VEven weeks before the planned signing, there is still confusion about the title of the UN Migration Pact. Also on Thursday in the German Bundestag.
"Not every shortcut is correct", criticized the CDU MP Frank Steffel. He pointed to the scoreboard on which the agenda item was: "GCM stands for Global Compact for Migration." But the correct wording is: "Global pact for safe, orderly and flexible migration." That's a big difference. "Let's talk about what we are talking about, and people will understand it more easily." It was an attempt to regain the power of interpretation over a debate that has gotten out of hand in recent weeks.
For many months, the United Nations has been working on an international agreement to manage migration. In December, the pact must be accepted by almost all states of the UN, including Germany. But until now, the federal government has barely informed the public about the concrete meaning – despite the explosiveness of the subject. If it had been her, she would have agreed to the agreement without a parliamentary debate. Apparently she did not see that the content could evoke contradiction.
But then, at the end of October, Austria suddenly announced that it would not join the agreement; several Eastern European countries followed. They feared a task of national sovereignty, it was said. Even in the Union, there were suddenly voices against accepting the pact. It was a disadvantage that flight and labor migration would be mixed together here, warned of the CDU-staff member of the deputy Marian Wendt. He would campaign for not accepting the pact in his current situation.
In the meantime, the AfD succeeded in making social arrangements against the agreement – sometimes with exaggerations and misinformation. For example, AfD leader Jörg Meuthen announced that the pact stated: "any form of migration to human rights, according to which every person worldwide should have a location permit, wherever he wants". Not only did immigration skeptics begin to wonder what was actually negotiated by the federal government – and what significance would this pact have for Germany.
On Thursday there was now opportunity for clarification. The AfD faction had filed an application asking the federal government not to participate in the pact. For the parties of the governmental groups a chance to finally explain: why would the assumption be an advantage for Germany? And no danger?
That she sees this, led the AfD in the debate. To underline the importance of the case, she first had her group chairman speak. Alexander Gauland attacked the earlier communication behavior of the federal government. She did not think it necessary to inform the public. The relevance is clear. Ladies and gentlemen, Bismarck once said: & # 39; If somewhere a pact between two powers is closed so innocently, you have to ask yourself who should be killed here. & # 39;
Why does "everywhere" oppose the statement, if this is a non-binding agreement, as the federal government claims, Gauland asked. "Why the US, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Croatia do not want to sign the pact?" The answer is in the pact itself: migration is presented there exclusively as a "source of prosperity and sustainable development". "Not a word about migration destabilizing countries."
It is to be expected that the pact will be the first step in making immigration "a human right" that "transcends the state law and becomes ordinary", said Gauland. "Millions of people from crisis regions" would be "instigated" to go on their way. "Left-wing dreamers and globalist elites want to turn our country into a settlement area in secret from a nation-state."
Initially, the government factions did not respond to such allegations. Stephan Harbarth, who spoke first for the CDU, said he had state support: Germany had decided after the catastrophe of the Second World War "to address the great challenges of our time internationally." So he had driven well so far. The pact does not promote migration – the exact opposite is true: "Who is for the global migration pact, which creates the conditions for the incentives to return to Germany, go back."
Finally, the work knew the fight against the flight, combating smuggling, border security, identification and repatriation. It was also in Germany's interest to ensure that migrants have access to basic services and health care in all countries – as the pact says. Finally, migratory pressures on the Federal Republic would be reduced if migrants already had access to these services in neighboring countries.
Likewise, Christoph Matschie argued for the SPD. The agreement is not about "opening the door" for migration. The pressure to leave the home country must be reduced on the contrary. "But that does not lead to more migration, which leads to less migration." Anyway, there is certainly immigration that wants to promote the Pact: "There are economically strong regions that need skilled workers." Regulated migration and economic performance belonged together – "Look at Silicon Valley". Finally, the pact explicitly states that every country remains sovereign – in contrast to the claims of the AfD. He accused Matschie: "They read the opposite, which is as grotesque as ridiculous, and what you do is pure conspiracy theory."
Sevim Day parts of the left party accused AfD MPs that they did not use any chances to shape the pact. "In the past year, I was the only member of the German Bundestag three times in the debates and negotiations on the Migration Pact in New York." It is surprising that the AfD had not sent a representative.
One answer remained, however, to the AfD government: why the federal government insists on the drafting of the pact, if it was non-binding, wanted parliamentary representative Beatrix von Storch to know in a brief intervention. The CDU deputy Harbarth did not respond.