VEven weeks before the scheduled signature, there is still confusion over the title of the UN migration pact. Also on Thursday in the German Bundestag.
"Not all shortcuts are correct," CDU MP Frank Steffel criticized. He pointed to the board that indicated the item on the agenda: "GCM stands for Global Compact for Migration". But the correct wording reads: "Global pact for a safe, orderly and compliant migration". This is a big difference. "Let's talk about what we're talking about, so people will understand it more easily." It was an attempt to regain the power of interpretation over a debate that got out of hand in recent weeks.
For many months, the UN has worked on an international agreement to manage migration. In December, the pact must be accepted by almost all states of the UN, including Germany. But so far, the federal government has hardly informed the public about the concrete meaning – despite the explosiveness of the subject. If it were for her, she would have accepted the agreement without a parliamentary debate. Apparently he did not see that the content could provoke contradictions.
But then, at the end of October, Austria suddenly announced that it would not join the agreement; followed several countries of Eastern Europe. They feared a task of national sovereignty, it was said. Even in the Union, alarm voices suddenly arose against acceptance of the pact. It was a disadvantage that here the escape and labor migration would be mixed together, warned by CDU Bundestag deputy Marian Wendt. He would campaign to not accept the pact in his current condition.
Meanwhile, AfD has managed to cope with social media against the deal – sometimes with exaggerations and misinformation. For example, AfD leader Jörg Meuthen announced that the pact declared "any form of migration to human rights, according to which every person in the world should have a settlement permit, wherever he wants". Not only did the skeptics of migration begin to wonder what had actually been negotiated here by the federal government – and what significance this pact would have for Germany.
Thursday there was now an opportunity for clarification. The AfD faction had filed a request to ask the federal government not to join the pact. For the parts of government groups an opportunity to finally explain: why should the hypothesis be an advantage for Germany? And no danger?
That you see a guy, brought AfD into the debate. To emphasize the importance of the matter, he first let his group president speak. Alexander Gauland has attacked the previous communication behavior of the federal government. He did not think it was necessary to inform the public. The relevance is obvious. "Ladies and gentlemen, once Bismarck said," If between such powers you create such a harmless pact, you have to ask yourself who should be killed here. "
Because "everywhere" opposes the declaration, if this is a non-binding agreement, as the federal government states, he asked Gauland. "Why the United States, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Croatia do not want to sign the pact?" The answer lies in the pact itself: migration is presented there exclusively as a "source of wealth and sustainable development". "No word on the countries that destabilize migration".
The pact can be expected to be the first step in making immigration "a human right" that "transcends state law and becomes customary," Gauland said. "Millions of people from crisis regions" would be "instigated" to get on their way. "Leftist dreamers and globalist elites want to turn our country secretly from a nation state into a settlement area."
Initially, government factions did not respond to these allegations. Stephan Harbarth, who spoke first of the CDU, said he had state support: Germany had decided after the World War II catastrophe, "to face the great challenges of our time internationally". So that one had driven well so far. The pact does not promote migration – exactly the opposite is the case: "Who is for the global migration pact, which creates the conditions for incentives to return to Germany, comes back".
Finally, the work confessed the fight against flight, the fight against smuggling, border security, identification and repatriation. It was also in Germany's interest to work to ensure that migrants have access to basic services and health care in all countries, as the Pact states. Finally, migratory pressure on the Federal Republic would be reduced if migrants could already access these services in neighboring countries.
Likewise, he supported Christoph Matschie of the SPD. The agreement is not about "opening the door" to migration. The pressure to leave one's homeland should be reduced to the contrary. "But this does not lead to more migration, which leads to less migration." However, apart from that, there is certainly immigration that the Pact wants to promote: "There are economically strong regions that need skilled workers." Regulated migration and economic performance belonged together – "Have a look at the Silicon Valley". Finally, the pact explicitly states that each country remains sovereign – in contrast to the statements of the AFD. He accused Matschie: "They read the opposite, it's grotesque as senseless, what you do is pure conspiracy theory."
Sevim Dagdelen of the left party accused the afd parliamentarians of not having used the opportunities to help shape the pact. "Last year, I was the only member of the German Bundestag three times in the debates and negotiations of the migration pact in New York." It is surprising that AfD did not send any representative.
One answer, however, remained guilty of the AfD government: because the federal government insists on the elaboration of the pact, if it were a non-binding parliamentary representative, Beatrix von Storch wanted to know in a brief speech. The deputy of the CDU Harbarth did not answer.