Has Theresa May signed her Imminent Political DEMISE “UN Migration Pact”?

Theresa May:
IMMINENT POLITICAL DEMISE

While debate on the UN migration pact rages worldwide, with a growing number of nations following the United States in withdrawing, the major deal has seen little discussion in the United Kingdom.

Britain’s ruling Conservative Party made pledges to reduce immigration “from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands” in the 2010, 2015, and 2017 general elections, a promise they have not yet made significant progress in keeping.

Indeed, net migration to Britain still runs at over 270,000 a year, and former Tory chancellor George Osborne has suggested the party’s leadership never intended to honour the pledge.

Either way, signing the United Nations’ so-called Global Compact on Migration for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration would be a major step away from ever realising that commitment, a campaign group has said.

UNITED STATES LEADS THE WAY OUT OF UN PACK:

British peer Lord Green of Deddington submitted two parliamentary questions to the government this week in which he requested information on whether, and how, the globalist pledge to ease and “enhance” migration would fit with the Conservatives’ long-standing promise to bring it under control and reduce it.

Several recent polls have indicated that controlling immigration levels remains an important topic for British voters.

A press release by Migration Watch UK, the London-based campaign group which Lord Green leads, said of the pact: 

“The UK Government should make it clear that it will not sign… If they have any regard for their election promises it would be entirely hypocritical to do so.”

AUSTRALIA OUT OF THE UN PACK:

“The Compact appears to have been drafted by diplomats whose aim seems to be to ‘normalise’ mass immigration from the developing world to the West at a time when the public are very clear that they find the scale and pace of such flows to be unsustainable and unacceptable.”

Alp Mehmet, vice-chairman of Migration Watch UK, remarked on the UN deal itself, saying

During drafting, British negotiators called for clauses recognising that it is the right and obligation of states to control their own borders, and that there should be a distinction between refugees and economic migrants, but they were not incorporated into the final text.

While legal professionals have said the compact acts l will create a legal framework that lawyers will interpret at the national level to advance mass migration, it has received little attention or debate in the United Kingdom, where the political space remains consumed by Brexit.

POLAND PULLS OUT OF THE UN PACK:

Yet as the UK works to extract itself from one multinational framework and makes a bid for freedom, it may have inadvertently sleepwalked into another, signed by an ostensibly conservative government which pledged to the people in three consecutive elections to control immigration levels.

Breitbart London has reported on the several nations which have decided the document makes an unacceptable grab on national sovereignty and the right to self-determination, however, following the decision of U.S. President Donald Trump to withdraw his country from the compact in December 2017.

TO BIND OR TO NOT BIND:

President Trump said at the body’s New York headquarters in September: “Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.

“Ultimately, the only long-term solution to the migration crisis is to help people build more hopeful futures in their home countries: make their countries great again.”

Others nations withdrew after the final text of the agreement was set, declaring they would not be signing up to the compact in December. Among those that have confirmed, or indicated they are rethinking joining, are AustraliaPolandIsraelSwitzerlandAustriaHungary, the Czech RepublicBulgaria, and Croatia.

Fact Sheets: The Threat from Iran

Facts feature (06)

Iran is one of the foremost, self-proclaimed enemies of the West and one of the most serious threats to stability in the Middle East.

The Iranian government’s extreme interpretation of Islamic law, and its anti-Western philosophy, inspires the rise of Islamic extremists across the world. Iran is also one of the principal state sponsors of terror, proudly delivering weapons to Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorists and providing safe haven for many international terrorists, including senior al-Qaeda leaders. Moreover, Iranian agents have acted to perpetrate anti-Western and anti-Israel terrorist attacks in more than 20 countries around the world.  Iran has been implicated in the July 2012 bombing in Bulgaria that killed 5 Israeli’s, the February 2012 attacks on Israeli representatives in Georgia and India, the failed strikes in Thailand and Azerbaijan against Jewish targets, and the foiled attempt to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S. in October 2011.  Israel’s Mossad security service also noted that Iran was behind foiled plots to attack Jewish and Israeli targets in Kenya and Cyprus as well.

But above all these concerns, the most menacing threat Iran poses to international security is its harnessing of nuclear energy for the purpose of developing a nuclear bomb.

In 2005, Iran made its first advance in the production of enriched uranium and subsequently established a secret nuclear research center to train scientists in all aspects of atomic technology. In August 2013, outgoing Iranian nuclear chief Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani proclaimed that Iran has amassed some 18,000 functioning centrifuges, a number mostly corroborated by a May 2013 IAEA report which indicated Iran had installed roughly 16,600 centrifuges in two main facilities. The Islamic Republic continues to streamline the uranium enrichment process so that they can convert their more than 6,000 kilograms of low-enriched fissile material into high-grade, weapons-ready material. Analysts believe it could take Iran anywhere from a number of weeks to nine months – from the moment an order is given – to assemble an explosive device and reduce it to the dimensions of a missile payload.

Iran also continues to develop its arsenal of long range missiles.  It already has weapons capable of reaching Israel, parts of Eastern and Southern Europe, the Arabian peninsula, and American bases in the Middle East. In July 2012, a report released by the US government and signed by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta showed evidence that Iran is continually boosting the accuracy and lethality of its existing missile systems.  These improvements are in tandem with regular ballistic-missile training that “continues throughout the country” and the addition of “new ships and submarines,” the report found. Intelligence reports from 2013 estimate that Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.

There is little disagreement as to the intentions of the Iranians.

Already since the release of its November 2011 report, the IAEA had confirmed that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and reiterated the need to address this situation as soon as possible. At the time, Director General Yukiya Amano said, “It is my responsibility to alert the world. From the indicators I had, I draw the conclusion that it is time to call the world’s attention to this risk.”

The question has now become how to respond.

As U.S. President Barack Obama noted, the threat from a nuclear Iran affects not just “one country’s interests or two countries’ interests … [but] the entire internatioanl community,” and therefore cooperative international measures must be taken to stop Iran’s progress.

In the United States, President Obama has imposed sanctions against companies doing business with Iran, the Treasury Department has worked to freeze Iranian financial assets and new measures have been passed by Congress to halt transactions with Iran’s Central Bank. Obama’s administration has also made clear they will not accept containment of a nuclear Iran and have drawn red lines for possible military intervention. “The United States does not have a policy of contaiment when it comes to a nuclear Iran. Our policy is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” President Obama noted in March 2013. “And I will repeat: All options are on the table.”

In Europe, a new sense of urgency over halting Iran’s nuclear program has taken hold since military analysts, such as Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin of the Center for Strategic Nuclear Forces, are convinced that a fully developed nuclear program “will most likely be able to threaten the whole of Europe.” France, Germany and Great Britain are spearheading European Union efforts to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. In January 2012, these efforts scored a major success when the EU voted to embargo Iranian oil imports and to freeze the assets of Iran’s central bank. “We will not accept Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. Iran has so far had no regard for its international obligations and is already exporting and threatening violence around its region,” British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a joint statement. Following this lead, in March 2012, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) cut off all business with Iran, effectively stopping transactions with nearly 30 Iranian banks and their subsidiaries worldwide.

Across the Arab Middle East, the Iranian nuclear program is also raising grave concerns, primarily with regards to Iran’s intentions for regional dominance. In 2009, then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said, “A nuclear armed Iran with hegemonic ambitions is the greatest threat to Arab nations today.” In 2011, Saudi Arabia government officials noted, “We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons … If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that will be unacceptable to us.” Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal expouned, noting that if Iran achieved nuclear weapons it would “lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences.” Those consequences are clear – nuclear proliferation across the Middle East. By mid-2013, at least twelve Arab nations, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and the UAE had begun to explore nuclear energy.

For Israel  in particular, a nuclear armed Iran is not tolerable.  Not only would Iranian nuclear weapons create an existential threat to Israel’s existence, it would also limit Israel’s ability to protect itself from Iranian terror proxies such as Hezbollahand Hamas. IDF intelligence believes that Iranian proxy Hezbollah had amassed nearly 65,000 rockets and missiles within striking distance of Israel in southern Lebanon. Former-Minister of Defense Ehud Barak noted that if Iran gained a nuclear capability, then retaliating against an attack from Hamas or Hezbollah “would be tantamount to an attack on Iran,” and would thus restrict an aggressive range of operations. Therefore, in the words on PM Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel is “determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; we leave all options on the table; and containment is definitely not an option.”

Despite the election of President Hassan Rouhani – a former member of Iran’s nuclear negotiation team that temporarily suspended the program in 2003 – to succeed the vitriolic Ahmadinejad, Iran is still closing in on its “immunity zone” – the point when its accumulated know-how, raw materials, experience and equipment would ensure that any military strike would fail in derailing the nuclear program.

It is well past time to more stringently implement an international sanctions regime sufficiently punitive to convince the Iranian leadership to abandon their project. In the absence of such sanctions, or if they are shown to be ineffective, a joint military response, as undesirable as it may be, will most likely be the only other option.

Original Source: jewishvirtuallibrary.org