by Alan Moran
“Never has there been such a massive, consistent, and long lasting, failure of the media in this country, a failure which continues to jeopardise Australian security, prosperity, national sovereignty, freedom, and democracy. The media failings are primarily twofold.
1. The media have chosen to ignore, or misinform the public about, the most massive, pervasive and enduring policy initiative in Australian history, one that successive governments and Councils around Australia admit they have been implementing for more than 2 decades, while continuing to deny Australians any democratic choice.
2. Both major political parties have been shown to be acting counter to Australian interests by encouraging and enabling the UN to increasingly and undemocratically interfere in Australian domestic affairs. Media determination to ignore Agenda 21 means the media have consistently condoned, and refused to expose, the anti-democratic mechanisms governments have utilised in an attempt to implement this imported anti-Australian program. The media has enabled successive governments to completely avoid democratic accountability.Any attempt to prevent public debate regarding matters such as, undemocratic UN interference in Australia, and the move to ensure environmental laws cannot be democratically reversed, are simply inexcusable. This is much too great a price to pay for media subservience to the UN, political bias within the media, or media incompetence.”
Ian McAllister, the leading Political scientist in research on Australian voters, writes:
‘One of the most important requirements for the functioning of representative democracy is the existence of informed and knowledgeable citizens’
“The vote of every elector is a matter of concern to the whole Commonwealth, and all are interested in endeavouring to secure not merely that the vote shall be formally recorded in accordance with the opinion which the voter actually holds, free from intimidation, coercion and bribery, but that the voter shall not be led by misrepresentation or concealment of any material circumstance into forming and consequently registering a political judgment different from that which he would have formed and registered had he known the real circumstances.”
“Non-binding instruments are faster to adopt, easier to change, and more useful for technical matters that may need rapid or repeated revision. This is particularly important when the subject matter may not be ripe for treaty action because of scientific uncertainty or lack of political consensus (Raustiala 2005: 582). In such instances, the choice may not be between a treaty and a soft law text, but between a soft law text and no action at all. Soft law may help mask disagreements over substance, overcome competing visions of organizations’ purposes and resolve institutional crises (Schäfer 2006: 194).…..
33. The second most important source of international law, and thus of international environmental law, is customary international law. Before treaties became as important as they are today, customary international law was the leading source of international law: the way things have always been done becomes the way things must be done.”
“34. Once a rule of customary law is recognized, it is binding on all states, because it is then assumed to be a binding rule of conduct…….36. Customary law was mentioned in relation to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Namely, the provisions of the declaration, although not specifically intended to be legally binding, are now generally accepted asconstituting customary international law. Customary international law is as legally binding as treaty law. It can be argued that customary international law has a wider scope: a treaty is applicable only to its parties and it does not create either rights or obligations for a third state without its consent, but customary law is applicable to all states (unless it constitutes regional custom)…...
38.Non-legally binding agreements emerge when states agree on a specific issue, but they donot, or do not yet, wish to bind themselves legally; nevertheless they wish to adopt certain nonbinding rules and principles before they become law. This approach often facilitates consensus, which is more difficult to achieve on binding instruments. There could also be an expectation that a rule or principle adopted by consensus, although not legally binding, will nevertheless be complied with. Often the existence of non-legally binding norms will fuel civil society activism to compel compliance.”
“The United States proclaims and reaffirms its belief that decisions about how to secure its borders, and whom to admit for legal residency or to grant citizenship, are among the most important sovereign decisions a State can make, and are not subject to negotiation, or review, in international instruments, or fora. The United States maintains the sovereign right to facilitate or restrict access to our territory, in accordance with our national laws and policies, subject to our existing international obligations.We believe the Compact and the process that led to its adoption, including the New York Declaration, represent an effort by the United Nations to advance global governance at the expense of the sovereign right of States to manage their immigration systems in accordance with their national laws, policies, and interests. …….
The United States also is concerned that Compact supporters, recognizing the lack of widespread support for a legally-binding international migration convention, seek to use the Compact and its outcomes and objectives as a long-term means of building customary international law or so-called “soft law” in the area of migration. The United States is particularly concerned by the novel use of the term “compact” to describe the document. Unlike standard titles for international instruments, “compact” has no settled meaning in international law, but it implies legal obligation……..
In the United States, foreign nationals who are not lawfully present are not “irregular” – they are illegal aliens violating the laws and immigration policies of our nation and are subject to prosecution and removal.”
The United States also is concerned that Compact supporters, recognizing the lack of widespread support for a legally-binding international migration convention, seek to use the Compact and its outcomes and objectives as a long-term means of building customary international law or so-called “soft law” in the area of migration. The United States is particularly concerned by the novel use of the term “compact” to describe the document. Unlike standard titles for international instruments, “compact” has no settled meaning in international law, but it implies legal obligation…….. In the United States, foreign nationals who are not lawfully present are not “irregular” – they are illegal aliens violating the laws and immigration policies of our nation and are subject to prosecution and removal.”
The representative of Australia, noting that her country was built on migration, underscored the importance of international cooperation on the issue, particularly in the Pacific region. Australia’s constructive engagement in negotiations reflected its experience, including responsibility-sharing between States as well as efforts to address adverse drivers of migration. Regrettably, the agreement falls short in several areas, including, among other things, putting unnecessary constraints on State control of borders. It also risks fostering irregular and unlawful migration. Australia did not adopt the Global Compact and it abstained from the vote, she said.”
“Ms. Arbour reiterated Secretary-General António Guterres’s call to banish the myths surrounding migration, and the international accord, saying that ‘it is not correct to suggest it imposes obligations on Member States and infringes on their sovereignty. It does nothing of the sort, and it is not binding, as a treaty would be’.”
“The UN secretary-general has criticised about 30 countries that have refused to back the organisation’s first agreement on protecting migrant rights, accusing them of spreading falsehoods.
Antonio Guterres was speaking in Marrakesh, where 164 nations signed the non-binding deal, which seeks to save refugees from people traffickers.”