Thinking about Marrakech

Thinking about Marrakech


By Vincenzo Cotroneo

The signature has passed; we are now waiting for the consequences, or rather, the effects of the commitment signed by the 164 countries in Marrakech, thus expressing a positive value on the proposal for a global compact brought to the assembly.

The UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, defined the Global Compact as a “roadmap to avoid suffering and chaos”, reaffirming that the agreement does not violate the sovereignty of the States and does not create new rights to migrate, but reaffirms respect for the human rights. We will shortly recall this passage.

The question is simple. Why only 164 of the 190 countries that signed the pact in 2016 have signed the agreement in Morocco? This UN provision has no value until each subscribing country incorporates it into its legislation with its own regulatory procedure, so it remains a proposal on the model of “best practice” and nothing more.

Question: what is the point of all this attention on the Global Compact? As if the definitive process had been promoted to define once and for all the solution to every problem of uncontrolled migration in every part of the world. It is not a partisan presumption, rather the non-constraint is argued within the document, in Article 7 (This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by the United States Declaration for Refugees and Migrants) and as our minister Moavero explains, the agreement is not binding, because internationally, a binding agreement is legally binding, not” compact “.

So why all this noise in Morocco for the lack of accessions by fifty countries including Italy?

The “Moral Suasion” and an “unbalanced” Secretary

One of the main aspects that have raised quite important questions, derives precisely from this lack of legal constraint. It cannot be challenged for its content to be valid in the face of any type of legal court, not even referred to through conventions. The worrying factor is the ethical-moral one. The Global Compact is a normative reference element, dressed in harmless “guide manual for users not experienced in migration”, from which to draw the steps to compose the logical processes that end with the birth of the norm.

Obviously that relies on the current western emotional condition, connected to a distorted concept of “politically correct” that links the migrant’s experience to the wave of Western fear of being considered racist.

A very vicious circle within which the conceptual bases of departure are not analyzed, ie the reasons and local choices that require a person to move from their own territory and migrate to another.

Faced with the 160 delegates (out of the 193 States belonging to the UN), the general secretary, Antonio Guterres, invited everyone not to surrender “to the fear or false narration regarding immigration”.

In the report “Making migration work for all” “blessed” by the Secretary, and which is prodromal to the writing of the Global Compact, migration is analyzed from the phenomenal massive point of view, attributing the characteristics of the necessary age and continuity, which can then be inscribed as something not occasional or linked to particular situations of crisis, but a right that implies the reduction of economic disparities that anticipate demographic trends and work needs.

“We empty parts of the world and let them die and at the same time we fill up other productive areas until they are completely devoid of resources to survive, reversing the movement of the masses” … A madness in nuce and madness in projection .

Migrating is not a right, everybody must know it. Especially in a framework like the one depicted by Global, which includes a commitment “to ensure that migrants are not criminally prosecuted for being trafficked or for other violations of national law”, which would in fact create a dangerous public divide with the residents and a racism on the contrary towards the citizens who, with extreme patience and by now at a high level of social hardship, could find themselves in the condition to undergo yet another slap to their elementary rights.

On the other hand, the risk of creating false promises and deceptive expectations in those who leave a depressed area of ​​the world towards an imaginary Western scenario capable of overseeing every request and desire, is truly high.

There is no right to migrate

The right to move is not equal to the right to migrate. Moving on a common territory, bringing greater territorial competitiveness and a marginal advantage for each unit of person moving, is useful to the collective desire for development and greater contribution to social, cultural, technological and moral growth. This right is always linked to the technical and operational capacity that the individual brings with him and that he will further develop at his destination.

The concept of the right to migrate is different, erasing the distinction between migrants and refugees, and even worse that between regular and irregular migrants.

Joao Vale de Almeida, head of the EU delegation to the UN, asked for the document to indicate more clearly the distinction between regular and irregular migrants, avoiding any language that could be interpreted as a justification or incentive for irregular immigration. And it could not be otherwise, since one of the international organizations such as the IOM (International Organization for Migrants), is a promoter of the document, which would cease at a time the activities currently in place (and well paid) between Europe and Libya, SAR ships (now reduced to very few units), migrant management camps and military units on which the IOM rises as a teaching staff for the sensitization of the military, before they leave for entry into the Mediterranean theaters.

Facilitate flows …

Therefore, the declared objective is to facilitate the migration flow, in order to guarantee peace and security. Obviously. With an inevitable variable daughter of that damned “politically correct”, that any criticism of the “Global Compact” would become racism and xenophobia.

And to make things easier, Article 11 provides that in the face of a migration crisis, governments and national States must transfer their national sovereignty and border management to supranational organizations such as the UN, with all the consequences…

So do not wonder why nations like the United States, Australia, Switzerland, Israel, Austria and Hungary have not signed the agreement. Trump’s farewell broke through a door: in avalanche Australia, Austria, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia left the table. A political case has exploded in Belgium. Bulgaria, Estonia, Israel, Slovenia, Switzerland and of course Italy are in limbo.


Without falling into the pushed and well pumped nationalism outside this convention, the point of fall is still the role that Italy wants to assume in the coming years. The center of the Mediterranean chessboard is likely to succumb permanently under the financial bouts of a trilateral not too friendly, and Africa that pushes every day between a fallacy search for wealth and the presence of too many risks and dangers, representatives from countries that wobble every day in the grip of more or less pronounced coups, territorial divisions, terrorism and religious extremism that inflamed not only the countries, but also the hearts of those who live in those countries and who are in transit to our cities.

As Secretary Guterres said: “We must not succumb to fear or false narratives”, especially when these come from the glossy rooms of the Palaces where international politics and international organizations are very well protected, and very far from men and from everyday reality. We hope that the Italian Parliament will realize it in a serious way when it comes to discussing it in Montecitorio.


Vai a Inizio pagina