The UN at work
A recent Dis-Con Note, ‘ScoMo’s (recommended) manifesto’, mentioned two international meetings in December pursuing the United Nation’s stealthy ambitions to ‘push for a “New World Order”’. The meeting in Poland (3-14 December) of Contracting Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will focus on the Paris Agreement, aiming to transform it from its current non-legally-binding form into a full-blown UN treaty that ties its members into targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and (for its developed country members, including Australia) into huge future financial obligations.
Since then, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has produced a ‘Special Report’. It warns us (in apocalyptic terms reflecting its desperation that with each successive failure of its past predictions it has become less and less believable) of the fire and brimstone that the Lord (of Global Warming) will surely rain down upon our sinful non-believing heads unless we repent of our aberrant ways and cease wanting to live in the modern world. Timed to provide the backdrop to the Paris meeting, it paints the doomsday scenario necessary for the UN to succeed in moving that meeting’s negotiations forward.
With the Wentworth by-election behind him, perhaps Prime Minister Scott Morrison can be brought to see the folly of his previous statements defending our continued membership of this Paris body. True, he has said he will not provide its Green Climate Fund with any more money, beyond what former Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop so wantonly lavished upon it. But so long as he keeps us in the Paris ring, we remain vulnerable.
At least it can be said of Paris that currently we only have a worthless piece of paper by which (despite Morrison’s mistaken claims to the contrary) we are in no way legally bound, and that the real treaty for which the UN is pushing is still subject to what will be strenuous negotiations. That is a far cry from that other December meeting, in Morocco to adopt the Global Compact on Migration. As that word ‘adopt’ signifies, its terms have now been settled; it only remains to see who will be so foolish as to sign up to them. Will Morrison?
He will undoubtedly be pressed to do so by the Department of Foreign Affairs – itself one of the guilty parties in drafting this document – and doubtless also by our new, already ‘captured’ Minister for Foreign Affairs, Marise Payne. Will Peter Dutton, whose portfolio still retains titular responsibility for immigration (although day-to-day immigration matters now rest in the as yet untested hands of David Coleman), re-state his earlier opposition to the GCM and firmly state that Australia will have nothing to do with it?
These are not small matters. The GCM text runs to 34 pages, built around some 23 ‘Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration’. Since Australia already possesses a second-to-none framework for those objectives, we might seem to have no problem in signing up. However, when the ‘objectives’ are examined, it soon appears that there is more – much more – to them than meets the eye. Consider, for example, Objective 13 (‘Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives’). How long will it be, should Morrison be so careless as to sign up, before the UN is expressing strong dissatisfaction with our detention policies, and our failure to ‘work towards alternatives’? And how long thereafter until the UN Commission on Human Rights (from which the US has withdrawn) is meeting to condemn us?
Take another example, Objective 17 (‘Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration’). Little imagination is needed to see where that leads. Pauline Hanson, for one, will go to jail for expressing her widely-supported views about our admission of Muslims; and our own Human Rights Commission will be activated to silence anyone expressing any criticism of immigrants (over the high crime rates among Somalis and South Sudanese, for example), no matter how well ‘evidence-based’ such criticisms may be. More alarming still, think how activist lawyers will use that word ‘shape’ to press for media censorship of any derogatory anti-immigrant statements. I could go on.
Don’t think this UN ‘New World Order’ activity stops there. While the GCM did finally surface publicly in Australia a few months ago (having been in the drafting since the UN’s New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants on September 19, 2016), the other project set in train by that Declaration – the Global Compact on Refugees – has thus far, to the best of my knowledge, entirely escaped public attention. That is despite our own Department of Foreign Affairs bureaucrats having been working on it under the radar during all those drafting sessions in Geneva, to the point where the text of this document also was settled some months ago. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who has been in charge of this process, presented the final text to members of the UN General Assembly in New York in July, and the General Assembly was expected to vote (to approve it, of course) in late September, but I have been unable to get an answer out of Foreign Affairs on its current status. Space precludes more detailed examination, other than to note the GCR’s ‘Programme of action’ addressing a range of ‘Arrangements for burden- and responsibility-sharing’ – including, predictably, funding and other ‘key tools’ for doing so.
Australia has one of the most generous refugee and humanitarian intakes in the world. Like the US, we should tell the UN we will not accede to the GCR’s bid for further interference in our affairs. Over to you, ScoMo.