Tag: un

The United Nation’s Summit of the Future is over. The “great and good”  of global leadership got together for four days in New York for what their website called…

a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine the multilateral system and steer humanity on a new course

…which sounds just lovely and not at all creepy and hubristic.

The four day event was split into  two “action days” and two days of “the Summit.”

Both of which are just different names for “people in suits sitting around big tables using bureaucratic jargon while making big time serious important-person faces”.

The result of which is the passing of a document they’re calling the “Pact for the Future” – 81 pages of self-important waffle so crammed with meaningless political language it becomes near-unintelligible (what James Corbett calls “Globalese”).

Here’s a paragraph chosen at random:

Enhancing cooperation with stakeholders, including civil society, academia, the scientific and technological community and the private sector, and encouraging intergenerational partnerships, by promoting a whole-of society approach, to share best practices and develop innovative, long-term and forward-thinking ideas in order to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations.

…it’s all like that. And I read it all. 81 pages.

You’re welcome.

In terms of real content, there are no new ideas here. We have seen  this globalist shopping list of alleged “issues” before.

Climate change, conflict, food insecurity, poverty, misinformation, hate speech. The usual “problems” that collectively form what the document refers to as “complex global shocks”.

These “shocks” – the document tells us – can  be addressed with a series of “solutions” that are again no surprise:

“respect for international law”,

“expanded cooperation”,

“increased role for the UN” and the post-covid buzzword of choice –

“interoperability”.

All of which can be broadly defined as our old friend “global government”.

As you’d expect, there’s a lot of talk about money and finance (massive transfers of public money into private hands is how you win over corporations and hedge funds to your authoritarian cause, after all). For example Action 9(28)(f) promises…

Keep reading

The Pact for the Future and the annexed Global Digital Compact and Declaration of Future Generations was adopted after a short round of statements, where Russia (backed by Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Venezuela, and Nicaragua) issued their discontent with the negotiation process and called for the inclusion of an amendment.

Russia’s key objection was that United Nations should not be allowed to “intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. Apart from that, they don’t want to give more power to the High Commissioner on Human Rights, they object to the speeding up of nuclear disarmament, and they don’t want to “equate non-governmental actors with states when making decisions on international technological agenda”.[1]

As a countermeasure, the Republic of the Congo (speaking on behalf of the African Union) proposed a motion that no action would be taken on the draft amendment, which was accepted by all but seven nations (and fifteen that abstained).

The General Assembly then adopted the Pact without a vote![2]

The fact that Russia is involved in a war against Ukraine, and that the supporting nations have autocratic rule, is not exactly beneficial to the genuine opposition to the Pact (for reasons of true democracy, national sovereignty and freedom of speech), as any critique of any kind risks being dismissed as part of Russian intelligence operation and/or supporting the views of totalitarian regimes.

It remains to be seen what happens with the Russian claim that they will distance themselves from the Pact, while the work on implementing it (with the stated goal to “safeguard future generations” and “turbocharge Agenda 2030” with the help of strategic foresight, anticipatory governance, and behavioural design) continues in global forums for cooperation like the G20 and BRICS—with Russian participation.

Despite their expressed dissatisfaction, Russia supports the UN’s central role in “coordinating the positions of member states and searching for collective responses to global challenges”. They did not block the adoption the Pact and will, without a doubt, implement the actions that they did not object to.

Russia especially welcomes The Declaration on Future Generations, the “bridging of the digital divide” for the SDGs, and a reform of the International Financial Architecture.

BRICS (with its ten member states) is chaired by Russia this year. Digitisation is high on the agenda with The Digital BRICS Forum held this week.

The fact is that the BRICS-members Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, South Africa, United Arab Emirates voted against Russia (and Iran), whereas China abstained.

The main concern of the BRICS countries is that Western Powers will be the main beneficiaries of the pact, not that the digital tools can be used for population control, online censorship, and for influencing our behaviour.

They want to be assured that they are included as equal partners in the emerging new world order with its digital world brain.

As a comment to my article The Media Silence Surrounding the UN Pact for the Future, the Swedish Government finally published a press release this Friday (September 20th, only two days before the Summit) about the delegation that would attend Summit of the Future, probably confident that no media attention would be given before the meeting.

Keep reading