference for this compact include
a preliminary list of 38 U.N. entities already slated to promote this agenda.
The Compact further stipulates that the secretariat and
coordinator of this migration network
will be a U.N. agency called the International Organization for Migration. The
IOM operates with a staff of more than 9,000, in some 150 countries, with a
budget of more than $1.4 billion per year, the biggest slice of that
contributed by the United States. [Bold
text Blog Editor’s]
The kicker is that it was less than three years ago that the
International Organization for Migration joined the U.N. For some 65 years
before that, it was chiefly led, bankrolled and shaped by the U.S., and served
as one of America’s most reliable partners in dealing with migration. Based in
Geneva, the IOM was founded in 1951 as an intergovernmental agency — outside
the U.N. system. The migration organization was not a policy shop. Its mission
was primarily to help with logistics in resettling people displaced in Europe
by World War II. That led to it helping migrant populations hit with both
man-made and natural disasters, from the Soviet invasions of Eastern Europe, to
the Vietnamese boat people, to victims of the Christmas tsunami of 2004, and so
forth. The international migration group cooperated with the U.N., but in
keeping with longstanding U.S. preferences, it did not join the U.N. The
arrangement worked pretty well.
That all changed
under President Barack Obama. During Obama’s final year in office, in 2016,
with a nod from his administration, the IOM joined the U.N., which promptly
declared plans to create a global plan for migration. For 2017, as a parting
gift of the Obama administration, America’s $544 million contribution included
$1.68 million earmarked for conferences and consultations supporting the
creation of the Global Compact. [Bold
text Blog Editor’s]
In late 2017, the Trump administration reversed that policy,
announcing the U.S. would no longer support U.N. activities leading to the
Global Compact. Ambassador Nikki Haley released a statement that: “America is
proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in
providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe,” but the
U.N.’s global migration project, she
said, “is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.” [Bold text Blog
Editor’s]
The U.N. pursued the compact regardless, with the IOM
playing a major role in consultations and conferences around the globe,
including a major preparatory conference in 2017 in Mexico and a culminating
conference last month in Morocco. In early 2017, Guterres appointed as his
special representative for migration a former U.N. human rights commissioner,
Louise Arbour, who worked closely with the IOM to shepherd the Global Compact
to fruition and presided at the Morocco conference, which Secretary-General Guterres
also attended.
When the IOM elected a new director-general in 2018, the
U.S. lost its longtime leadership of the
organization to a Portuguese socialist, Antonio Vittorino. An old cohort of
Guterres, Vittorino made a career as a member of Portugal’s Socialist Party,
and in the 1990s, during Guterres’s tenure as Portugal’s prime minister, served
a stint as his deputy. Now they are
working together on what is basically a socialist vision for global
migration. [Bold text Blog Editor’s]
According to the terms under which it joined the U.N., the
IOM is not supposed to shape norms or prescribe policy. The agreement spells
out that it “shall function as an independent, autonomous and non-normative
international organization.” But that’s not how it’s working out. The precise
arrangements within the IOM for its new role as secretariat and hub of the
U.N.’s new systemwide migration network are still in flux, according to a
spokesman reached by phone in Switzerland. But policymaking looms large, as
confirmed by this spokesman: “The IOM is finally after 67 years setting up a
policy shop.”
Last year the Trump administration cut off funding for IOM
activities specifically related to the Global Compact. The idea was that these
could be disentangled from the rest of the organization’s activities, for which
a lot of U.S. money continues to flow, most of it voluntary. In 2018, according
to IOM budget estimates, the U.S. contributed roughly $448 million in voluntary
funds, all but $2 million of that project-dedicated, plus $12 million in
assessed dues.
But with the International Organization for Migration now
planning its own policy shop and serving as the hub and secretariat for a U.N.
migration network to promote the Global Compact, it’s hard to see how any IOM
project might escape being entwined with this campaign to undermine U.S.
sovereignty. It’s looking ever more as if a good step toward enhancing U.S.
border security would be to stop funding the migration organization and spend
all those American tax dollars on projects and partners more dedicated to the
genuine interests of both migrants and the U.S. itself.
*Claudia Rosett is a foreign policy fellow with the
Washington-based Independent Women’s Forum.
*This column was first published in The
Dallas Morning News, on January 18, 2019.
_____________________
Introducing UN’s Global Compact for Safe,
Orderly and Regular Migration
Intro by John R. Houk
Intro © January 19, 2019
_____________________
The UN is trying to grab control of
worldwide immigration policies
Copyright © 2013 | The American Center for Democracy
is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Your contribution
is tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.
About ACD
The ACD is dedicated to
exposing threats to our free speech rights, political and economic freedoms and
national security.
ACD is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. All
contributions are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.
OUR DISTINCTION
ACD fills an important gap created by inadequate risk
assessments of our cyberspace, GPS & UTC. We use our Threatcon programs, our
multidimensional Terrorist
Finance Network Tracker (TFNT), and our experts to better
inform government, public and private sectors’ policy makers.
CONNECTING THE DOTS
• ACD’s synergistic approach to connect the dots on
emerging threats is facilitated by extensive multidisciplinary global research
in various languages. We publish our knowledge-based analysis and use the
information to offer special tools to help prevent and mitigate such threats.
• ACD’s Threatcon, offers individually
tailored programs of briefing and scenario gaming to encourage government,
public and private sectors to cooperate in preventing and mitigating the risks
to our political and economic freedoms and to our national security.
• ACD’s Terrorist Finance Network Tracker (TFNT), a
unique anti money laundering (AML) system, is using a multidimensional approach
to build and regularly update a comprehensive database identifying operational
and financial networks of transnational radical Islamic groups.
“Lean
and agile, ACD/EWI is always ahead of the next threat: cyber attacks, market
manipulation , the use of legal structures to inhibit free speech and stifle debate”- Richard
Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense
No comments:
Post a Comment