Authored by Alex Newman via The Epoch Times (emphasis BY TYLER DURDEN),

The United Nations and its member governments, with strong support from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), adopted a landmark agreement last week to bestow the U.N. with more power and influence in global affairs.

 

The controversial agreement, known as the Pact for the Future, outlines 56 actions for governments and international institutions to take over the coming years.

 

Among the key provisions is “transforming global governance” and further empowering international institutions across a range of issues, including “sustainable development and financing for development,” as well as “science, technology and innovation, and digital cooperation.”

The pact includes a Global Digital Compact to restrict “misinformation” and “disinformation” and a Declaration on Future Generations that encompasses the 2030 Agenda climate goals that include the phase-out of fossil fuels.

It is also part of transforming the U.N. into what the organization is touting in promotional materials as “U.N. 2.0.”

U.N. leaders and top officials from the CCP celebrated the pact as a historic effort to create a better future for humanity and increase global cooperation on international problems.

“We can’t create a future fit for our grandchildren with systems built for our grandparents,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said.

Despite opposition from various quarters, the 193-member body adopted the pact by consensus on Sept. 22 at the Summit of the Future during the U.N. General Assembly after about nine months of negotiations.

In the days before the pact was adopted, a coalition of U.S. lawmakers and grassroots leaders held a press conference on Capitol Hill criticizing the agreement as an effort to undermine national sovereignty and freedom.

“We can’t give up any more of our sovereignty, any more of our geopolitical integrity, or any more of our economic integrity to foreign actors who have no concerns for the United States of America other than to take our power and money away,” said Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), former leader of the House Freedom Caucus.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mike McCaul (R-Texas) told The Epoch Times that the pact ignores the “malign influence of the CCP” within the global organization.

McCaul said that although the pact isn’t legally binding, “this 66-page pact is limitless in scope.”

“It calls for dramatically increased public spending and vague action on countless left-wing priorities,” he said.

“The pact also completely ignores the most urgent issues facing the U.N. today, like reforming UNRWA and combating malign CCP influence. It does nothing to advance U.S. interests.”

The CCP, which plays an increasingly powerful role within the U.N., boasted about its significant role in developing the pact.

Speaking at U.N. headquarters, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the pact as an effort to “galvanize” the U.N.’s “collective efforts for world peace and development and to map out the future of humanity.”

Wang talked about advancing “global governance.”

On the other side, the Argentine government officially distanced itself from the pact and the U.N. in general.

“Argentina wants the freedom to develop itself, without being subjected to the undue weight of decisions that are alien to our goals,” said Argentine Foreign Minister Diana Mondino, noting that Argentinian authorities are pursuing a policy of freedom.

President Javier Milei, in his address to the U.N. General Assembly, called the organization a “multi-tentacled Leviathan that seeks to decide what each nation state should do and how the citizens of the world should live.”

Milei also criticized the global organization’s central role in prescribing what he called “crimes against humanity” in responding to the China-originated coronavirus.

He called the U.N. 2030 Agenda, which features prominently in the pact, a “supranational program of a socialist nature.”

The new pact makes repeated commitments to expedite the implementation of the U.N. 2030 Agenda, also known as the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

“We will urgently accelerate progress towards achieving the Goals, including through concrete political steps and mobilizing significant additional financing from all sources for sustainable development,” the pact reads.

The Sustainable Development Goals, which U.N. leaders described as the “master plan for humanity” when they were adopted in 2015, encompass everything from education and agriculture to health care and the environment.

After they were adopted, CCP-owned propaganda outlets around the world boasted that Beijing played a “crucial role” in creating the 2030 Agenda.

The U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission has been sounding the alarm for years.

“Since the U.S.–China Commission began tracking officials from the People’s Republic of China serving in leadership positions in international organizations, Beijing’s influence has only grown over key U.N. agencies responsible for funding and policymaking on a wide range of important issues,” the Commission told The Epoch Times.

“Contrary to the International Civil Servant Standards of Conduct, they [Chinese officials] use those positions [in the U.N.] to pursue China’s foreign policy goals,” the Commission said.

When asked about the concerns of U.S. policymakers and other critics, Guterres’s spokesman, Stéphane Dujarric, defended the pact.

“The Pact for the Future is not about world government,” he said at a press conference. “It is about making an organization of independent, sovereign member states work better.

“It’s not as if anyone is granting the secretary-general authority over governments—clearly not.”

Still, according to Dujarric, it is important to increase global cooperation because “not one country can deal with the rising seas, not one country can deal with global pandemics, not one country can deal with international terrorism.”

“This is about bringing sovereign, independent countries, and working together,” he said, urging people to read original documents to become well informed and “make up their own minds.”

The strengthening of the U.N. and, in particular, efforts to have the U.N. secretary-general lead the response to emergencies, received special attention from opponents.

As The Epoch Times reported in April 2023, empowering the U.N. as the central force in dealing with international emergencies and “complex global shocks” was a key goal heading into the Summit of the Future.

In his original policy brief on the issue, Guterres argued that all nations, businesses, governments, and other stakeholders must recognize the “primary role” of intergovernmental organs such as the U.N. and its agencies in “decision-making,” the document states.

Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations Kevin Moley, who oversaw U.S. relations with the U.N. during the previous administration, warned of the dangers.

“Allowing the U.N. to deal with this is the equivalent of putting the CCP in charge of global emergencies,” Moley told The Epoch Times.

He warned that the CCP takeover of international organizations represents a potentially mortal threat to the West.

Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, told The Epoch Times that Americans must resist what he described as a “power grab” of historic proportions.

“The U.N. secretary-general has arrogated to himself dictatorial powers ... upon his mere proclamation of an ‘emergency,’ as defined by himself,” he said.

Boyle, who wrote the implementing U.S. legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention and serves on the board of Amnesty International, said that because of the involvement of heads of state and government in the process, the new U.N. pact could constitute a “treaty” with “legal obligations” under both domestic and international law.

“This totalitarian arrangement constitutes a grave and immediate threat to the sovereignty and independence of all United Nations member states,” he said.

Free Speech, Free Press

One of the major components of the U.N. deal, adopted as an annex to the pact, focuses on U.N. governance of artificial intelligence (AI). Wang said that the CCP “supports the U.N. in serving as the main channel in AI governance.”

Another major concern for critics is the targeting of free speech in the Global Digital Compact, approved as an annex to the Pact for the Future.

Stating that it is protecting “information integrity,” the U.N. deal calls for drastically scaling up efforts to combat “hate speech,” “discrimination,” “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and more.

Global censorship about the COVID-19 pandemic, with YouTube removing content that went against the World Health Organization’s pronouncements, has been cited by opponents of the plan as an example of the threat.

The U.N. has also become more aggressive on this front. In 2022, at a World Economic Forum sustainability event, U.N. Undersecretary-General for Communications Melissa Fleming announced a partnership with Google.

“We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top,“ she said. ”We’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.”

Fleming has also highlighted working with CCP-linked TikTok and recruiting “influencers” to promote U.N. messaging.

Asked about the U.N. partnership with Google, Fleming declined to comment.

The compact calls for “Internet governance” to be “global and multi-stakeholder in nature.”

“We will strengthen international cooperation to address the challenge of misinformation and disinformation and hate speech online and mitigate the risks of information manipulation in a manner consistent with international law,” the Global Digital Compact reads.

The repeated emphasis on the alleged “risks” of misinformation is one of the most concerning elements of the agreement, said Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers and co-chair of the Sovereignty Coalition.

“We need only look back to the pandemic to see that these terms will be defined as anything that is counter-narrative to the U.N., the WHO, and their collaborators,” she told The Epoch Times, referring to the World Health Organization.

“Controlling the narrative by suppressing dissenting voices is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. It is, moreover, a hallmark of totalitarianism, which begins with and relies upon censorship.

“Further, censorship deprives both individuals and nations of their sovereignty.”

Littlejohn has been working with U.S. lawmakers to protect U.S. independence from international organizations.

“Sovereign persons and nations make decisions concerning how they will govern themselves,” she said. “They are deprived of this decision-making process if they are denied access to the true facts upon which their decisions will be made.”

Littlejohn also said the pact should be understood as a treaty under the traditional definition. As such, treaties are required to be ratified by the U.S. Senate—something she said would be unlikely to happen.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/un-pact-future-draws-concerns-over-ccp-backing

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

 

Dangerous Escalations: Biden’s Indo-Pacific Legacy    Salman Rafi Sheikh

 

When Joe Biden, a key architect of the Obama administration’s “Asia Pivot” policy, became the US president in 2020 and introduced his Indo-Pacific Strategy in February 2022, his apparent objective was to make the region more “peaceful” and manage its seas according to accepted international “rules”.

 

Yet, two years later, as Biden prepares to leave the White House permanently, the region is facing dangerous escalations more deeply than ever. From persistent US efforts toward the steady securitisation of the Quadrilateral Security Group (QUAD) and the certain nuclearisation of the Pacific via the AUKUS treaty to the most recent permanent deployment of the US Typhon missile system aimed at China in the Philippines, Biden has laid a path that might continue to grow regardless of who becomes the US president in November. Harris will most likely follow her president’s legacy. While Trump’s anti-China position naturally aligns with these developments in the region, regional countries might still find it difficult to deal with him.

Biden’s Pacific Dream

“The passage of time has underscored the strategic necessity of the United States’ consistent role” in the Indo-Pacific region, says Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy document. How this so-called necessity was established and how the so-called consistent role was imagined is irrelevant today insofar as we do see some form of permanence taking root. This is most clearly evident from the recent reports in the Western media indicating the permanent deployment of the US Typhoon Missile system in the Philippines.
The missile system was brought to the Philippines earlier this year as part of joint exercises. Now that Washington is citing “tensions with China” to justify a permanent deployment of this system, make it crystal clear that the former never intended to take it back, since “tensions” with China are nothing new. Had the US indicated earlier its actual intentions, it would have drawn a very strong response from Beijing. But Washington’s strategy was to present Beijing with a fait accompli. Washington preferred deceit to strategic clarity to establish Biden’s dream: a consistent (read: permanent) role in the region.

US dominance is now highly questionable, as several Asian countries do not take the US dictate seriously

Biden’s other treaties, such as AUKUS and the trilateral strategic pact with Japan and South Korea, also stand to reinforce the sense of permanent presence. Even though Washington does not have a clear advantage over China in the region in terms of the latter’s depth of economic ties with regional countries, there is little denying that the US has been able to push itself militarily in the region. This is a limitation as well as an advantage.

Who/What Washington is Targeting

It is China for several reasons. But it is not only China for other reasons. The purpose of this “permanent” presence and military deployment is to remind many other countries in the region of Washington’s global dominance. This reminder is necessary because this dominance is highly questionable now, with several countries in Asia not taking US dictates seriously. This is most clearly evident from, for instance, the continuous flow of Russian oil, despite US sanctions and threats, to countries in Asia. While the immediate exporters are China and India, Russian oil and related petroleum products are also travelling elsewhere. India, for instance, has been earning millions of dollars not only by purchasing discounted Russian oil but also by exporting it to Europe. In 2023, India imported 34 per cent of its oil from Russia. In the same year, it imported roughly 225,000 barrels per day (b/d) of petrol and diesel products, up from an average of 120,000 b/d in the previous five years, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Clearly, Washington is unable to force its QUAD ally to change its behaviour towards Russia. Fearing that other countries in the region might follow the “Indian model”, it needs to deter them. A good way of deterring them is to increase the military footprint in the region, indicating Wahington’s so-called indispensability to the region’s security and the necessity of not annoying it.

Russia matters also because it has recently begun to extend support to China in Southeast Asia. Russia was invited to attend the three-day meeting of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc in the Laos capital of Vientiane in July 2024.  In this meeting, Chinese and Russian foreign ministers met their Southeast Asian counterparts after vowing to counter “extra-regional forces” (read: Washington). More importantly, they announced their joint resolution only a day before Antony Blinken arrived in the region. Russia’s support for China – which might be tied to Chinese support for Russia against the combined forces of the US/NATO and Ukraine – naturally meant that Washington needed to up the ante; hence, the decision to permanently deploy the missile system in the Philippines.

The AUKUS alliance is pouring billions of USD.  The UK pledged US$5.3 billion, the US is contributing US$17.5 billion, and Australia has committed more US$20.7 billion. The amount of money being spent is not only due to the nuclear aspect of the treaty but also the more worrisome possibility of a more direct Russian-Chinese alliance in the Pacific that, without this treaty, might easily outgun and outpace Washington’s interests.

Does “Asia Pivot” Live on?

To the extent that Biden’s dream included a permanent “pivot” to Asia, there is little denying that he has been able to put in place structures that might remain relevant in the years to come. Because his legacy critically lacks an economic component – which many countries in the region consider very important – the actual success of Washington will be determined not simply on the basis of the military hardware it can put in the region but also on the basis of the ways, and whether or not, it can offer itself as alternative force partnering in the region’s economic development. More importantly, even if Washington is unable to offer any concrete economic plan, the mere deployment of military hardware can run into problems. For instance, even if the Typhoon system is placed in the Philippines, its usefulness can quickly change in the event of the current pro-US president losing elections and/or a pro-China leadership capturing power. Does Biden’s legacy leave with a mechanism to manage such a crisis? Apparently, No.

  

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Yet, two years later, as Biden prepares to leave the White House permanently, the region is facing dangerous escalations more deeply than ever. From persistent US efforts toward the steady securitisation of the Quadrilateral Security Group (QUAD) and the certain nuclearisation of the Pacific via the AUKUS treaty to the most recent permanent deployment of the US Typhon missile system aimed at China in the Philippines, Biden has laid a path that might continue to grow regardless of who becomes the US president in November. Harris will most likely follow her president’s legacy. While Trump’s anti-China position naturally aligns with these developments in the region, regional countries might still find it difficult to deal with him.

Biden’s Pacific Dream

“The passage of time has underscored the strategic necessity of the United States’ consistent role” in the Indo-Pacific region, says Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy document. How this so-called necessity was established and how the so-called consistent role was imagined is irrelevant today insofar as we do see some form of permanence taking root. This is most clearly evident from the recent reports in the Western media indicating the permanent deployment of the US Typhoon Missile system in the Philippines.
The missile system was brought to the Philippines earlier this year as part of joint exercises. Now that Washington is citing “tensions with China” to justify a permanent deployment of this system, make it crystal clear that the former never intended to take it back, since “tensions” with China are nothing new. Had the US indicated earlier its actual intentions, it would have drawn a very strong response from Beijing. But Washington’s strategy was to present Beijing with a fait accompli. Washington preferred deceit to strategic clarity to establish Biden’s dream: a consistent (read: permanent) role in the region.

US dominance is now highly questionable, as several Asian countries do not take the US dictate seriously

Biden’s other treaties, such as AUKUS and the trilateral strategic pact with Japan and South Korea, also stand to reinforce the sense of permanent presence. Even though Washington does not have a clear advantage over China in the region in terms of the latter’s depth of economic ties with regional countries, there is little denying that the US has been able to push itself militarily in the region. This is a limitation as well as an advantage.

Who/What Washington is Targeting

It is China for several reasons. But it is not only China for other reasons. The purpose of this “permanent” presence and military deployment is to remind many other countries in the region of Washington’s global dominance. This reminder is necessary because this dominance is highly questionable now, with several countries in Asia not taking US dictates seriously. This is most clearly evident from, for instance, the continuous flow of Russian oil, despite US sanctions and threats, to countries in Asia. While the immediate exporters are China and India, Russian oil and related petroleum products are also travelling elsewhere. India, for instance, has been earning millions of dollars not only by purchasing discounted Russian oil but also by exporting it to Europe. In 2023, India imported 34 per cent of its oil from Russia. In the same year, it imported roughly 225,000 barrels per day (b/d) of petrol and diesel products, up from an average of 120,000 b/d in the previous five years, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Clearly, Washington is unable to force its QUAD ally to change its behaviour towards Russia. Fearing that other countries in the region might follow the “Indian model”, it needs to deter them. A good way of deterring them is to increase the military footprint in the region, indicating Wahington’s so-called indispensability to the region’s security and the necessity of not annoying it.

Russia matters also because it has recently begun to extend support to China in Southeast Asia. Russia was invited to attend the three-day meeting of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc in the Laos capital of Vientiane in July 2024.  In this meeting, Chinese and Russian foreign ministers met their Southeast Asian counterparts after vowing to counter “extra-regional forces” (read: Washington). More importantly, they announced their joint resolution only a day before Antony Blinken arrived in the region. Russia’s support for China – which might be tied to Chinese support for Russia against the combined forces of the US/NATO and Ukraine – naturally meant that Washington needed to up the ante; hence, the decision to permanently deploy the missile system in the Philippines.

The AUKUS alliance is pouring billions of USD.  The UK pledged US$5.3 billion, the US is contributing US$17.5 billion, and Australia has committed more US$20.7 billion. The amount of money being spent is not only due to the nuclear aspect of the treaty but also the more worrisome possibility of a more direct Russian-Chinese alliance in the Pacific that, without this treaty, might easily outgun and outpace Washington’s interests.

Does “Asia Pivot” Live on?

To the extent that Biden’s dream included a permanent “pivot” to Asia, there is little denying that he has been able to put in place structures that might remain relevant in the years to come. Because his legacy critically lacks an economic component – which many countries in the region consider very important – the actual success of Washington will be determined not simply on the basis of the military hardware it can put in the region but also on the basis of the ways, and whether or not, it can offer itself as alternative force partnering in the region’s economic development. More importantly, even if Washington is unable to offer any concrete economic plan, the mere deployment of military hardware can run into problems. For instance, even if the Typhoon system is placed in the Philippines, its usefulness can quickly change in the event of the current pro-US president losing elections and/or a pro-China leadership capturing power. Does Biden’s legacy leave with a mechanism to manage such a crisis? Apparently, No.

  

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.