The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/un-general-assembly-adopts-refugee-pact-without-support-of-us-and-hungary-184909">UN General Assembly</a> has officially endorsed the first-ever international cooperation framework on migration for effectively addressing issues that concern the world's 258 million people on the move and countries of origin, transit and destination.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/un-conference-adopts-migration-pact-despite-withdrawals-183090">Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration</a> was adopted by the General Assembly with 152 votes in favour, 12 abstentions, and five votes against, namely by the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, and the United States of America.&nbsp;

An additional 24 Member States were not present to take part in the vote. India was among the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/more-than-150-governments-to-adopt-un-migration-pact-in-morocco-182775">152 countries that voted in favour</a> of the resolution endorsing the Global Compact, which was adopted by world leaders in Marrakesh, Morocco, on December 10.

The document is the first-ever negotiated global framework on a common approach to international migration in all its dimensions.&nbsp;

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said after the vote that the document "reaffirms the foundational principles of our global community, including national sovereignty and universal human rights while pointing the way toward humane and sensible action to benefit countries of origin, transit and destination as well as migrants themselves.&nbsp;

Guterres stressed that the Compact calls for greater solidarity with migrants in situations of appalling vulnerability and abuse,&nbsp;that it underscores the need to anticipate future trends, and that it highlights the imperative of devising more legal pathways for migration.

UN Special Representative for International Migration Louise Arbour who led the conference deliberations over the Compact in the Moroccan city of Marrakech last week, said that he formal endorsement represents a resounding commitment to an international migration framework based on fact, not myth, and to an understanding that national migration policies are best implemented through cooperation, not in isolation.

Though non-legally binding, the Compact is the outcome of a long negotiation process and provides a strong platform for cooperation on migration, drawing on best practice and international law.&nbsp;

Thanking all those who "helped to bring this landmark step to fruition," including civil society, migrants, diaspora communities, the private sector, trade unions, academic experts and municipal leaders, the UN chief said he hoped the ?countries that have chosen to remain outside the process will come to see the Compact's value and join this venture.&nbsp;

In statements explaining their decisions, countries that voted for the document stated often stressed the fact that this document is only a first step and that its realization will be where the work really starts. The sentiment was echoed by the UN chief who said that leadership will be crucial in bringing the Compact to life, and in avoiding the myths and disparaging discourse that have become all too frequent.&nbsp;

The UN Secretary-General noted that the United Nations, through the newly established UN Migration Network, stands ready to support the Member States and all partners "to make migration work for all".

The UN General Assembly has officially endorsed the first-ever international cooperation framework on migration for effectively addressing issues that concern the world's 258 million people on the move and countries of origin, transit and destination.

The UN General Assembly has officially endorsed the first-ever international cooperation framework on migration for effectively addressing issues that concern the world's 258 million people on the move and countries of origin, transit and destination. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was adopted by the General Assembly with 152 votes in favour, 12 abstentions, and five votes against, namely by the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, and the United States of America. An additional 24 Member States were not present to take part in the vote. India was among the 152 countries that voted in favour of the resolution endorsing the Global Compact, which was adopted by world leaders in Marrakesh, Morocco, on December 10. The document is the first-ever negotiated global framework on a common approach to international migration in all its dimensions. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said after the vote that the document "reaffirms the foundational principles of our global community, including national sovereignty and universal human rights while pointing the way toward humane and sensible action to benefit countries of origin, transit and destination as well as migrants themselves. Guterres stressed that the Compact calls for greater solidarity with migrants in situations of appalling vulnerability and abuse, that it underscores the need to anticipate future trends, and that it highlights the imperative of devising more legal pathways for migration. UN Special Representative for International Migration Louise Arbour who led the conference deliberations over the Compact in the Moroccan city of Marrakech last week, said that he formal endorsement represents a resounding commitment to an international migration framework based on fact, not myth, and to an understanding that national migration policies are best implemented through cooperation, not in isolation. Though non-legally binding, the Compact is the outcome of a long negotiation process and provides a strong platform for cooperation on migration, drawing on best practice and international law. Thanking all those who "helped to bring this landmark step to fruition," including civil society, migrants, diaspora communities, the private sector, trade unions, academic experts and municipal leaders, the UN chief said he hoped the ?countries that have chosen to remain outside the process will come to see the Compact's value and join this venture. In statements explaining their decisions, countries that voted for the document stated often stressed the fact that this document is only a first step and that its realization will be where the work really starts. The sentiment was echoed by the UN chief who said that leadership will be crucial in bringing the Compact to life, and in avoiding the myths and disparaging discourse that have become all too frequent. The UN Secretary-General noted that the United Nations, through the newly established UN Migration Network, stands ready to support the Member States and all partners "to make migration work for all".

General Assembly officially adopts roadmap for migrants to improve safety

By Drew Mikhael

World leaders gathered in Marrakesh on December 10 to sign a historic agreement safeguarding the rights of migrants. Despite the withdrawal of some countries, the Global Compact on Migration was approved by 164 countries. It follows the Global Compact on Refugees, approved at the UN in mid-November by all countries, bar one – the United States.

Despite the current optimism around the potential good these new global compacts on refugees and migrants will have, the current political situation in Lebanon – home to 1.1m Syrian refugees – shows why there is still a long way to go. Infrastructure to accommodate the refugees in host countries such as Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan is still dire and requires emergency funds to ensure basic needs are met.

In Lebanon, Syrian refugees are viewed not only as an economic burden, but a political threat so severe that their presence threatens the country’s delicate power-sharing balance. Even in the aftermath of elections in May 2018 that brought a modicum of political stability in Lebanon – although still no agreement on cabinet positions – Syrian refugees are still scapegoated by Lebanese politicians. Increasingly xenophobic rhetoric has worsened.

Meanwhile, Lebanon has stepped up efforts to return Syrian refugees, committing significant resources to ensure the return of as many people as possible. But this is highly controversial. Many Syrians fear reprisals or arrest by the Assad regime, possible conscription into the army and a basic lack of infrastructure when they arrive.

Even with the prospects of new international agreements on refugees, no discernible positive impact can be expected for Lebanon’s Syrian refugees. Lebanon has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention so that it isn’t legally required to protect the estimated 450,000 Palestinian refugees who also live in the country. The convention provides the legal parameters to ensure refugees are given the right to work, education, housing and non-discrimination.

Memory of the past

Part of the reason why Lebanon has ignored this international mandate for refugee rights is a reflection of the divided nature of Lebanese politics, which values stability between the Lebanese elite above all else. But the cost of that stability is currently being paid disproportionally by Syrian and Palestinians as they face marginalisation and exclusion.

Since the outbreak of the Syrian war in 2011, Syrians who sought refuge in Lebanon have faced systemic marginalisation through policies that limited their ability to gain residency and labour rights. For Lebanon’s political elite, the presence of Syrian refugees represents a dangerous reminder of the Palestinian refugees who played an important role in the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990, and are now commonly, and wrongly, blamed for being one of the causes of the conflict.

Lebanese political power-sharing is based on a prescriptive sectarian parliamentary balance between Christians and Muslims. The focus on a demographic balance between Christians and Muslims within Lebanon’s institutions has a direct influence on political decision making: from ensuring representation in the cabinet to enshrining the rejection of the right for Palestinian refugees to settle in the constitution.

Because of this, the Christian political elite view Syrians and Palestinians not as vulnerable groups in need of basic assistance, but as a potential seismic demographic shift. The common theory explained to me on a recent research trip to Lebanon was that if either group were to be settled in Lebanon permanently, the balance of sects would shift to favour to Sunnis and result in their dominance over the political arena at the expense of Shia and Christians.

What’s old is new again

It was clear that for many of the Christian political elite I spoke to, the Syrian refugees were viewed as an existential threat that could undermine the delicate sectarian balance in the country and destroy the power-sharing agreement that guarantees representation for all Lebanese groups.

In the face of all this, Lebanon’s response to the presence of refugees has been uncharacteristically cohesive. It introduced a national strategy in 2014 entitled the “policy on Syrian displacement”, aimed primarily at ensuring that Syrians were limited in their ability to settle permanently in Lebanon.

Now, arguments that have been used to marginalise Palestinians are now repeated in reference to Syrians. In May 2018, former foreign minister Gebran Bassil proposed that Lebanese women would finally be allowed to pass on nationality to their children unless they were married to a Syrian or Palestinian. Previous arguments on why this right should be denied to Lebanese women were made in reference to children of Palestinians only.

The focus on maintaining sectarian equilibrium will always be an obstacle for international legal instruments designed to give refugees their rights in Lebanon. For the Syrian and Palestinian refugees living in the country, the power-sharing system will continue to entrap them as they face systemic exclusion, with politicians trying to make their living conditions as difficult as possible to ward off the potential settlement. If stability in Lebanon continues to be managed by sectarian head counting, any mechanisms to protect refugees will not be implementable and suffering will continue unabated. 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/syrian-refugees-remain-trapped-and-marginalised-by-lebanons-power-sharing-politics-108363">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

 
&nbsp;

By Drew Mikhael World leaders gathered in Marrakesh on December 10 to sign a historic agreement safeguarding the rights of migrants. Despite the withdrawal of some countries, the Global Compact on Migration was approved by 164 countries.

By Drew Mikhael World leaders gathered in Marrakesh on December 10 to sign a historic agreement safeguarding the rights of migrants. Despite the withdrawal of some countries, the Global Compact on Migration was approved by 164 countries. It follows the Global Compact on Refugees, approved at the UN in mid-November by all countries, bar one – the United States. Despite the current optimism around the potential good these new global compacts on refugees and migrants will have, the current political situation in Lebanon – home to 1.1m Syrian refugees – shows why there is still a long way to go. Infrastructure to accommodate the refugees in host countries such as Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan is still dire and requires emergency funds to ensure basic needs are met. In Lebanon, Syrian refugees are viewed not only as an economic burden, but a political threat so severe that their presence threatens the country’s delicate power-sharing balance. Even in the aftermath of elections in May 2018 that brought a modicum of political stability in Lebanon – although still no agreement on cabinet positions – Syrian refugees are still scapegoated by Lebanese politicians. Increasingly xenophobic rhetoric has worsened. Meanwhile, Lebanon has stepped up efforts to return Syrian refugees, committing significant resources to ensure the return of as many people as possible. But this is highly controversial. Many Syrians fear reprisals or arrest by the Assad regime, possible conscription into the army and a basic lack of infrastructure when they arrive. Even with the prospects of new international agreements on refugees, no discernible positive impact can be expected for Lebanon’s Syrian refugees. Lebanon has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention so that it isn’t legally required to protect the estimated 450,000 Palestinian refugees who also live in the country. The convention provides the legal parameters to ensure refugees are given the right to work, education, housing and non-discrimination. Memory of the past Part of the reason why Lebanon has ignored this international mandate for refugee rights is a reflection of the divided nature of Lebanese politics, which values stability between the Lebanese elite above all else. But the cost of that stability is currently being paid disproportionally by Syrian and Palestinians as they face marginalisation and exclusion. Since the outbreak of the Syrian war in 2011, Syrians who sought refuge in Lebanon have faced systemic marginalisation through policies that limited their ability to gain residency and labour rights. For Lebanon’s political elite, the presence of Syrian refugees represents a dangerous reminder of the Palestinian refugees who played an important role in the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990, and are now commonly, and wrongly, blamed for being one of the causes of the conflict. Lebanese political power-sharing is based on a prescriptive sectarian parliamentary balance between Christians and Muslims. The focus on a demographic balance between Christians and Muslims within Lebanon’s institutions has a direct influence on political decision making: from ensuring representation in the cabinet to enshrining the rejection of the right for Palestinian refugees to settle in the constitution. Because of this, the Christian political elite view Syrians and Palestinians not as vulnerable groups in need of basic assistance, but as a potential seismic demographic shift. The common theory explained to me on a recent research trip to Lebanon was that if either group were to be settled in Lebanon permanently, the balance of sects would shift to favour to Sunnis and result in their dominance over the political arena at the expense of Shia and Christians. What’s old is new again It was clear that for many of the Christian political elite I spoke to, the Syrian refugees were viewed as an existential threat that could undermine the delicate sectarian balance in the country and destroy the power-sharing agreement that guarantees representation for all Lebanese groups. In the face of all this, Lebanon’s response to the presence of refugees has been uncharacteristically cohesive. It introduced a national strategy in 2014 entitled the “policy on Syrian displacement”, aimed primarily at ensuring that Syrians were limited in their ability to settle permanently in Lebanon. Now, arguments that have been used to marginalise Palestinians are now repeated in reference to Syrians. In May 2018, former foreign minister Gebran Bassil proposed that Lebanese women would finally be allowed to pass on nationality to their children unless they were married to a Syrian or Palestinian. Previous arguments on why this right should be denied to Lebanese women were made in reference to children of Palestinians only. The focus on maintaining sectarian equilibrium will always be an obstacle for international legal instruments designed to give refugees their rights in Lebanon. For the Syrian and Palestinian refugees living in the country, the power-sharing system will continue to entrap them as they face systemic exclusion, with politicians trying to make their living conditions as difficult as possible to ward off the potential settlement. If stability in Lebanon continues to be managed by sectarian head counting, any mechanisms to protect refugees will not be implementable and suffering will continue unabated. (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Syrian refugees remain trapped and marginalised by Lebanon’s power-sharing politics

By Marcia Vera Espinoza, Leila Hadj-Abdou, Leiza Brumat

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) sets out a common, comprehensive approach to international migration. It aims at cooperation between states and promotes measures to strengthen regular migration pathways, to tackle irregular migration, and to protect human rights of migrants among other objectives. It is expected to be endorsed by the UN member states in mid-December in an intergovernmental conference in Marrakesh.

But it is also subject to growing controversy – and the number of countries opposing the pact is increasing almost daily. The Dominican Republic is the latest country to join Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia in refusing to sign the document that they negotiated for 18 months.

The GCM is creating heated political tension in other countries, too. In Belgium, the government was even in danger of collapse over it. Italy and &nbsp;Estonia will not attend the conference. Switzerland, which led the negotiations as a co-facilitator, won’t back the GCM in Marrakesh either, instead of delaying the decision until a vote in parliament. The US quit negotiations early on, in December 2017, and was followed by Hungary seven months later.

So why have so many countries decided not to endorse the pact that they negotiated?

The GCM is a voluntary, non-binding document that introduces no additional obligations to states. It is a global agreement setting out a common framework, shared principles and best practices on international migration.

The GCM emerged, and has been negotiated, in parallel with the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) as a concrete commitment of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2016. In contrast to the GCM, the GCR has been widely supported so far by the international community, with the recent exception of the US.

The final draft of the GCM was approved in July 2018 by all UN member states – except the US and Hungary – with the aim of becoming the first global framework on migration. As one of the interviewees in our ongoing research project on global migration stated, the GCM is “an aspirational document” but “it doesn’t impose and it fully respects the sovereignty of states”.

Many analysts have recognised that the final text is far from perfect. Yet most agree about the significance of the negotiation for multilateralism and global cooperation.

Not wanting to look welcoming 
 
We can see four interrelated reasons that explain this growing opposition.

First, states with a restrictive migration agenda, such as Hungary, consider the symbolic act of approving the GCM as a sign that they are promoting migration. The regulation of migration is not only seen as a matter of laws, policies, and “border walls”, but also as a matter of communication. Some officials believe that if a country is perceived to be open towards immigration, it is providing incentives for migration, whereas harsh rhetoric is seen as a deterrent.

Such a perspective partly obscures the complexity and multifaceted reasons why people migrate. It is also unrealistic to believe that many would-be migrants closely follow the GCM process. But countries with a restrictive migration agenda don’t want to take any risks. Instead, their aim is to reaffirm their restrictive position by rejecting the GCM.

Second, while state officials are well aware that the GCM is non-binding, those that have rejected it fear it will turn into common practice, or even common law. In turn, advocates of the GCM have underlined that this is an inaccurate view. Its potential, though, lies somewhere in between. Some of our interviewees pointed out that, while not legally binding, it should be a politically guiding framework, which sets out ground rules for the long term.

Rights and the right-wing 
 
Third, some states that have rejected the GCM are especially worried about human rights references within the document. In their view, an emphasis on human rights contradicts what matters for them: securing borders.

The Hungarian government argued that applying a human rights perspective to border control measures is “an extremely dangerous approach”. This position is based on a hyper-securitised view of immigration, in which migrants are seen predominantly as a threat. A framework that includes human rights of migrants, such as the GCM, is seen as incompatible with effective border control.

Fourth, hostility to the GCM mirrors the growing influence of new far-right movements, especially in countries where radical right parties are in power or are prominent. Ideas and myths about the GCM that circulated on extreme right social media sites, are said to have influenced Austria’s decision to withdraw.

In Italy, there was little discussion of the GCM until recently. But the extreme right, most notably the Fratelli d’Italia, ultimately managed to put the issue on the country’s political agenda.

There is a common denominator here: the rise of “sovereignism” as a political ideology. This is defined by anti-migrant nativism, and the rejection of multilateralism and international institutions. The GCM touches upon both of these core issues.

The question is not whether the GCM will be adopted, as a large majority of the 193 UN states still endorse it. Rather it is over the impact it is likely to have, given that its upcoming adoption has already been overshadowed by political statements that contradict the solidarity and multilateral approach to international migration it aims to promote. 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-compact-for-migration-what-is-it-and-why-are-countries-opposing-it-106654">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By Marcia Vera Espinoza, Leila Hadj-Abdou, Leiza Brumat The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) sets out a common, comprehensive approach to international migration.

By Marcia Vera Espinoza, Leila Hadj-Abdou, Leiza Brumat The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) sets out a common, comprehensive approach to international migration. It aims at cooperation between states and promotes measures to strengthen regular migration pathways, to tackle irregular migration, and to protect human rights of migrants among other objectives. It is expected to be endorsed by the UN member states in mid-December in an intergovernmental conference in Marrakesh. But it is also subject to growing controversy – and the number of countries opposing the pact is increasing almost daily. The Dominican Republic is the latest country to join Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia in refusing to sign the document that they negotiated for 18 months. The GCM is creating heated political tension in other countries, too. In Belgium, the government was even in danger of collapse over it. Italy and Estonia will not attend the conference. Switzerland, which led the negotiations as a co-facilitator, won’t back the GCM in Marrakesh either, instead of delaying the decision until a vote in parliament. The US quit negotiations early on, in December 2017, and was followed by Hungary seven months later. So why have so many countries decided not to endorse the pact that they negotiated? The GCM is a voluntary, non-binding document that introduces no additional obligations to states. It is a global agreement setting out a common framework, shared principles and best practices on international migration. The GCM emerged, and has been negotiated, in parallel with the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) as a concrete commitment of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2016. In contrast to the GCM, the GCR has been widely supported so far by the international community, with the recent exception of the US. The final draft of the GCM was approved in July 2018 by all UN member states – except the US and Hungary – with the aim of becoming the first global framework on migration. As one of the interviewees in our ongoing research project on global migration stated, the GCM is “an aspirational document” but “it doesn’t impose and it fully respects the sovereignty of states”. Many analysts have recognised that the final text is far from perfect. Yet most agree about the significance of the negotiation for multilateralism and global cooperation. Not wanting to look welcoming We can see four interrelated reasons that explain this growing opposition. First, states with a restrictive migration agenda, such as Hungary, consider the symbolic act of approving the GCM as a sign that they are promoting migration. The regulation of migration is not only seen as a matter of laws, policies, and “border walls”, but also as a matter of communication. Some officials believe that if a country is perceived to be open towards immigration, it is providing incentives for migration, whereas harsh rhetoric is seen as a deterrent. Such a perspective partly obscures the complexity and multifaceted reasons why people migrate. It is also unrealistic to believe that many would-be migrants closely follow the GCM process. But countries with a restrictive migration agenda don’t want to take any risks. Instead, their aim is to reaffirm their restrictive position by rejecting the GCM. Second, while state officials are well aware that the GCM is non-binding, those that have rejected it fear it will turn into common practice, or even common law. In turn, advocates of the GCM have underlined that this is an inaccurate view. Its potential, though, lies somewhere in between. Some of our interviewees pointed out that, while not legally binding, it should be a politically guiding framework, which sets out ground rules for the long term. Rights and the right-wing Third, some states that have rejected the GCM are especially worried about human rights references within the document. In their view, an emphasis on human rights contradicts what matters for them: securing borders. The Hungarian government argued that applying a human rights perspective to border control measures is “an extremely dangerous approach”. This position is based on a hyper-securitised view of immigration, in which migrants are seen predominantly as a threat. A framework that includes human rights of migrants, such as the GCM, is seen as incompatible with effective border control. Fourth, hostility to the GCM mirrors the growing influence of new far-right movements, especially in countries where radical right parties are in power or are prominent. Ideas and myths about the GCM that circulated on extreme right social media sites, are said to have influenced Austria’s decision to withdraw. In Italy, there was little discussion of the GCM until recently. But the extreme right, most notably the Fratelli d’Italia, ultimately managed to put the issue on the country’s political agenda. There is a common denominator here: the rise of “sovereignism” as a political ideology. This is defined by anti-migrant nativism, and the rejection of multilateralism and international institutions. The GCM touches upon both of these core issues. The question is not whether the GCM will be adopted, as a large majority of the 193 UN states still endorse it. Rather it is over the impact it is likely to have, given that its upcoming adoption has already been overshadowed by political statements that contradict the solidarity and multilateral approach to international migration it aims to promote. (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Global Compact for Migration: Why are countries opposing it?

Days ahead of an international conference in Morocco to endorse a<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/morocco-meeting-to-adopt-un-migration-pact-despite-withdrawals-182116"> UN migration pact,</a> the United States made the case Friday for opposing the deal that it shunned a year ago and which has since prompted a wave of withdrawals.

In a lengthy statement, the United States said the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration represents "an effort by the United Nations to advance global governance at the expense of the sovereign right of states to manage their immigration systems."

The non-binding pact agreed in July last year has become a target for right-wing and populist politicians who have denounced it as an affront to national sovereignty.

The US, which quit negotiations in December 2017, expressed concern that supporters of the agreement would use it to build "customary international law" or "soft law" in the area of migration.&nbsp;

The three-page US statement outlined a number of objections such as a provision in the compact stating that detention of migrants should be "a last resort," arguing that this was inconsistent with US law.

Washington is also concerned that it "downplays the cost of immigration to destination countries" such as the "loss of employment opportunities" for low-skilled workers and "stresses on public services."

The US statement came with the UN preparing to host a two-day conference opening on Monday in Marrakesh to endorse the pact, despite a string of defections.

Hungary withdrew last year and since then Australia, Israel, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Belgium Latvia, Italy and the Dominican Republic have quit the pact or expressed strong reservations.

No closed door 

The global pact lays out 23 objectives to open up legal<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/major-migration-flows-in-the-last-decade-182125"> migration </a>and better manage the influx as the number of people on the move worldwide has increased to 250 million, or just over three per cent of the world's population.

When the deal was approved in July, it was held up as an example of a UN diplomatic success achieved without the United States at a time when President Donald Trump is questioning the relevance of the world body.

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said it was "regrettable" that some countries had over the past week walked out but added that there was no "closed door" and that they were "always welcome to come back."

Stressing that the pact was non-binding, he recalled that the accord was aimed at helping countries manage migration and did not pose a challenge to state authority over borders.

"It seems to defy logic to see how you can manage migration without having a global conversation," he said.

UN Secretary-General<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/g20-pm-modi-discusses-global-climate-change-with-un-secretary-general-180330"> Antonio Guterres</a> will travel to Marrakesh for the conference to be attended by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the most high-profile leader at the event.

The document will return to the UN General Assembly for approval at a session scheduled for December 19.

Days ahead of an international conference in Morocco to endorse a UN migration pact, the United States made the case Friday for opposing the deal that it shunned a year ago and which has since prompted a wave of withdrawals.

Days ahead of an international conference in Morocco to endorse a UN migration pact, the United States made the case Friday for opposing the deal that it shunned a year ago and which has since prompted a wave of withdrawals. In a lengthy statement, the United States said the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration represents "an effort by the United Nations to advance global governance at the expense of the sovereign right of states to manage their immigration systems." The non-binding pact agreed in July last year has become a target for right-wing and populist politicians who have denounced it as an affront to national sovereignty. The US, which quit negotiations in December 2017, expressed concern that supporters of the agreement would use it to build "customary international law" or "soft law" in the area of migration. The three-page US statement outlined a number of objections such as a provision in the compact stating that detention of migrants should be "a last resort," arguing that this was inconsistent with US law. Washington is also concerned that it "downplays the cost of immigration to destination countries" such as the "loss of employment opportunities" for low-skilled workers and "stresses on public services." The US statement came with the UN preparing to host a two-day conference opening on Monday in Marrakesh to endorse the pact, despite a string of defections. Hungary withdrew last year and since then Australia, Israel, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Belgium Latvia, Italy and the Dominican Republic have quit the pact or expressed strong reservations. No closed door The global pact lays out 23 objectives to open up legal migration and better manage the influx as the number of people on the move worldwide has increased to 250 million, or just over three per cent of the world's population. When the deal was approved in July, it was held up as an example of a UN diplomatic success achieved without the United States at a time when President Donald Trump is questioning the relevance of the world body. UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said it was "regrettable" that some countries had over the past week walked out but added that there was no "closed door" and that they were "always welcome to come back." Stressing that the pact was non-binding, he recalled that the accord was aimed at helping countries manage migration and did not pose a challenge to state authority over borders. "It seems to defy logic to see how you can manage migration without having a global conversation," he said. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will travel to Marrakesh for the conference to be attended by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the most high-profile leader at the event. The document will return to the UN General Assembly for approval at a session scheduled for December 19.

US takes aim at UN migration pact ahead of conference

The United States has announced that it will not participate in the United Nations&#39;&nbsp;Global Compact on Migration as it does not meet the policies and principles of the Trump administration.

The US participation in the Compact process began in 2016, following the Obama Administration&#39;s decision to join the UN&#39;s New York Declaration on migration.

The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump administration&#39;s immigration principles.

As a result, President Donald Trump determined that the United States would end its participation in the Compact process that aims to reach international consensus at the UN in 2018.

&quot;America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe. No country has done more than the United States, and our generosity will continue. But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone,&quot; said Ambassador Nikki Haley, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

&quot;We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty,&quot; she added.

On September 19, 2016, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a set of commitments to enhance the protection of refugees and migrants. These commitments are known as the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants.

The New York Declaration reaffirms the importance of the international refugee regime and represents a commitment by member states to strengthen and enhance mechanisms to protect people on the move. It paves the way for the adoption of two new global compacts in 2018: a global compact on refugees and a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.

The US had earlier this year also announced to withdraw from the Paris agreement which aims at responding to the global climate change threat by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The US said the compact contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with US immigration and refugee policies and the Trump administration's immigration principles

The United States has announced that it will not participate in the United Nations' Global Compact on Migration as it does not meet the policies and principles of the Trump administration. The US participation in the Compact process began in 2016, following the Obama Administration's decision to join the UN's New York Declaration on migration. The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump administration's immigration principles. As a result, President Donald Trump determined that the United States would end its participation in the Compact process that aims to reach international consensus at the UN in 2018. "America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe. No country has done more than the United States, and our generosity will continue. But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone," said Ambassador Nikki Haley, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. "We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty," she added. On September 19, 2016, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a set of commitments to enhance the protection of refugees and migrants. These commitments are known as the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. The New York Declaration reaffirms the importance of the international refugee regime and represents a commitment by member states to strengthen and enhance mechanisms to protect people on the move. It paves the way for the adoption of two new global compacts in 2018: a global compact on refugees and a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration. The US had earlier this year also announced to withdraw from the Paris agreement which aims at responding to the global climate change threat by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

US ends participation in UN's Global Compact on Migration

The administration of President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from a United Nations pact to improve the handling of migrant and refugee situations, deeming it &quot;inconsistent&quot; with its policies, the US mission to the global body announced Saturday.

&quot;Today, the US Mission to the United Nations informed the UN Secretary-General that the United States is ending its participation in the Global Compact on Migration,&quot; the Americans said in a statement.

The administration of President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from a United Nations pact to improve the handling of migrant and refugee situations, deeming it "inconsistent" with its policies, the US mission to the global body announced

The administration of President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from a United Nations pact to improve the handling of migrant and refugee situations, deeming it "inconsistent" with its policies, the US mission to the global body announced Saturday. "Today, the US Mission to the United Nations informed the UN Secretary-General that the United States is ending its participation in the Global Compact on Migration," the Americans said in a statement.

US pulls out of UN's Global Compact on Migration