The Global Compact for Migration. Would it be effective to address migration crisis?

The Global Compact for Migration. Would it be effective to address migration crisis?

To address it? Yes

To solve it? No

Addressing migration problems has been the heart of the discussion within the scope of international affairs for the past decades, the surge of it started since the impact of 2011 Arab Spring which resulted to internal conflicts around the Arab world that its impact we can still see today. Syrian civil war that peak around 2015 has a very significant impact in international order due to its huge number of civilians fleeing the conflict and en route to Europe. 

According to UN estimate in 2015, there were more than four millions refugees from Syria alone fleeing the country and embarked on journey to neighbouring countries such as Turkey or further destination such as Germany. This 2015 refugee crisis was the highlight of humanitarian crisis in the twenty first century. 

It did not stop there, since then, refugees from other countries in Middle East such as Afghanistan or Iraq as well as from North Africa such as Eritrea, Nigeria, and Somalia embarked on dangerous journey via Mediterranean Sea. This crisis has led into Mediterranean migrant crisis. 

The impact of the crisis instead produced a backlash from the destination continent. Europe, however, instead of addressing the crisis with a clear conscience and logic, shut its door to the refugees as well as into a long-term solution to this crisis. Since 2015, there has been a rise of populist movement that address significant topic such as the protection of nationality as well as against foreign refugees. 

The crisis has led into several countries in Europe to be openly embraced right-wing movement that led politicians such as Victor Orban in Hungary and Matteo Salvini in Italy to be given a chance to lead their countries into extreme nationalistic and hostile to foreigner. Even across the Atlantic, Donald Trump has won Presidential election on a platform that is hostile to foreign refugees. 

But, with all of this taking place in a short time, there has been a very slow progress in addressing it. It is very likely that this slow progress or no progress at all took its credit from the inefficient deals that were taken by international organisations. One particular example lies on the height of the crisis itself on 2015 with the agreement taken by EU and Turkey whereas EU will provide monetary aid into Turkey which in turn will manage and halt the flow of refugees from Middle East coming to Europe. 

That deal was clearly only addressing the tip of the real problem that created the crisis. Instead of finding real solution to address the crisis, international organisation never intend to participate itself to help solve the problem. Its selfishness instead took its chance to fulfil its own interest for political purposes. This can be seen from the rise of right-wing nationalism that appeals to the working class citizens of destination countries which was fed by the right-wing politicians on a platform that the foreign refugees will steal their jobs or as an extremist claim ‘the invasion of refugees’.

Therefore, since April 2017, United Nations has prepared an intergovernmental agreement to address this humanitarian crisis. As UN stated; 

It presents a significant opportunity to improve the governance on migration, to address the challenges associated with today’s migration, and to strengthen the contribution of migrants and migration to sustainable development.

With the upcoming General Assembly taking place in Marrakech, Morocco. The UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is to be formally approved on December 11. The drafting process was launched after all 193 UN member states, including the United States under President Barack Obama, adopted a 2016 declaration saying no country can manage international migration on its own and agreed to work on a global compact.

However, according to an article of the Nationals, the US government under Donald Trump disavowed the negotiations late last year, and since then Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Slovakia have pulled out of the process. Even the US took on a fresh swipe at the pact, labelling it "an effort by the United Nations to advance global governance at the expense of the sovereign right of states". 

The withdrawal of these countries are clearly based on a mix of fear and prejudice towards the refugees. Not only the claim of the US on its sovereignty being threatened is absolutely delusion, it also can be interpreted that those countries that are against the compact are giving clear message that they are against international cooperation on addressing the crisis and will consistently prioritise the continuity of each country instead of continuity international peace.

Moreover, unfortunately, the non-binding nature of the compact makes its implementation solely based on the goodwill of states supporting it," Amnesty International's senior advocate for the Americas, Perseo Quiroz, said in comments emailed to AFP. 

The fact that the compact is legally non-binding in reality will not be enough to address the real crisis. In which the real problem is that the compact does not address the surrounding issue that encourage the flow of people leaving their countries and embark on journey to destination countries.