“We The Peoples of the United Nations determined…to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,”
–United Nations Charter Preamble (1945)
This is the fourth part in a series looking at the plans of the United Nations (UN) and its agencies designing and implementing the agenda of the Summit of the Future in New York on 22-23 September 2024, and its implications for global health, economic development, and human rights. Previous articles analyzed the impact of the climate agenda on health policy, the UN’s betrayal of its own hunger eradication agenda, and the undemocratic method of using former leaders and the wealthy to back the UN’s agenda.
The UN will be holding the Summit of the Future (“Summit of the Future: Multilateral Solutions of the Future”) at its headquarters in New York on 22-23 September 2024, during the 79th session of the General Assembly (UNGA). Leaders of 193 Member States are expected to reaffirm their commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which set 2030 as the deadline for the world to achieve the 17 goals (or ‘Agenda 2030’).
The SDGs include poverty eradication, industrial development, environmental protection, education, gender equality, peace, and partnerships. The Summit is also an occasion for world leaders to reiterate commitment to the 1945 Charter that laid out the purposes, governing structures, and framework of the UN (Secretariat, UNGA, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, International Court of Justice, and Trusteeship Council).
The Summit was initiated by Secretary-General (UNSG) Antonio Guterres, through his 2021 report entitled “Our Common Agenda,” in order to “forge a new global consensus on what our future should look like, and what we can do today to secure it.” The UN claims rather dramatically, in the draft Pact for the Future, that this Summit is necessary because “we are confronted by rising catastrophic and existential risks, many caused by the choices we make,” and that “we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown” if we do not “change course.”
It further claims that only the UN would be able to handle these apparently multiplying crises as they “far exceed the capacity of any single State alone.” This script sounds familiar: Global crises call for global governance. But can we trust the scriptwriter who is the only contestant for that governor’s seat?
Since 2020, the trust of “The Peoples” in the UN was seriously undermined, as the UN’s health arm – the World Health Organization (WHO) – promoted policies known to cause mass impoverishment, loss of education, child marriage, and rising rates of preventable diseases. None of the other organs of the whole system stood against these abuses, apart from limited recording of the harms they were encouraging, while systematically blaming the virus and not the unprecedented and unscientific response. However, this is not the crisis the UN has in mind in advancing the new agenda for the future. Its emphasis is quite the contrary, heightening the fear of future crises that will undo decades of human progress.
Stay Informed with Brownstone Institute
Although the Covid-19 response was ordered by national leaders, the UN actively pushed the disastrous one-size-fits-all measures including border closures, society shutdown, mass vaccination, removal of access to formal education, and, simultaneously promoting censorship of dissenting voices. The system and its highest official – UNSG – abrogated their responsibility for not “saving us from hell,” as the late UNSG Dag Hammarskjold once commented on his role (“It has been said that the UN was not created in order to bring us to heaven, but in order to save us from hell,” 1954).
While covering these crimes against humanity and avoiding accountability, the UN and world leaders intend to approve a set of 3 political, non-binding documents: i) a Pact for the Future, ii) a Declaration on Future Generations, and iii) a Global Digital Compact. All were placed under ‘silence procedure’ and were planned to be approved with little discussion.
Although this might raise eyebrows of ‘The Peoples,’ it is in conformation with the relevant UNGA Resolution adopted in 2022 (A/RES/76/307, para. 4)
The General Assembly,
4. Decides that the Summit will adopt a concise, action-oriented outcome document entitled “A Pact for the Future,” agreed in advance by consensus through intergovernmental negotiations.
Noteworthily, the silence procedure was introduced in March 2020 (UNGA Decision 74/544 of 27 March 2020 entitled “Procedure for taking decisions of the General Assembly during the Covid-19 pandemic”) for virtual meetings, but then conveniently remained.
Pact for the Future: General, Generous, and Hypocritical Promises
The latest version of the Pact for the Future (revision 3) was released on 27 August 2014. The Co-facilitators, Germany and Namibia, proposed to place it under ‘silence procedure’ until Tuesday 3rd September. This meant that without objections, the text was declared adopted. Currently, there isn’t enough publicly available information to know whether it happened.
Paragraph 9 of the Preamble marks a major break from, and a misunderstanding of, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the underlying tenets of modern international human rights law. This removed human rights from being paramount for the UN and good governance. They become of no more value than ‘sustainable development,’ ‘peace, and security’ (for whom?). It should be noted that the UN Charter defines ‘international peace and security’ as one of the purposes of the UN (Art. 1), and did not mention ‘development’ (or ‘sustainable development,’ a recent terminology) as a purpose.
This is a dangerous slope even for a non-binding text because it would mean that human rights may be abrogated if an undefined leader or institution decides that upholding them would make development less sustainable, or would impose on their sense of security.
Pact for the Future
9. We also reaffirm that the three pillars of the United Nations – sustainable development, peace and security, and human rights – are equally important, interlinked and mutually reinforcing. We cannot have one without the others.
The later statement in paragraph 13: “Every commitment in this Pact is fully consistent and aligned with international law, including human rights law” is clearly not consistent. The contradiction here, amidst the undefinable rambling that follows, is either unintentional or coming from a misinterpretation of the UDHR.
With 60 actions grouped under several themes (Sustainable development and Financing for development; International peace and security; Science technology and innovation and digital cooperation; Youth and future generations; Transforming global governance), the Pact stands in contrast to well-written documents such as the UDHR that were drafted in the UN’s early years. Rather than concise, clear, understandable, and actionable statements, its 29 pages are overwhelmed with tightly packed generalizations (sometimes utopian), and internally contradictory statements that enable almost any future action to be justified and commended. Action 1 is a perfect example.
Action 1. We will take bold, ambitious, accelerated, just and transformative actions to implement the 2030 Agenda, achieve the SDGs and leave no one behind
20. (…) We decide to:
(a) Scale up our efforts towards the full implementation of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the Paris Agreement.
(b) Fully implement the commitments in the Political Declaration agreed at the Sustainable Development Goals Summit in 2023.
(c) Mobilize and deliver significant and adequate resources and investments from all sources for sustainable development.
(d) Remove all obstacles to sustainable development and refrain from economic coercion.
It would be a real challenge to try to interpret and define some of these ‘actions’ into legal texts or policies. But the whole document, supposedly written by the best UN drafters with oversight from and under the guidance of the best diplomats (all paid for by us taxpayers), contains such monkey-puzzle commitments.
Similarly, Action 3 is undoubtedly an unachievable goal: “We will end hunger, eliminate food insecurity and all forms of malnutrition.” We would not, in normal circumstances before 2020. How will we today, especially after the UN deliberately encouraged all countries to lock their economies down, betraying its own hunger eradication agenda? To suggest that we will displays either astounding ignorance and detachment from reality, or a shameful disregard for speaking truthfully. Analogous statements are used throughout the document, making it insulting to those taking human welfare seriously.
The document ranges over almost all the UN could possibly touch, but a few more hypocritical highlights are worth noting. Co-sponsored by Germany, a country known for rapidly increasing arms exports and expanding carbon emissions after closing its last nuclear power stations, it states that countries will “ensure that military spending does not compromise investment in sustainable development” (para. 43(c)). Whilst the European Union refuses to negotiate with Russia on the Ukraine crisis, the Pact states that States must “intensify the use of diplomacy and mediation to ease tensions in situations” (para. 12). It does not hesitate to proclaim the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons (para. 47) (how?), and rather egregiously, given the current Middle East situation, “protect all civilians in armed conflict, in particular persons in vulnerable situations” (para. 35).
One could take the view that all this is wonderful, but that would be shallow, as words do not stop bombs falling on children and civilians when the speakers are ramping up their manufacture and export. To an outsider, the UN, and the sponsoring States, this Pact would appear to be joking. Except it is not. This is much worse. The Summit of the Future is just an occasion for those involved to try to launder their name and legacy.
Will the UN achieve its SDGs by 2030? Very likely not, as the UN just admitted it in June in the progress report. Already halfway through, countries are increasingly indebted as a result of lockdowns. Rising inflation is impoverishing the poorest and middle class worldwide. Funding for key health priorities such as malaria, tuberculosis, and nutrition has declined in real terms.
At the multilateral table, the UN uses the narrative of future “complex global shocks” (Action 57), defined as “events that have severely disruptive and adverse consequences for a significant proportion of countries and the global population, and that lead to impacts across multiple sectors, requiring a multidimensional multistakeholder, and whole-of-government, whole-of-society response” (para. 85) to establish emergency platforms that it will coordinate.
This new narrative, having gained prominence during Covid, might be appealing to leaders who dare not take full responsibility toward their citizens. Crisis management by the UN will very much look like the whole-of-society lockdown that is still fresh in our memory. And like the Covid response, it is based on a fallacious exaggeration of the truth, to turn natural phenomena into portents of impending doom. Again, this is a malign use of novel apocalyptic scenarios, irrespective that recurrent prophecies of doom on climate have proven false, to justify the UN’s funding, role, and existence.
Declaration on Future Generations: Why the Need, for Whom, and Why Now?
Similarly, the latest version of the Declaration on Future Generations (revision 3) was also placed under silence procedure until 16 August. However, opposition raised against this draft has led to it being reviewed for renegotiation.
The draft document is short, with 4 parts – preamble, guiding principles, commitments, and actions – each having a dozen paragraphs. The first two are more or less clear, understandable, and agreeable (who may disagree with the importance of investing in young people, or in the principle of non-discrimination?). Nevertheless, there are exceptions. The UN-ese narratives of “intergenerational dialogue” (para. 15) and “the needs and interests of future generations” (para. 6), both appear very ambiguous despite the use of attractive terms.
Who can represent the past, the present, and the future, for dialogue? Who decides on which dialogue? What legitimate actions may be taken? Moreover, is it acceptable to sacrifice the welfare of present generations in the name of preserving the needs and interests of hypothetical future generations, when we have little idea of their context or needs? Most would agree, as humans always have, that building for the future – a forest, city wall, road, church, or temple – was sensible, and we do this still. But why would countries suddenly need advice or leadership from a centralized UN bureaucracy to determine their “forward-looking” policies?
Specific concerns may be raised over the whole idea of this document. Who are the future generations? In the event that a “Special Envoy for Future Generations” will be appointed by UNSG to support the Declaration’s implementation (para. 46), a recommendation straight from his 2021 report, that person clearly will not have the legitimacy of a mandate from the hypothetical future generations he/she purportedly represents. No one now, the UN included, can legitimately claim to represent present generations. It is always easy to evoke humanity; it is not easy at all for legal specialists to determine what rights and what responsibility that humanity, including theoretical peoples not yet in existence, shall bear.
The concept of future generations was a construct in international environmental law. The Declaration of the UN Conference on Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972) made first reference to it, in a monumental break from the concept of individuality throughout the UDHR.
Principle 1 (Stockholm Declaration)
Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in
an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and wellbeing, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations (…)
Years later, internationalists have hastily embraced the concept of future generations in multiple environmental and developmental treaties. It does make sense in some specific circumstances, for example, to reduce industrial pollution to keep rivers clean for our children. However, this good intention has been quickly transformed into irrational actions to control the basic functioning of society.
Over the past few decades, vast multilateral (UN) and regional (EU) efforts have been deployed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the theoretical future benefit of others, but these have seriously restricted the development and well-being of many in present generations in low-income countries, reducing access to affordable and scalable energy (fossil fuels) and driving further global inequality. Recently, the devastating impact of unilateral Covid measures imposed on the world in the name of “the greater good” hypocritically targeted future generations. The emphasis on reducing education levels and ensuring intergenerational poverty has stolen from future generations to assuage the fears of some in our present ones.
With these examples in mind, any UN proclamations in this area must be questioned, especially the new fear-mongering narrative of “complex global shocks” while the UN still supports lockdowns and prolonged school and workplace closures, previously disparaged in public health for their role in forfeiting future prosperity.
Global Digital Compact (GDC): A UN Attempt to Lead and Control the Digital Revolution
The 3rd version of the GDC dated 11 July was also placed under silence procedure. However, there is no information to determine whether it was adopted or not.
The publicly available draft aims to set the goal of an “inclusive, open, sustainable, fair, safe and secure digital future for all” in the non-military domain (para. 4). A relatively long document with a similar structure to the two discussed above (objectives, principles, commitments, and actions), it is poorly thought through and written, with multiple unclear and contradictory commitments.
For instance, paragraphs 23.d and 28(d) respectively contain State’s commitment not to restrict ideas and information, as well as access to the Internet. However, several other paragraphs (like 25(b), 31(b), 33, 34, and 35) describe the “harmful impacts” of online “hate speech,” “misinformation and disinformation,” and note the State’s commitment to combat such information within and beyond their territory. The GDC also calls upon “digital technology companies and social media platforms” and “digital technology companies and developers” to be accountable, but fails to define what they are to be accountable for, and what this means.
Unsurprisingly, the document never defines “hate speech,” “mis-information and disinformation,” and who should determine, based on what criteria, that such speech and information dissemination has occurred. In such a diverse world, who decides what is ‘harm,’ who is ‘wrong,‘ and who is ‘right?’ If this is left solely to a State or a supra-national authority, as one might logically presume, then the whole document is a call for censorship of any opinion and information non-conforming with official narratives – a call richly decorated with, otherwise meaningful terms like ‘human rights’ and ‘international law.’ Some societies may have become used to living under such totalitarian conditions, but is it the UN’s role to ensure we all live this way?
The GDC pushes for the UN system to “play a role in promoting capacity-building for responsible and interoperable data governance” (para. 37), and even recognizes that the UN should shape, enable, and support “international governance of AI” (artificial intelligence) (para. 53). Countries commit to “establish, within the UN, an independent multi-disciplinary International Scientific Panel on AI” (para. 55a), and to initiate “a Global Dialogue on AI Governance” (para. 55b). Wait, what? A bureaucracy in New York will manage national AI programs and policies?
This is a clear attempt by the UN to control a sector, mostly built by private companies at great speed, to inject its view and reserve its own driver’s chair to manage the digital revolution en marche. It somehow manages to link the implementation of the SDGs to its ability to control and implement AI, and exert governance over the Internet, digital public goods and infrastructure, and AI too.
Conclusion
“Pacts,” “Declarations,” and “Compacts” do not have binding force. They are considered ‘gentlemen’s agreements,’ and as such, might be carelessly negotiated. However, they constitute a dangerous practice at the UN. One built after another, with multiple cross-references in different sectors in variable forms (policies, guidelines, declarations, goals, etc.), which present a network of interlocking strands extremely difficult for both scholars and country representatives to trace, verify, and analyze them all. They should be seen as “soft laws,” which surprisingly can be hardened up quickly by the UN into binding texts when needed, avoiding the detailed negotiation and clarification that would otherwise accompany the development of enforceable texts.
The UN system commonly uses these voluntary texts to call for funding, build projects and programs, and develop administrative task forces. Such instances are seen clearly through the three documents of the Summit. Large bureaucracies do not, by nature, shrink themselves. They are living off the money earned by others, and their logic is merely to expand and make themselves look irreplaceable. The more people and teams employed to regulate, monitor, and direct the lives of ‘The Peoples,’ the less we will actually be free, and the more the world will look like the totalitarian regimes the UN was supposed to push against.
These texts, if approved, should be seen as a pure distraction from the serious commitment to implement the SDGs by 2030. They demonstrate the inability of both States and the UN to implement these goals, burying this fact in a diarrheal cascade of unimplementable gobbledygook. Worst, they also contain wording to amplify the erosion of post-World War Two human rights, removing the sovereignty and sanctity of ‘We the Peoples’ to a level at, or below vague concepts whose definition is at the will of whoever wields power.
No one will hold world leaders accountable to these promises, but they broaden the burdens of future generations to the benefit of the UN system’s new-found partners and friends. As say the French, “les promesses n’engagent que ceux qui y croient” (promises only bind those who believe them). But some 8 billion people at the bottom still have to pay for a few technocrats at the top to write, negotiate, and approve them all.
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.
