Let’s be honest, if there was a migration pact 500 years ago, would it be acceptable for native Americans? The official statement goes that the Czech Republic will opt out from the pact because its comments have not been taken into account. Additionally, there are a couple of things wrong with the pact that must be mentioned.
First of all, the pact was signed in Marrakesh on Human Rights Day on the 10th of December. On that day in 1949, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, migration is not one of the human rights the Declaration mentions. A right to leave any country is fundamental but not a right to be accepted in another.
Secondly, countries are not divided on the pact into the West and East as usual. In this case, countries across the globe criticize the pact – the US, Australia, Japan, Denmark, Switzerland, etc.
And finally, it is often reminded that the pact is legally non-binding, thus its completely risk-free to adopt it. If that is true, why is there a need to adopt it in the first place? In the EU, values are usually mentioned instead of a legally binding character of an agreement. And we already know that those values, if breached by any country, could be used as a baton. Therefore, it might be wise to opt out, as a precaution.
