Estonia looks likely to opt-out of the UN Migration Manifesto.
Also, how UN declarations can one day evolve to prevent nations from properly securing its borders.
There is too much risk involved with endorsing the migration goals of the United Nations, not only for today but for the future as well.
* Some were once giddy to please the EU and UN…which worked for several years on this with African leaders. They are desperate for all EU nation states to comply, which is revealing, not to mention Africa’s enthusiasm for the global compact.
However, as noted, this is not a certainty in Estonia and there will be intense pressure and threats from some quarters in order to get them to comply.
ERR news, who wants the Pact endorsed, is already shamelessly claiming that Estonia’s UN Security Council spot could be jeopardized if they fail to ‘fall in line’ with the Compact.
Estonia would be advised to reject it from the start. Once an endorsing nation, a country opens itself up to future court rulings and immense pressure from the so-called international community to comply with its standards and “values”.
One may have forgotten the blackmail involved with the EU migrant quota scheme, which initially started out as a “one-time” voluntary program, but eventually morphed into additional demands and programs – with the EU Commission taking three Visegrád countries to a European Court.
Plus, there is talk of the EU attempting to adopt UN measures to try to force its members into compliance with the standards endorsed by the Compact. Watch out for more majority voting schemes in Brussels.
And finally, the V4 Report does not believe the agenda of the UN is aligned with the best interests of Europe.
For example, it is obvious in today’s day and age that “Pushback” techniques are required to properly defend one’s borders from aggressive male migrants attempting to force their way across borders. (See the action of migrants at Spain’s land border.)
However, in 2012, the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights ruled that Italy’s pushback policy on boat migrants coming from Libya breached international law, including the Geneva Convention and the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. Those documents, and the laws that followed them, defined a person’s rights to seek asylum from persecution in other countries.
We use this example to illustrate how UN declarations and documents can one day be used to handcuff a nation from properly defending its border.
** Note: The Universal Declaration is not a treaty, so it does not directly create legal obligations for countries. However, it is an expression of the fundamental values which are shared by all members of the international community. And it has had a profound influence on the development of international human rights law.