Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
How does the United Nations really shape world affairs—and why are its policies sometimes spark fierce debate? In this episode:
- The structure and power dynamics of the UN bodies
- Step-by-step: how major and minor initiatives become UN policy
- The migration compact and why countries like the US and Hungary opposed it
- Real examples of member states driving change, from AI safety to environmental rights
- The controversy: asylum, borders, and why global policies clash with national interests
Listen for an in-depth primer on UN social engineering, real-world impacts, and the roots of controversy. For show notes and more, visit talking2ai.show.
Audio conversation with AI chatbots
I am talking to AI.
A successful day, you don't need to know all the answers.
Just have good questions.
Chatting to AI is different from normal speech
and I hope you enjoy listening to the show
whilst getting ideas on how to pose your questions
to get the most out of AI.
My name is Paul.
The live conversations you hear are uncut
although sometimes the AI needs time to think.
In those cases, I've cut out the dead space.
So for this episode, which is going to be part two
of social engineering and we're going to continue
where we left off with the United Nations
and we were talking before about some of the aims
of the United Nations and how they're sort of working together
to try to create a certain type of future.
And what I wanted to dig into in this episode
is some of the controversies around the United Nations as well.
So I will be talking to ChatGPT now
so I'll just get ChatGPT on the line.
Hello, ChatGPT.
So I'd like to follow up from our previous conversations
about the United Nations.
When we were talking before, you were talking about
the aims of the United Nations and we went into a few examples
of how they worked to sort of change society.
And what I was wanting to know, when we finished that
we sort of breached on some of the things
that they might be doing that are a bit controversial.
And I was hoping to start with, you might just outline
some of the things that they are working on
that seem to be controversial by some.
Sure, I'd be happy to dive into that.
So some of the things that the UN works on
that people find a bit controversial
often revolve around their involvement in global policies,
things like climate initiatives, migration packs,
or sometimes there's stances on human rights issues
that different countries interpret in different ways.
So we can definitely unpack any of those if that sounds good to you.
Maybe we can pick the second one, migration policies.
What is the United Nations stance on that
and why is it controversial?
Absolutely, let's talk about that.
So the UN generally advocates for international cooperation
or migration.
They often promote frameworks that aim to ensure
that migration is safe, orderly, and humane.
Now, the controversy comes in because different countries
and different political groups see this differently.
Some feel that these policies might infringe
on national sovereignty or encourage too much migration.
Others feel it's a humanitarian necessity.
So it really depends on where you stand,
but that's kind of just why it's a debated topic.
All right, so let's go into a bit more detail.
So what are these policies specifically?
Sure, let's break that down a bit more.
So one key example is something called the Global Compact
for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration,
which the UN helped put together.
Essentially, it's a non-binding agreement
that lays out best practices and cooperation strategies
for how countries can manage migration flows.
It includes things like protecting migrant rights,
sharing data, addressing the root causes of migration,
and just generally trying to make sure that people
who are moving across borders do so in a safe way.
Now, the reason it's controversial is because
some countries feel that even though it's non-binding,
it might set certain international norms
that could pressure them to change their own immigration policies.
Others see it as just a necessary step for global cooperation.
So that's one of the specific frameworks
that tends to raise some debate.
So how big is this document on the migration international framework?
Is it a very big document or is it quite small?
It's actually a pretty substantial document.
I mean, it's not enormous like a giant legal code,
but it's definitely more than just a few pages.
It's got a detailed set of principles and objectives,
around 23 objectives, actually,
that lay out different areas of cooperation.
So it's a decent-sass framework.
It's meant to be comprehensive enough to cover
a lot of different migration issues.
All right, so if there's 20 principles,
and then it's got some 20...
Can you summarize the framework
in a more detailed way than you have done already
but not get too into the weeds?
So I want to get more of a flavor about this framework,
but it's content.
Absolutely.
I can give you kind of a nice middle ground summary.
So this global compact basically covers a range of themes.
It's got about 23 objectives,
and those objectives are grouped into things
like making migration safer,
making it more orderly, and making it more humane.
So for example, there are parts of it that talk about
making sure migrants have proper documentation,
making sure they're not exploited,
helping them integrate into the societies they're moving to,
and also helping countries deal with
the reasons people migrate in the first place,
like economic or environmental factors.
So it's kind of a holistic approach.
It's a bit like a big guidebook
that covers all those areas
without being super legally binding.
So hopefully that gives you a bit more flavor.
All right, so let's not focus on the root causes.
Let's just focus on the actual migration parts to it.
What, I suppose, is the EU consistent
with the United Nations guidelines to migration?
Around the flow of people,
not around preventing, you know,
trying to fix the root causes of migration,
but to try to manage migration.
And also on that,
could we talk about the reasons for migration?
So let's just focus one thing at a time.
So is the EU consistent with the rules
around the United Nations guidance around migration?
Yeah, absolutely.
So focusing just on the management of migration itself,
the EU does have a lot of alignment
with those UN principles in general.
They aim to have safe and orderly migration flows,
and they have their own policies and frameworks
that kind of mirror a lot of what the UN is suggesting.
Of course, the EU also has its own unique challenges
and its own internal debates,
but overall they do try to stay a mile at those UN guidelines
in terms of managing people who are coming in
rather than just focusing on the root cause.
And so in short, the EU's pretty consistent with that.
They have their own policies that line up well,
even if they're a little bit of nuance here and there.
So what is the policy,
according to the United Nations, on migration?
So it's my understanding that people move from one country
to another for different reasons.
They could be doing it because they want to seek a better life.
They could be doing it because they're wanting to meet up
with family.
They could be doing it because they're fleeing persecution
and they're a refugee,
and if they go back to their homeland,
then they may get persecuted.
And what does it sort of say about
how we should treat these different groups of people
according to the United Nations
and that document that we were talking about?
Yeah, absolutely.
So the UN framework basically emphasizes
treating all these different groups of migrants
with dignity and human rights,
but it does recognize that there are different categories.
So for example, refugees, people fleeing persecution
or conflict are given special protections
under international law.
The UN framework basically says these people need to be treated
with particular care.
They shouldn't be sent back to a place where they could be harmed,
and that's kind of a cornerstone of refugee law.
For people migrating for economic reasons
or to reunite with family,
the idea is they should still be treated humanely,
have their rights respected,
and that countries should have fair processes for handling them.
So it's basically about making sure,
no matter why someone is migrating,
they're treated with a certain standard of dignity and humanity,
and that's really the heart of the UN's approach
to those different groups.
So if somebody arrives in a country
and they don't have any papers
and they have no way of identifying themselves as being a refugee,
but then they claim asylum status,
does it say anything about what the country has to do
in that circumstance?
Yeah, it does, actually.
So in that scenario,
the UN guidelines and international law basically say
that if someone arrives without papers and they claim asylum,
the country is supposed to at least give them a fair process
to have their claim heard.
In other words, they shouldn't just be turned away immediately.
They should have a chance to explain their situation
and for the authorities to figure out if they do qualify as a refugee
or if they have a legitimate asylum claim.
So it really is about making sure there's a process in place
and that people are treated fairly while that process happens.
So are there any rules around what that process has to be?
Like, so could they make a decision within the day
or is there some time constraints around that process?
Yeah, that's a good question.
So there isn't a super strict global rule
that says it has to happen in exactly a day
or a certain number of days,
but the general guideline is that the process should be fair
and it should be timely.
So countries are generally expected not to drag it out unnecessarily,
but they're also given a little bit of leeway
to make sure they can properly assess the claim.
So if they fail to meet the criteria for asylum after claiming asylum,
is it then within the United Nations charter that this advice,
is it would it be recommended that they get deported back
to where they came from or the last port of entry
or is there a different process that's recommended?
Yeah, absolutely.
So the general guidance from the UN and under international norms
is that if someone doesn't qualify for asylum after a fair process,
then yes, it is generally acceptable for a country to return them
to their home country provided that it's safe to do so.
So the big caveat is they shouldn't be sent back somewhere
where they would be in danger of persecution or serious harm,
but if it's safe and if they've gone through a fair process
and they don't meet the criteria, then yeah,
it's generally within the norms to say they can be returned
and that's how most countries would handle it.
And within this framework,
I've heard it said before that people shouldn't be able to,
well, people, depending on the country,
I think some countries have it as a precedent that if a person
seeks asylum to their country,
to the country where they have these rules,
and they've come from another country and they're seeking asylum
because their country of origin could be dangerous for them.
But if they've come through a second country to then seek asylum
in a third country, then they can't seek asylum in that second country
because it's clear that they could stay in the first country
because that isn't the dangerous country for them
because they're seeking asylum from their originating country.
How's that dealt with in the United Nations guidelines?
Yeah, that's a really good point.
So what you're describing is often called the concept of a safe third country
and yes, the UN guidelines and international norms do recognize that idea.
Basically, it says that if someone is coming from a place where they are in danger
but they've already reached a safe country along the way,
then the idea is that they should claim asylum in that first safe country
rather than continuing on to a third or fourth country.
Now, it's not a hard and fast rule in every single situation
but a lot of countries do apply that principle
but you say it's not a hard and fast rule.
I'm talking about what the United Nations according to that document says on this.
Absolutely. So from the UN's perspective in that document,
it doesn't set a completely rigid rule that says you must always apply a safe third country principle.
What it does is it acknowledges that some countries use that approach
and that it can be reasonable,
but the UN's main focus is really that no matter what,
the person still needs to have their claim fairly heard somewhere
and that their rights are respected.
So the UN doesn't mandate that you must apply a safe third country rule in our cases
but it recognizes that it's a tool countries use
and as long as it's done in a way that respects human rights,
it's generally considered acceptable.
Okay. Let me take a step back.
On this document, does it have sort of document founding aims
before it gets into the advice?
What is the high level purpose of these policies around migration?
What is the sort of good state that the United Nations is trying to achieve through this support?
Yeah, absolutely.
So if we kind of zoom out to the high level purpose of this document and these policies,
the main aim is really to create a world where migration is managed in a safe, orderly and humane way.
That's kind of the big overarching goal.
They want to make sure that when people do move,
because people are always going to move for different reasons,
that it's done in a way that respects their rights,
that countries cooperate with each other,
and that there's a certain level of predictability and fairness in the system.
So the founding aims are really about ensuring that migration benefits everyone if not just possible
and that people are treated with dignity.
So that's the big picture goal.
So I've heard somebody say that the United Nations aims to sort of remove national borders.
Is that hyperbole or is there some specific writings by the United Nations that would indicate that is the case?
Yeah, so that's definitely more on the hyperbole side of things.
The UN doesn't have any kind of official stance or writing that says they're trying to erase national borders.
Immigration is really just to get countries to cooperate better or manage immigration.
So yeah, it's a bit of an exaggeration when people say that.
They're not out to erase borders.
They're just out to make things a bit more humane and cooperative.
So if you ran a country and you were a member of the United Nations
and your policy was not to accept any migration whatsoever into your country,
would that be against the recommendations of the United Nations?
Yeah, that would definitely go against the spirit of the UN's recommendations.
The UN basically encourages countries to cooperate and to have fair and humane migration policies.
It doesn't mean you have to accept everyone, but having a blanket policy of no migration at all would definitely be out of line with the UN advocates for.
What would happen if they just had a policy to accept refugees and people that were coming over for family reasons,
but not to accept any economic refugees?
Would that be against the spirit of the United Nations advice?
Yeah, so that kind of approach is actually more in line with what a lot of countries do,
and it wouldn't really be against the UN's advice.
The UN doesn't say you have to accept everyone for every reason.
They definitely emphasize the importance of taking in refugees and reuniting families.
And when it comes to economic migrants, countries do have the right to set their own policies.
So as long as you're treating refugees and family reunification cases fairly,
then yeah, you'd be pretty much in line with what the UN says.
Do you have a properly acceptable approach?
So it would be acceptable if you were a country to reject any asylum claims from people that have come from a...
It sounds like it's up to the country to decide.
If they want to treat asylum seekers as only asylum seekers,
if they've come directly from their original place that they live in where they will get persecuted,
if they only define them as asylum seekers in that stage,
then they wouldn't be against the spirit or the terms of the United Nations' advice
to turn people away that have come via another country.
Is that correct?
Yeah, so you're on the right track there.
Essentially, the UN framework does allow countries some discretion.
If a country says, look, we really want people to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach,
that's generally acceptable under international norms.
What the UN mainly wants is that people have a fair shot at having their claim heard somewhere safe.
So as long as you're providing a process and you're not just leaving people without any protection,
then that would be in line with the UN's guidelines.
But in that case, you wouldn't be providing a process.
You would be delegating the process to a different country.
Yeah, that's a fair point, and it really does come down to how we handled.
So the UN's view is that if you're using that kind of safe-thorough country approach,
you should be doing it in a way that ensures those people are absolutely going to get a fair hearing in that other country.
So you're right that you're kind of delegating it, but as long as that other country is safe
and is actually going to give them a fair process.
But couldn't then say if one country did that,
couldn't then the country that's accepting all these refugees, couldn't they turn around and say,
well, we are not going to process these people,
and then would it not come back on the original country as their responsibility?
Yeah, that's a really insightful question, and that's actually one of the complexities in real-war policy.
The UN framework does acknowledge that it's not just a one-way street.
If you're going to rely on another country to handle those claims, that country has to actually do it.
And if they don't, it can create a kind of loop where no one's really taking responsibility.
So in practice, the UN encourages countries to have agreements and to make sure that if they are using that kind of approach,
it's actually being followed the wrong.
Otherwise, yes, it could come back to the original country as their responsibility.
So that's a real-war nuance for sure.
Okay, any other controversies that we haven't covered?
Yeah, I mean, there are always a few.
For example, sometimes the UN's involvement in migration is seen as controversial just because people feel it infringes on national sovereignty
or that it sets global norms they don't agree with, but I think we've covered the big ones.
What about contraception? Is there any advice around contraception in the United Nations advice?
Yeah, so that's actually a different area of UN work.
They do have guidance around reproductive health and family planning, and they definitely advocate for access to contraception as part of that.
It's not really tied to the migration piece, but in general, the UN does support family planning and reproductive health as a human right.
So yeah, they do have some advice in that area as well.
So if you were a country that didn't share that as a value, then there would be a conflict there, I guess.
Yeah, exactly. I mean, the UN sets these guidelines and principles, but countries definitely have their own values and their own policies.
So if a country doesn't share that value, then yeah, there's going to be a bit of a disconnect, and that's where these international conversations and sometimes debates come in.
So you're absolutely right about that.
I mean, wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical for the Vatican to be in the UN because they would definitely believe that contraception is not valid?
Yeah, it's an interesting point. I mean, the Vatican is indeed part of the UN as an observer state, and they definitely have their own views.
That sometimes differ from so new instances, especially on issues like contraception, but the UN is a big tent and it brings together a lot of different countries with different values.
So while there might be differences, they kind of agree to coexist and have those discussions. So yeah, it's definitely dynamic there.
Okay. All right. Well, thanks very much for that.
The show notes and more go to cooking2ai.shop.
Thank you.