Gradually, I have begun to grasp this issue; it is far worse than anticipated. Ever since the autumn of 2016, this declaration has been promoted by 17 knots’ speed (the new measure of far too high speed) through the cumbersome bureaucracy of the United Nations. That raised my scepticism. The final sketch for the treaty was ready in early spring of 2018 and is to be signed this December.
Norway (or at least Erna Solberg and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) are enthusiastic and hardworking, also to avoid the risk of this treaty being accessible to the public for revision prior to the signing in December. As of today, there is no official Norwegian version, only an English one in the language of the United Nations, which is United Nations’ diplomacy at its very worst. Extremely verbose, low precision, in a form saucing together wishes, goals, dreams, unatttainabilities, and contradictions into a grey soup in which most falling into it will perish.
There are two central items in the treaty, together with much other old mess included by ’copy paste’, freely used everywhere.
- The objective. The treaty is supposed to cope with present as well as future refugee floods, illegal as well as legal immigration, and decrease the number of illegal immigrants. The simplest way is chosen. Now all migration, whether it be refugees, legal and illegal emigrants/immigrants (including murderers, criminals and bandits throughout the world) will be legalised. This is what is done in the treaty.
- Obligations. It is stated that the treaty does not oblige either Norway or any other who signs. But of course it does; otherwise, the treaty would not have been worth writing, let alone get signed! «We recall at the same time that each State has a sovereign right to determine whom to admit to its territory, subject to that State’s international obligations.»
Read the words following the comma thoroughly. The international obligations that we have already signed are even now on the verge of emptying the national treasury, but it is rather insufficient; it must be repeated yet another time.
When the Norwegian political parties Venstre and Kristelig Folkeparti opted for the Government, they demanded (and got) approval for our international obligations to be the basis for (determine) our immigration politics. Our foreign politics is not worth mentioning; it implies that we travel around the world, nod and meet far and close, and pay the bills for «all the Christmas parties in the world».
I have employed my civil rights and written to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Office of the Prime Minister, asking for access to the official Norwegian version; however, I have not heard a single word in response. There are few good Norwegians in the Stortinget, but one of them might perhaps bother to demand access to a Norwegian version, and that the issue is presented to the Stortinget and handled there. Then we will at least have an open vote, and we can use our voting slip accordingly.
PS. I did a search in the document. The words «sovereign» and «state» occurred together at one occasion, as cited above.
Translated to English by Lars Hoem