The so-called Global Compact for Safe Migration, signed during the International Conference convened by the UN and held in the Moroccan city of Marrakech, has finally left more doubts than certainties.

The document of intentions can be understood as an attempt to standardize criteria worldwide on the growing and increasingly complex of a global migratory phenomenon, for inter-related reasons such as poverty and underdevelopment, multiple wars or persecutions. for various reasons (political, ethnic, religious ...)

Despite the good intentions of the United Nations, and that this is ultimately only a document of shared good purposes that does not oblige its signatories to anything concrete or evaluable, the refusal of an important group of countries to sign even this Agreement is already in itself a clear failure.

There are two aspects that have been the apple of discord on the part of the absent signatories: the first is that the Agreement limits its national sovereignty in regard to migration policy (a curious argument when these same countries advocate a globalized economy that violates permanently its economic sovereignty, for the benefit of small elites).

The second aspect and reason for not signing the document for many has been the fact that the Agreement recognizes migration as a "human right", something that must be respected.

A little over 150 countries have signed the Global Compact, without committing them to anything in particular.

If we were to group countries according to their different positions we would find that the countries receiving the highest numbers of immigrants and refugees, such as the US, Canada, Italy or Australia refused the Agreement. Another group, with the same negative attitude but for different reasons, is that including central and eastern Europe that have become a new "iron curtain”, as an anti-migration barrier (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Estonia).

We could then point to a third group of government whose attitude would seem contradictory, given that they are “exporters” of migrants, but they indicate that the issue itself is complex and contains numerous nuances and regional realities.

Such is the case, for example, of the Dominican Republic, which is not a signatory, and although it is a natural exporter of migrants to Spain and the US, it also receives a high immigration population (unwanted by its color) from neighbouring Haiti.

The same applies to Chile that “exports” young population but receives at the same time Bolivians who apparently are a danger to their "national security", given the claims of that Andean nation of an exit to the sea.

Going back to the initial question the Global Compact is useless and does not commit anyone, but it establishes some shared parameters at an international level and above all leaves this human and painful issue on the table. Waiting for attitudes and also human solutions.