The other day, the Government decided to sign the United Nation’s treaty, Global Compact for Migration. Fremskrittspartiet (the Norwegian Progressive Party) dissented and quickly announced a fresh immigration committee to be led by Sylvi Listhaug. That was hardly any coincidence, as it will divert the critique they knew must come.
The response from the «grassroots» is rather harsh. Fremskrittspartiet is flogged for lack of influence in the Government and for playing to the gallery by dissenting. Many demand that Fremskrittspartiet should have placed an ultimatum and resign from the Government.
Is this United Nations treaty that negative to the core issues of Fremskrittspartiet and its future influence that such a governmental crisis is reasonable? Not in my opinion; as it has been stated, this United Nations treaty is not legally binding to those signing it. The Government’s own words on the issue are correct,
«The migration platform of the United Nations is no international treaty, convention, or agreement overruling Norwegian law. It does not demand amnesty for illegal immigrants. Immigration is to take place in accordance with national law, and will remain a national responsibility. The present Norwegian law permits immigration of workers possessing the qualifications for which we are in need, but nothing else. The shaping of the law of immigration remains a national decision.»
It is more like an intentional agreement.
It resembling an intentional agreement does not, however, mean that there are no potentially influential consequences. It is correct that such agreements are utilised to force politics in a certain direction. The Government also states, «The platform may serve as a starting point for multilateral dialogues concerning national decisions.»
One may, however, as a nation withstand such «moral» pressure utilising such an intentional agreement if one is just aware of one’s own right of self-determination. And with the USA and some other Western countries opting out from the treaty, its significance will be weakened even more.
To some critics of immigration, this United Nations treaty has become a litmus test regarding how influential global interests will exert on Norway, and how indolent or efficient Fremskrittspartiet is regarding their immigration restrictive program statements. In this respect, the struggle over Norway’s consent to UN Global Compact for Migration or not, symbolical rather than real.
The refugees and migrants arriving as a direct result of the policy of the Government pose a far greater negative impact on Norway. In this respect, it is more rational if Fremskrittspartiet places an ultimatum on the number of refugees or on lack of restrictions on family reunion, than on an issue which as of yet has no real negative effects on Norway’s economy or ability to absorb existing immigration.
The migration treaty of the United Nations is symbolically heavy, and Fremskrittspartiet rightfully dissent. The dissent should be part of a complete assessment of what the party may gain from co-operating with the Government. A decision to resign from the Government should, however, be made as a strategic choice and not solely on a somewhat hype (symbolic issue) containing unclear consequences that can later be countered.
Translated to English by Lars Hoem