Meryl Nass, MD
September 15, 2024
1. Global governance is to be transformed and strengthened
“We will transform global governance,” which will lead “to a brighter future for all of humanity.” But this will require greater international cooperation and compliance with international law. [paragraphs 3-5, and Action 41]
“We will strengthen the UN system” [Action 48]
2. Assuring compliance
“Where mandated intergovernmental processes exist, we will use them to advance this agenda.” [paragraph 17]
“We will strengthen international cooperation for the environment and the implementation of and compliance with our multilateral environmental agreements to deliver on our ambition to protect our planet.” [Action 58]
“Deepen United Nations’ engagement with national parliaments in United Nations intergovernmental bodies and processes, in accordance with national legislation, including through building on the efforts of the United Nations and Inter-Parliamentary Union to engage parliamentarians to maintain support for the implementation of relevant UN agreements and resolutions.” [Action 59]
3. Dictatorial authority sought for the UN Secretary-General, echoing the plan for the WHO’s Director-General in the Pandemic Treaty and proposed IHR amendments
Echoing the WHO’s pandemic aspirations, the Pact seeks to give the UN Secretary-General the sole authority to operationalize an “Emergency Platform,” for any type of emergency he designates, to decide which emergencies warrant this declaration, to decide when to trigger this authority, and to determine how to manage the emergency. [Action 57]
4. Sustainable Development to be at the center of multilateralism (i.e., global governance) and at the center of a new global financial architecture
While “development” was one of the original 3 pillars of the UN, sometimes listed as 4 pillars, the Pact now claims that “Sustainable Development” is one of the essential 3 pillars of the UN. [paragraph 9] This is a gross misrepresentation, because the term “sustainable development” is used interchangeably with the Agenda for Sustainable Development, Agenda 2030 and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, none of which existed when the UN was founded, and they have an entirely different meaning than the general term “development.”
The Pact claims that sustainable development is “a central objective of multilateralism” [paragraph 10] and furthermore, “we will accelerate reform of the international financial architecture to address the challenges of today and tomorrow… the reform of the international financial architecture should place the 2030 agenda at its center” [Action 50]. But the world’s citizens never voted to make Agenda 2030 the centerpiece of multilateralism, nor have they asked for the creation of a wholly new financial architecture, for which the UN lacks expertise and probably also lacks authority.
While the Pact acknowledges in paragraph 18 that “the achievement of the sustainable development goals is in peril. Progress on most of the goals is either moving too slowly or has regressed below the 2015 baseline,” paragraph 19 states that nations are to reaffirm that “the 2030 agenda for sustainable development is our overarching roadmap for achieving development…” Why would anyone, let alone the entire world, follow a roadmap that has failed to yield progress during the past 9 years?
5. Suspicious goals for health
The Pact specifically desires to ensure universal access for sexual and reproductive health and for vaccinations, but fails to make similar assurances for access to primary health care. [paragraphs 27 and 63]
6. References to many prior agreements, without specifying what in these other documents is being referred to, make the Pact deliberately obfuscatory
Several paragraphs are indecipherable, referring to up to 3 different prior agreements but failing to specify what precisely in those agreements is being referred to. [paragraph 28 (a)]
There is use of language to conceal the actual meaning of what is being discussed. For example, “Deliver on our agreed commitment to hold and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 and implement all multilateral environmental agreements.” This is actually a demand to appropriate private land for the Natura 2000 and 30 by 30 initiatives. [paragraph 29 (e)]
7. Doubletalk: the UN wants to have it both ways and hopes we don’t notice
The UN uses doubletalk, calling for censorship and free speech at the same time. [paragraph 39(g)]
In similar doubletalk, it calls for “talent” mobility at the same time it calls to prevent a brain drain. [paragraph 54 (c)]
A third instance of doubletalk is that the Pact calls for technology to help developing countries, while calling for enforcement of intellectual property rights. [paragraph 56 and Action 33]
8. The Pact echoes the WHO’s Biosecurity Agenda, and like the WHO Pandemic Treaty and IHR amendments, includes both censorship of information and the need to promote trust in science (which are apparently necessary elements to achieve global control)
The Pact is in line with the WHO’s Biosecurity Agenda [paragraph 48 (c)] and desires to build “trust” in science [paragraph 54 (a)] harkening back to the WHO’s COVID agenda, which controlled and censored “the science” the public was allowed to hear.
9. Outlandish aspirations
Some Pact aspirations are frankly outlandish, such as “achieve a world in which humanity lives in harmony with nature.” [paragraph 29(a)]
Or, “We believe there is a path to a brighter future for all of humanity, including those living in poverty and vulnerable situations. Through the actions we take today, we resolve to set ourselves on that path, striving for a world that is safe, peaceful, just, equal, inclusive, sustainable and prosperous, a world in which human wellbeing, security and dignity and a healthy planet are assured.” [paragraph 4]
10. Hypocrisy
While the expressed aspiration is to end war crimes, use of starvation for war, genocide, crimes against humanity, etc., we hear little about meaningful UN actions in this regard, despite the continuing occurrence of such atrocities. [paragraph 35 (g,h)]
Conclusion
The Pact for the Future is an overblown, repetitive, redundant, dishonest document. Unlike a normal treaty, it drowns us in generalities and tucks its few specifics into dark corners, relying on vague references to other documents to provide the actualities.
It asserts, without justification, that the Agenda for Sustainable Development must be at the center of multilateralism and at the center of a wholly new financial architecture.
While replete with outlandish and vague aspirations and doubletalk, buried deep within the document is a frightening proposal first floated in the UN’s Policy Brief 2 of 2023.
This proposal seeks agreement of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to create an “Emergency Platform” which would be activated whenever the UN Secretary-General (S-G) decided there was a “global shock” of any kind affecting more than one country. This could be a climate emergency, supply chain emergency, pandemic or ‘black swan’ event. The Secretary General and the “Emergency Platform” would then take over management of the emergency, deciding when to initiate their actions and when to end them. There are NO standards specified in the Policy Brief or the Pact that would limit the UN’s actions in any way. There is no requirement for agreement by affected nation states, the UNGA or the Security Council.
This would provide the UN S-G with more power than any human being has ever had, to do with as he wishes. While on the one hand it is a preposterous and unjustified power grab, and is unlike anything the UN has previously attempted, the UN and the powers behind the UN are deadly serious about gaining this global authority over the entire world.
The Pact is a dire threat to every nation, and it must be stopped.
