The United Nations migration agreement is approved by the government – despite the shortcomings

Expressen last week reported criticism of the UN's global agreement on migration to be endorsed at a high-level conference in Marrakesh, Morocco on December 10, and then adopted by the United Nations. General Assembly on December 19th.

The moderators then asked the government to declare the agreement to the Riksdag Foreign Affairs Committee – and on Thursday, the time had come.

State Secretary Annika Söder and the Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, Lars Westbratt, were on duty and answered questions from MPs during a 90-minute meeting.

When Expressen met Westbratt after the meeting, he admitted that the agreement contained an uncertain handwriting leaving room for interpretation.

– Yes, I can partly agree with that. But more than 180 countries have negotiated this.

Is there no danger that there is an uncertain writing?

– The idea is that there should be a follow-up mechanism – and this is an important issue that Sweden has put forward: there must be operational commitments that can be followed thereafter. If interpretations differ as to how to implement it, it is important that these issues arise during these discussions.

Government approves agreement – despite shortcomings

Despite the shortcomings, the government has already decided to approve the agreement in Marrakech and in the General Assembly.

"This is an important consensus agreement on difficult issues that can not be resolved at the national or regional level, but rather from a global perspective, so it is important that these issues come into the context of the United Nations. And there is a document that we can come back to after, but it is not a legally binding agreement without resolution, "said Lars Westbratt.

According to its assessment, no Swedish legislation needs to be changed as a result of the agreement.

"Instead, we insisted that this should be in line with existing legislation.

After the meeting, Swedish Democracy Critic Paula Bieler, who said no to the deal, said:

"I'm even more critical now, there are still a lot of questions about your reasoning and the impact evaluation that you have done, which is an extremely large and fuzzy agreement. Questioning only of definitive answers.

What consequences do you want the agreement to have?

"The problem with this framework is that it is replete with examples of what you can do – it's what's called non-binding while it claims to have a lot of commitments. There will be no real consequences except in countries that try to solve everything on their own – like Sweden.

Moderators need an assessment of impact

The moderator for the migration policy moderator, Johan Forssell, is also critical and is now asking the government to come back quickly with an analysis of the impact.

– There is no assessment of the impact of what this framework agreement means for Swedish migration policy. I think it's very strange: the government intends to sign something without knowing what the consequences will be.

What consequences do you think this can have?

"It's not just about Swedish legislation, but many goals you can imagine in different reforms, we just do not know, only the government has negotiated this text to answer it.

Kenneth G Forslund, Vice-President of the Social Democrats at the Committee on Foreign Affairs, simultaneously admitted:

"It's an international agreement, and when you bring together a large number of countries, of course, it will be quite vague and vague in some passages, and in other paragraphs, everyone will be able to indicate what they want. important to work is the process between the countries involved in the work, as it increases the knowledge and commitment of the various Member States of the United Nations on the issue of migration.

Member S: "The agreement is not very strong"

Is it reasonable to support an agreement that is unclear and "mellow"?

"When you strive to get all countries to agree, it will not be so bad, you have to admit it, that's part of the nature of this type of agreement.

But is the agreement necessary?

"I think agreement is important for the discussion and the process that it creates.This for all the migration works in the world to come .This will result in better management of migrations to the world. global scale, I am convinced of it.

At the same time, Hans Wallmark, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, criticizes the government for failing to keep the Riksdag informed during the process.

"The government is right to criticize itself, there are exaggerations quite clear and you understand wrongly, deliberately or unconsciously.I think we could have done better if a government position had been established. in the Swedish parliament.

Government: no risk that the agreement becomes binding

Secretary of State for Migration, Lars Westbratt, said there was no risk that the agreement would become binding in the future, as claimed by the Swedish Democrats.

– No, I think rather that the legislation on migration will change according to the evolution of migration.

The Government also regrets that a large number of countries have announced that they have no intention of supporting the agreement.

"It is obviously unfortunate that countries do not support this ambition," said Westbratt.

Several heads of government warned that this agreement limited the independence of countries in terms of migration policy. You do not see such a risk?

"We want all countries to take responsibility for migration, which is why you are launching a discussion on these big issues – we want to establish a comprehensive framework for managing this – but it is also clear in this framework that sovereignty of all countries must be taken into account and that there is sovereignty, for example in migration legislation.

Secretary of State: "A polarized world"

According to Westbratt, it is "unfortunate" that another image is being broadcast, for example, in social media.

"We live in a polarized world where we do not turn away from purely false facts, I'm sorry for that, and of course it's important that we have a good discussion about the facts, and that we are transparent about that. topic.

One of the points in the agreement was specifically questioned – intermediate objective 17, item 33C – for which it is indicated "Cease to allocate public funds or material support to the media to systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism or any other form of discrimination against immigrants, in full respect of freedom of press."

"I think that sounds very strange and strange in a Swedish context, where we safeguard the independence of the media.It is clear that the wording is not legally binding, but should it make sense? it would not have been there, said moderator spokesman on migration, Johan Forssell.

Paula Bieler about writing: "Extremely serious"

Swedish Democrat Paula Bieler calls the media writing for "extremely serious":

– It is serious that a UN document talks about educating the media about the terminology to use.

The Swedish Journalists Association also addresses the issue of state aid governance to media actors.

– This is partly in line with the proposal of the Media Inquiry, which stipulated that media support was conditional on the media being characterized by the principle of equal value for all. It was something that the Journalists' League had criticized, and the government did not speak either, President Jonas Nordling told the SvD leader on Thursday.

"It is easy to rely on these types of principles theoretically, but they are more difficult to apply in practice, because they inevitably lead us to taste the courts to determine which media conform to the principles. In the long run, freedom of the press is compromised

However, according to Secretary of State for Immigration Lars Westbratt, the mediator of the agreement is part of a "sample" that "can be watched and inspired".

"Of course, you should not, and this is extremely important, affect the free media in any way, and you can not do it.

Sounds like you're unhappy that this article is included?

– No, but it's good … I think the discussion on this topic was about training journalists on various issues. It is not a matter of influencing journalism. You are extremely impressed by the freedom of expression in this document, it is extremely important.

But does this point not violate freedom of expression?

– I do not think that the interpretation should be such, freedom of expression always passes before. I do not interpret the problem as affecting the media in this way. But it's a collection sample, it does not bind anything.

Why is it then?

– I think that in the discussions were added a number of examples to highlight things that you think can be important to look at or want for political reasons.