UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres (C) visits the conference room on 10 December 2018 to attend the Intergovernmental Conference on the Global Compact for Migration in Marrakech, Morocco. [Jalal Morchidi/EPA/EFE] Protests against the Brussels agreement became violent and led Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel to propose his resignation. At the same event, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said “myths” about the agreement. The political conditions of multilateral diplomacy have become much darker since 2015. The Trump administration has moved away from a number of different multilateral legal force agreements, including the Paris agreement. European officials say Washington has encouraged other UN skeptics, such as Hungary, which has repeatedly criticized the GCM process, to create other complications. Despite these incentives, even the liberal members of the EU wanted to avoid binding migration commitments in order to avoid domestic policy attacks. The Australian government has criticised the agreement and said it does not distinguish between legal and illegal migrants, especially when it comes to welfare. They also said the pact could impose obligations to help migrants, even if they returned to their countries of origin. The Australian government believes the pact would undermine its current migration policy.     Does this mean that non-binding agreements such as GCM are unnecessary? The history of multilateral diplomacy suggests that opaque agreements can be valuable.
For example, Peters cites the example of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (which became the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 1994. The Western and Soviet blocs developed this non-binding European security framework in 1975 in the form of a “Helsinki Final Act”. It contained clauses on human rights and humanitarian issues that inspired democracy activists in the Warsaw Pact – and liberals like Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev – in the final years of the Cold War. But even today, the OSCE “does not have a founding treaty or an international legal personality.” Seemingly weak degrees can give real results if time is given. The 165 countries meeting in Marrakech agreed and resisted the United States and other countries that had withdrawn, citing concerns about migration flows and national sovereignty. The draft agreement lists 23 objectives and commitments. This includes collecting and using accurate and anonymous data to develop an evidence-based migration policy, to ensure the identity of all migrants, to improve the availability and flexibility of regular migration, to promote cooperation in monitoring missing persons and to save lives, to ensure migrants` access to basic services and to provide provisions for both the full participation of migrants and social cohesion.  Estonia: the Estonian government remained divided on this issue and the country`s position was to be decided by Le Riigikogu.
 On 26 November, Riigikogu adopted a declaration supporting the Covenant. According to the Estonian Prime Minister, this declaration would form the basis of the governments` decision to support the Global Compact on Migration.  On 27 November 2018, a foreign ministry spokesman announced that no Estonian officials would be present in Marrakech. Instead, Estonia`s ambassador to the United Nations would vote in favour of the pact on 19 December at the UN General Assembly.  Lithuania: on 4 December 2018, the Lithuanian parliament voted in favour of a resolution recognising the need for international cooperation to address the challenges posed by migration and that no state can solve them alone. He also noted that the pact was not legally binding and that it was the state itself that decided how to implement the objectives of the agreement.  In order to answer these questions, it is a good idea to put in place other agreements