How the United Nations is quietly being turned into a public-private partnership

A new agreement with the World Economic Forum gives multinational corporations influence over matters of global governance.

Harris Gleckman

Anew corporate and government marriage quietly took place last week when the leadership of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to partner with each other. While this MOU is proudly displayed on the WEF website, it is nowhere to be found on the UN website. The only indication on the UN website of this important new development is a picture of the pen used to sign the agreement, and two pictures of the signing ceremony.

One reason for this difference is that the UN’s corporate-centered Global Compact has received a good deal of bad press. Now the new WEF-UN agreement creates a second special place for multinational corporations inside the UN. There is no similar institutional homes in the UN system for civil society, for academics, for religious leaders, or for youth. It is hard to imagine a national government signing a similar formal partnership with one of its business organizations.

At the same time, the UN is under pressure from Donald Trump who wants to deconstruct the whole multilateral system. For Trump, dismantling the international system built after World War II is a companion piece to his domestic effort at deconstructing the administrative state. For the Secretary-General of the UN, the pact with the WEF may well be his effort to find new power actors who can support the current system, which is now celebrating its 75th anniversary, in the face of Trump’s onslaught.

On the other side, the WEF recently received significant public criticism after giving Hungarian Prime Minister Orban and Brazilian President Bolsonaro a warm welcome at its 2019 Davos gathering. This marriage may be seen as a way for the WEF to re-establish itself as part of the global governance center.

The timing and managing of public perceptions are not the only interesting aspect of this arrangement. In 2009, the WEF published a 600 page report entitled the Global Redesign Initiative, which called for a new system of global governing, one in which the decisions of governments could be made secondary to multistakeholder led initiatives in which corporations would play a defining role. In a sense this WEF study recommended a sort of public-private United “Nations” – something that has now been formalized in this MOU. The agreement announces new multistakeholder partnerships to deliver public goods in the fields of education, women, financing, climate change, and health.

The rather detailed MOU includes forms of cross organizational engagement up and down the UN structure. The MOU contains commitments that the Secretary-General himself will be invited to deliver a keynote address at the WEF annual Davos gatherings. His senior staff and the heads of the UN programmes, funds, and agencies will also be invited to participate in regional level meetings hosted by the WEF. It also contains a promise that the UN’s individual country representatives will explore ways to work with WEF’s national Forum Hubs. Aware of the mutual importance of public legitimacy each institution can provide for the other, the MOU also contains an agreement to cross-publicize their joint activities.

Besides the institutional blessing of the United Nations, what does the WEF get from the MOU? The scope of each of the five fields for joint attention is narrowed down from the intergovernmentally negotiated and agreed set of goals to one with more in line with the business interests of WEF members. So under financing, the MOU calls only for ‘build[ing] a shared understanding of sustainable investing’ but not for reducing banking induced instabilities and tax avoidance.

Under climate change, it calls for ‘ …public commitments from the private sector to reach carbon neutrality by 2050’, not actions that result in carbon neutrality by 2030 . Under education, it re-defines the Sustainable Development education goal to ‘ensure inclusive and equitable quality education’ into one that focuses on education to meet the ‘rapidly changing world of work.’ The MOU explicitly restricts the WEF from making financial contributions to the UN, which might have ameliorated the economic impact of some of Trump’s threat to the budgets of the UN system. At the same time, it avoids any commitment to reduce global inequality, to make energy affordable, to hold multinational corporations accountable for human rights violations, or even to rein in the behavior of the WEF’s firms that act inconsistently to the re-defined goals set out in the agreement.

All this joint work might have some practical good if it were not for three crucial elements: firstly, the agreement circumvents the intergovernmental review process; secondly, the agreement elevates multistakeholderism as the solution to the problems with the current multilateral system; and thirdly the proposed multistakeholder partnerships are not governed by any formal democratic system. Were the Secretary-General convinced of the wisdom of a UN marriage with the WEF, he could have submitted the draft MOU for approval by the member states. Instead, the Secretary-General joined the WEF in declaring in effect that multistakeholder groups without any formal intergovernmental oversight are a better governance system than a one-country-one-vote system.

All multistakeholder governance groups are largely composed of a self-selected group of multinational corporations and those organizations and individuals that they want to work with. They work without any common internal rule book to protect the views of all who might be impacted by the group. Participation in multistakeholder group is a voluntary undertaking. The drop-in-drop-out arrangements are antithetical to the UN’s efforts for 75 years to build a stable secure global governance system with a clear understanding of obligations, responsibilities and liabilities.

What is surprising is that by accepting this marriage arrangement with the WEF, the Secretary-General of the UN is marginalizing the intergovernmental system in order to ‘save’ it.

Open Democracy 2nd July 2019

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/how-united-nations-quietly-being-turned-public-private-partnership/?source=in-article-related-story

...

GLOBAL RULES BASED ORDER Blog Posts View all Categories

ECO Socialist Multistakeholder Public Private Global Partnership with the UN-WEF ‘Corporate Capture of the World’ and the Global Godfather of Climate Hysteria

Maurice Strong the Godfather of Climate Hysteria. The self proclaimed Socialist Climate Change Inventor, that defined a trace gas as a very wealthy meal ticket of tens of thousands of climate functionalities

Maurice Strong established two of the largest UN Environmental Agencies.  Maurice Strong Personal Advisor to  UN Secretary Generals. Maurice Strong quoted at the UN “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about”? Quote Maurice Strong UN. The Science is settled “No its not:. Maurice Strong Self confessed socialist had a massive influence on world affairs, international environmental rules, international agencies and businesses, an influential member of the WEF

Maurice Strong joined the UN at 18years old lived with a leader of the UN Treasury. Eventually put the UN into the collaboration with environmental businesses. The shadowy influence of the UN Leaders from 1962 till 2005, often clled ‘the international man of mystery’  and a ‘new guy in your future’ and a very dangerous one at that. Strong made his fortune in oil and energy eg Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few. He had an extensive range of contacts within the power brokers of the world, he was called the ‘Michelangelo of Networking’ but he was not angel.

1972 organized the 1st Earth Summit in Stockholm The Conference on the Human Environment. This led to the formation of the UN Environment Program Maurice Strong was the head of this. Later he organized the UNEP, he was the boss of the first international expert group on climate change. This led to UN sponsored organizations eg The Earth Council and Earth Charter, World Resources Institute, World Wild Life Fund, The Commission for World Governance and the University for Peace.

Strong was the driving force behind the world governance, governing of UN Nation States . He dreamt up a world tax on monetary transactions of 0.05% which would have given the UN an annual income of $1.5 trillion annually. About equal to the income of the US. However the stumbling block was the UN Security Council that has veto rights. (The power of Veto). So he devised a plan to get rid of the UN Security Council but did not succeed in implementing his plan. And then he came up with this light bulb moment called ‘Global Warming’, this might just be the device to get his World Governance up and running.

1989 Strong was appointed to Secretary General of the Earth Summit, 1992 he addressed the second Earth Summit at Rio. Telling 1,000’s of climate change delegates

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable”.

Hence there goes the house (private Property) there goes your Meat  (plant based burgers) Bill Gates ‘Beyond Burgers’, the transformation of the world called ‘The World we Want’ being the world the Corporation- UN-WEF Collaborators want.  (Global Power and wealth)

However Strong did not say at this time he had actually purchased a very large piece of land in Colorado. The Colorado Land and Cattle Company, he bought this off an arms dealer named Adnan Khashoggi who had strong connections with the Bin Laden family

200,000 acres of cattle property called ‘Baca’ It sat on a vast underground water system. Strong formed the American Water Development Corporation to exploit the water by pumping it out for commercial intent but was stopped by locals. Maurice Strong was told by a mystic that : The Baca Ranch would become the new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the world in years to come”

With this, he created the Manitou Foundation, a New Age Institute which was located at his Baca Rach, above what he called the saced waters that lay below. He established the ‘Conservation Fund’ with the help of Laurence Rockefeller, to study the mystical properies of the Manitou Mountaun. A circular temple was built at the ranch devoted to the world mystical movements

The valley where the Baca Ranch is located is traditional home of the Navajo tribes. They believe that their ancestors were led underground in this valley by ‘Ant People’. According to the Navajo tradition they warned of the coming ‘Sky Katchinas’ (Sky spirits’. Strong was drawn towards these Navajo mystical beliefs. Maurice Strong founded the Earth Council Institute in 1992, recruiting world luminaries eg., Mikhail Gorbachev, Shimon Peres, Al Gore and David Rockefeller. In year 2000 Earth Charter Strong again pushed for a World Governance body.

2005 Maurice Strong, an extremely powerful man made a push which he announced would save humanity, the promoting of the theory of human induced greenhouse gases, but he was caught with his hand in the till. He endorsed a chque for himself made out to M Strong issued by the Jordanian Bank. The South Korean businessman Tongsun Park was given the cheque, he was convicted in 2006 by a New York Federal Court of conspiring to bribe  UN Officials

Maurice Strong resigned and then fled to Canada, then onto China where he continued to live. Taking sanctuary in China where his cousin Louise Strong, a Marxist who lived with Mao Tse Tung for 2 years before she died in 1970.

In 1947 Maurice Strong  worked at the UN at the age of 18 a Canadian from Manitoba, he was a junior officer at the UN Security Section, he lived with the UN Treasurer Noah Monod. Maurice Strong was involved in bribery and corruption, a very well known one was the Un Oil for Food Scandal. Strong was stripped of many of his 53 International Awards and honours he had collected over a lifetime for this. Strong was known for his dual role of an eco global socialist pushing for a world governance and he was also reported to be a ruthless businessman

Maurice Strong was a longtime Foundation Director of the World Economic Forum, a senior advisor to the World Bank. A Canadian Oil- Mineral Businessman, Under Secretary of the UN, President of the Power Corporation of Canada, Secretary of the Un Human Environment Programme, CEO of Petro Canada, Headed Ontario Hydro. Head of the Water Development Incorporated, Commissioner of the World Commission on environmental Developments, Leader of International environmental Movements worldwide.

An active member of Perking University, Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Institute for Research on Security and Sustainability for North East Asia. Died at 86 in 2015. Self confessed radical Socialist. There are references made to Maurice Strong and Canada’s Principal Investment Corporations that have interests in Energy and Utility Businesses. The Power Corporation of Canada. In 1976 at Pierre Trudeau request Maurice Strong returned to Canada to head the newly created national oil company Petro-Canada.

Strong was a shareholder in Oil companies, he had acquired Denver Oil was the largest shareholder. AZL merged with Tosco Corporation which Strong acquired which was 160,000 acres – the Baca Ranch in Colorado which was Strongs Manitou Foundation. Strong later became the chairman of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the holding company for some of Canada’s principal government owned corporations. 1982 he became chair of Ontario Hydro.

Dec 3st 1986 Strong founded the American Water Development Incorporated, with a rights to pump water from a guge area and sell it to water districts in the Front Range Urban Corridor of Colorado. (There was much conflict about this and activism) So Strong existed the company. Strong was the director of Molten Metal Technology, an environmental tech company founded in 1989, recycling hazardous waste gained research grants from US Dept of Energy. The company later filed for bankruptcy.’ Stockholm Conference

In 1971, Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet,[25] co-authored by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos. The report summarized the findings of 152 leading experts from 58 countries in preparation for the first UN meeting on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. This was the world’s first “state of the environment” report.

The Stockholm Conference established the environment as part of an international development agenda. It led to the establishment by the UN General Assembly in December 1972 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with headquarters in NairobiKenya, and the election of Strong to head it. UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the third world.[26] As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change.[27]

Strong was one of the commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983.

Maurice Strong the Godfather of Climate Hysteria. A longtime foundation Director of the WEF, on the advisory committee of Harvard University, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Maurice Strong flanked by 100 world leaders embodied in Agenda 21 launchpad. The design of the global governance and Mass Global Warming hysteria that has now evolved into a ECO Socialist Multistakeholder Public Private Global Partnership with the UN-WEF ‘Corporate Capture of the World. WEF GLOBAL REDESIGN INIATIVE. THE GREAT RESETTHE NEW NORMAL – THE GLOBAL AGENDA 2030- TO LEAVE NO-ONE BEHINDEVERYONE EVERYWHERE AT EVERY AGEORIGINATED BY THE SHADOW OF THE MOST POWERFUL LEADERS OF THE UNNONE OTHER THAN MAURICE STRONG.THE GLOBAL GOD FATHER OF CLIMATE HYSTERIA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

 https://coherence.com.au/curlew/2019/08/maurice-strong-inventor-of-global-warming/

 

...

UN INTERNATIONAL CYBERCRIME TREATY HAS ‘INTRUSIVE SURVEILLANCE POWERS’

UN CYBERCRIME TREATY has been highly criticized it is widely reported to overlook, violate Human Rights. Expands global evidence collection, encompasses a long list of non-cybercrimes, has huge over-reaching powers beyond those even detailed in the Un Treaty. The UN Treaty draft was prompted by the UN General Assembly vote in December 2019, the negotiating a cybersecurity accord after Russia took issue with the previous ‘UN Budapest Convention. Russia demanded that the issue they had needs to be addressed. The first draft of the UN Cybercrime Treaty caused some great concerns but now the second draft published on 28th November is being called a tool of repression. The original purpose of the UN Treaty was combatting cybercrime, but this has now morphed into an globally expansive treaty with far reaching over-reach in both National and International investigations.

It empowers States to cast a wider net of having the ability to access data , thus violating a Nation States privacy laws. The Treaty falls short of reining in  intrusive surveillance powers this endangers human rights undermining the original cybercrime fighting intent

Human Rights Watch acting associate director Deborah Brown said the latest draft is “primed to facilitate abuses on a global scale” because it gives governments expansive cross-border powers to investigate “virtually any imaginable crime – like peaceful dissent or expression of sexual orientation – while undermining the treaty’s purpose of addressing genuine cybercrime.” She said that “Govts should not rush in to conclude this Treaty without ensuring that it elevates, rather than sacrifices our fundamental rights. UN Member State Government have had negotiation sessions over the past few days 19-20th December in Vienna before the draft is considered in the Headquarters of the UN Assembly at the end of January where yet another session will take place.

The UN Cybercrime Treaty is to be finalized between 29th January to February 9th 2024 at the New York Headquarters of the UN Assembly.. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021. It has been widely reported that the adoption of the UN Treaty by Nation States in the Treaty’s present form will erode private data, weaken cybercrime, undermine online rights and freedoms across the world. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021.The new provision extend to extra-territorial surveillance without safeguards

Some of the concerns are:- Removal of sections of the original draft limit the Treaty’s powers to narrowly define cybercrime.  Nation State surveillance across borders without safeguards and expansion of online fraud. The Treaty as it is now presented allows every government in the world to transfer the personal information of citizens between themselves in secret in perpetuity, and to force the service providers who are responsible for that data to hand it over without any ability to object or refuse on any grounds. There is little UN Nation State objects to the UN Cybercrime Treaty, there is very limited or zilch response to robust human rights safeguards.

NZ Government website (DPMC) reported that NZ is currently engaging in the UN International Cybercrime Treaty (29/4/2022). The Government once again states it promotes a International Rules Based Order, that its important that NZ is in the conversation that shaped this new instrument of international cooperation. The Govt website reports that there were consultations in October 2021  and feedback was sought on NZ’s written submissions as to Treaty negotiations, general provisions, procedural measures and law enforcement referring to the UN Cybercrime Treaty. NZ Government is committed to constructively promoting the Internal Rules based Order.

65 Countries ratified the UN Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. The Budapest Treaty was developed by the Council of Europe in 2001, entered into force in 2004.  18th February 2021 speeches in the Beehive by David Clark and Kris Faafoi was the announcing of joining the Council Of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, referencing the decisions process was due to the recommendation by the Royal Commission of the Inquiry into the Christchurch Terror Attack (15/3/2019)’ With Kriis Faafoi saying “The government needs to ensure that NZ is confident, secure in the digital world, so we can tackle threats to online wellbeing”

Kris Faafoi said “the government made a number of changes to its policy proposals, looking at ways that Māori have an ongoing oversight role in the implementation and participation to the UN Convention”/ Thus the Convention was submitted to the House Of Representatives for Parliamentary Treaty examination. It was announced by Faafoi that the Convention addresses cross-border cybercrime by aligning the Nations laws with this, facilitating information sharing on current threats and best practice (best practice for the govt and UN Nation States), increases and fosters International dialogue

Parliaments role in International Treaties was published 17th April 2019 by NZ Parliament. Documents What is a Treaty:- An agreement between 2 countries or with an international entity like the UN or WTO, that binding under International Law. Often known as International Agreements.

Parliaments role in International Treaties. In practice the Prime Minister and the PM’s Cabinet with help from their officials negotiates, decides on whether NZ will join or withdraw from a Treaty. The governments decision is effective whether or not Parliament endorses the Treaty or not. Since 1998 it’s been an constitutional convention that the govt will not (except in an emergency) bind NZ to a Treaty until Parliament has been allowed a minimum period to scrutinize it (This is set out in the Cabinet Manuel). All Treaties in the House are referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, they refer to the Treaty itself, or refers to a more relevant subject matter in the Treaty to a Select Committee to consider.

Although an International Treaty is binding at an International level, it cannot change NZ Domestic Law, only Parliament can do that. Non-binding International Treaties (UN) sit in a place call ‘Soft Law’ where this is easily accessible, can be adopted quickly and non transparently into Domestic Policy making it binding- legally by parliamentary legislation. Binding Internal Laws are also entered into Domestic Laws to make these binding. Non-Binding International laws can be referenced to by the judicial in certain cases as they arise. A Select committee has 15 sitting days in which to report back to the House on Treaty issues, objections etc.,

There were 17 submissions on the consultation as to Cybercrime, this was processed and closed in September 2020. These were received by a range of private companies, organization and individuals. Individual names have been withheld to protect personal information. 13 names of organization however were published. • Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa/The Māori Law Society (THRMOA) • Interim Māori Spectrum Commission (IMSC) • Mega Limited (MEGA) • Internet NZ • Telecommunications Forum (TCF) • Spark • Microsoft • PaloAlto Networks • Copyright Licensing Limited • NZ Authors • ANZ Screen Association • WeCreate • Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC). There were other formal submissions, engagements undertaken with several Iwi/Māori groups and individuals.

It is reported that the UN Cybercrime Treaty risks being a ‘Global Surveillance Pact’ that will trample data privacy, these are human rights concerns. Will pave the way for regimes such as China, North Korea, Iran for regimes to legalize surveillance across borders, to criminalize online speech with the support of the International Community, giving the green light for governments to persecute protestors, activists, independent journalist and marginalized groups. Any person that draw attention to the authoritarian regime aim to criminalize free speech. “That’s where we’re at,” said Katitza Rodriguez, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s policy director for global privacy. “The draft treaty provides the legal basis for governments to make highly intrusive surveillance mechanisms like interception of content and real time tracking of metadata, available ‘to the fullest extent possible’ to foreign governments for almost any sort of criminal investigation of a serious crime with minimal safeguards.”

Specifically: the draft would authorize police to help foreign governments investigate activities that may not be a punishable offense in both countries, she explained.

“The dual criminality principle safeguards human rights, but it is treated as optional,” Rodriguez said. “To uphold global human rights, the proposed treaty must mandate dual criminality.” Deborah Brown, senior researcher and advocate on technology and human rights at Human Rights Watch, said the vague wording in the treaty’s Article 17 is especially concerning because it could allow governments to punish certain speech by defining it as a crime because it was posted online. For many governments, this means cracking down on online dissent or expanding digital surveillance.”

The UN Cybercrime Treaty is to be finalized between 29th January to February 9th 2024 at the New York Headquarters of the UN Assembly.. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021. It has been widely reported that the adoption of the UN Treaty by Nation States in the Treaty’s present form will erode private data, weaken cybercrime, undermine online rights and freedoms across the world. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021.The new provision extend to extra-territorial surveillance without safeguards

Some of the concerns are:- Removal of sections of the original draft limit the Treaty’s powers to narrowly define cybercrime.  Nation State surveillance across borders without safeguards and expansion of online fraud. The Treaty as it is now presented allows every government in the world to transfer the personal information of citizens between themselves in secret in perpetuity, and to force the service providers who are responsible for that data to hand it over without any ability to object or refuse on any grounds. There is little UN Nation State objects to the UN Cybercrime Treaty, there is very limited or zilch response to robust human rights safeguards.

NZ Government website (DPMC) reported that NZ is currently engaging in the UN International Cybercrime Treaty (29/4/2022). The Government once again states it promotes a International Rules Based Order, that its important that NZ is in the conversation that shaped this new instrument of international cooperation. The Govt website reports that there were consultations in October 2021  and feedback was sought on NZ’s written submissions as to Treaty negotiations, general provisions, procedural measures and law enforcement referring to the UN Cybercrime Treaty. NZ Government is committed to constructively promoting the Internal Rules based Order.

65 Countries ratified the UN Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. The Budapest Treaty was developed by the Council of Europe in 2001, entered into force in 2004.  18th February 2021 speeches in the Beehive by David Clark and Kris Faafoi was the announcing of joining the Council Of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, referencing the decisions process was due to the recommendation by the Royal Commission of the Inquiry into the Christchurch Terror Attack (15/3/2019)’ With Kriis Faafoi saying “The government needs to ensure that NZ is confident, secure in the digital world, so we can tackle threats to online wellbeing”

Kris Faafoi said “the government made a number of changes to its policy proposals, looking at ways that Māori have an ongoing oversight role in the implementation and participation to the UN Convention”/ Thus the Convention was submitted to the House Of Representatives for Parliamentary Treaty examination. It was announced by Faafoi that the Convention addresses cross-border cybercrime by aligning the Nations laws with this, facilitating information sharing on current threats and best practice (best practice for the govt and UN Nation States), increases and fosters International dialogue

The new New Zealand Coalition, no politician in Parliament have shared this information with the people of New Zealand WHY?

LINKS;

https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/fhd7EW-Summary-of-Submissions-Budapest-Convention.pdf

15 page Summary of Submission-Budapest Convention NZ on Cybercrime Convention

https://therecord.media/un-cybercrime-treaty-draft-criticized

https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/our-programmes/national-security/cyber-security-strategy/united-nations-cybercrime-treaty

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-zealand-join-council-europe-convention-cybercrime

https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/fact-sheets/parliament-s-role-in-international-treaties/

 

...

CHURCH BELLS RANG FOR CLIMATE ALARMISM IN NEW ZEALAND ‘CORPORATE CAPTURE’ HAD BEGAN

23rd October 2009 The Mornington Methodist Church members were planning to ring their church bell 350 times over an hour, this was just one od six Dunedin Bells that would ring to support the 350th Day of Action. More than 4,000 events were taking place around the world on October 24th 2009 to encourage people to reduce their carbon emissions. 600 leaflets were distributed around a neighborhood in Dunedin. 350 Dunedin collective members groups as diverse as school pupils, musicians, artists, cyclists and skateboarders collaborated Dunedin’s Day Of Action to encourage Dunedin residents to reduce their fossil fuels.(Otago Daily Times 23/10/2009)

16th October 2008 (Pacific Scoop News) Ringing the Alarm on Climate Change (Release Anglian Church of Aotearoa. Church bells tolled up and down NZ on Saturday 24th October 2009. This was not a ‘civil defense emergency warning’. The church bells rang for the ‘350 Day’- global pointer to cut ‘carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere’. This was promoted by three Anglican Bishops. The Auckland Synod resolution was initiated by its Diocesan Climate Change Action Group, of which the convenor was Dr Richard Milne a Population Health Scientist. Milne said, at the time “remind church communities and individuals of the need to live more sustainably, to reduce their carbon footprint. He added “It’s particularly important, to make this statement before our government enters negotiations at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December”. The church gave a link to their website for further information on theology, science, economics, politics of global climate change (The link for the Diocesan Climate Change Action Group)

November 2009, at the Catholic Bishops Conference ‘Church leaders urged bolder action on climate change’  calling “political leaders to strive for a strong commitment by the international community at the Copenhagen Climate Summit” for the strongest commitment by the international community at the Copenhagen Summit. October 2009 following a meeting with the Prime Minister of NZ the church leaders from the Anglican, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist Churches and the Salvation Army churches released a statement outlining the environmental & economic impacts of climate change, and the importance of immediate action by the whole community. They applauded the steps that the past and present govt had taken, but felt that the urgency of the situation is not sufficiently understood, they reported. Catholic Bishop John Drew Wellington said “The world is perched on the brink of a Kairos moment”, described as a moment in the scripture  that is a moment of opportunity, grace and truth”

Bishop Drew said that “Scientists warn us that the “window of opportunity for change is very narrow”. This “narrow window of opportunity, has been heard and noted many times”. 14th September 2022, 13 years later the World Economic Forum reports that the “UN announced “We have a narrow window of opportunity to create a better future for everyone”. They were referring to ‘global society lurching from crisis to crisis. All the church leaders in NZ joined the World Council of Churches as they called ALL churches throughout NZ to ring their church bells at 3pm Sunday 13th December, midway through the UN Summit in Copenhagen, to call people to prayer and action in the face of climate change

The ‘narrow window of opportunity’ repeats itself time and time again. The UN Website 20th March 2023 14 years later, after the Church in NZ announced the “narrow window of opportunity. A major Un Report referring to the IPCC Greenhouse Emissions, a human caused climate change yet another “narrow window of opportunity” is reported by the UN. 7th November 2022 at a High Level UN Meeting the UN Secretary General announced “We need all hands on deck for faster, bolder climate action. A window of opportunity remains open, but only a narrow shaft of light appears”. A Headline Statement for Policymakers worldwide by the IPCC 4th October 2023 :This is a rapidly closing window of opportunity. Climate Home News 4th October 2023 ‘ a course correction on COP28 negotiating table refers to the “Global  Community and the window of opportunity is rapidly closing”. 23rd April 2023 ‘Off the Charts Records’ Has Humanity finally broken. “However, a tiny window of opportunity remans open to tackle global warming”

Yes the ‘Narrow Window Of Opportunity” has been repeated time and time again. What is this window of opportunity, I have asked myself, through the many hours and years of research I have done? I personally believe “it’s the destruction of the Global Free-market Enterprise Economy’. The exploitation of corporate multi-stakeholderism of Sovereign Nation States. The implanting of destroying Nation States to bring about a One World Governance under what is called Globalization’. The window of opportunity for Multi-stakeholder  Corporate wealth.. the Corporate Capture of the worlds economy, the massive transformation of populations throughout the world.. ‘The WEF/UN Great Reset’

The capitalist marketplace that is characterized by the dominance of hierarchical bureaucratic corporations. As Schwab announced to the world “Time for a Great Reset 3rd June 2020, he was then referring to the Global COVID crisis as n opportunity to build more sustainable systems. People Planet and Profit. A very wealthy profit for self interested corporations, large businesses. The Austrian Institute reported on 2nd June 2022 “The narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine and reset our world, we need a better capitalism. Namely ‘Corporate Capitalism’. Corporate Capture

The Globe and Mail reported “Its Time For A Massive Reset of Capitalism 3rd June 2020. The pandemic represents a “rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimaging and reset our world”. (Not Our World But Their World). Harvard Business Review ‘Making Stakeholder Capitalism a Reality.22nd January 2020, spurred by Climate Change (Financing and Investing). As they report that ‘Larry Fink ‘BlackRock’, the worlds largest investor with $7 trillion in asset management. Reporting that his CEO’s received their annual letter “placing long term sustainability at the centre of his investment approach”, as the World Economic Forum kicks off the week as they update their manifesto, for the first time since 1973 saying “business must be the stewards of the environment, global supply chains referring to sustainable shareholders”

13th June 2019  (6 months prior to the global pandemic) the World Economic Forum and the UN signed an official partnership memorandum. This would give much more political clout and wealth for the UN to achieve its Global Development Goals of Agenda 2030. This being a trade off, as the corporations represented by the WEF would then be the whisperers in the ears of UN Agencies. The enabling of a One World Corporate captured Governance

In the wake of the COVID 19 Pandemic, transnational corporations sought to cement their control of the global governance, ensuring they served the interests of large businesses, corporations- for a very wealthy profit rather than the wellbeing of humanity. Transnational corporations are directly responsible for many global crises we face. As we view Corporate Capture in various forums throughout the world. This is a governance, the evolution of a parallel ‘privatized multilateralism’ made up of a myriad of ‘multistakeholder’ bodies.

The World Economic Forum has developed, pushed for privatization of global governance for decade. The ‘Great Reset’ is just the latest of the gradual corporate takeover of global institutions, such as the UN and other international bodies, that take critical decisions over the governance of global common goods such as food, water, health, internet and others.

Civil Society Groups in 2021 produced an open letter opposing plans for a Big Tech dominated Body for Global Digital Governance’ (Source of Information ‘Transnational Institute’). As for the churches supporting, ringing the bells in NZ, many have stated that “Christians have a particular duty to address the moral and human implications of climate change’. The Pope declared heavy criticism at climate deniers and delayers.  He called them “skeptics and irresponsible” (CNN 4th October 2023)

However George Pell saw climate science as a dangerous religious dogma  (The Guardian 13th January 2023). The Guardian reported that Cardinal George Pell left a legacy of ‘climate science denial’ which meant in his later years he became more distanced from his position in the Catholic Church. Cardinal Pell, for decades in newspaper columns and speeches “popularized climate denial, dismissed global heating, branded environmentalists as hysterical and in the grip of a pseudo-religion”. In one 2011 interview with the Catholic media Pell said “In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel Gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions”. Pell often announced that “Climate change was mostly natural and the science is not settled”

Professor Tim Stephens an International Environmental Law expert wrote that “ Pell was prolific, wrote many climate denial pieces. He said that Pell was “ caught up in the right wing cultural view of climate change being a hoax or a conspiracy”. Cardinal Pell died in Rome aged 81, he used his position as Australia’s most senior Catholic to forcefully reject the Climate  Crisis, the Guardian reported. On the eve of the Paris Climate conference in 2015, the former prime minister Kevin Rudd publicly challenged Pell, as Cardinal Pell was climbing the ranks of seniority in the Vatican. Rudd said “It was no small matter, that Pell was muddying the ethical waters with his radical climate skepticism”. But this did not stop Cardinal Pell criticizing the so called climate science”. Like all those real scientists whom publicly speak out about this Climate Alarmism, and the IPCC flawed, corrupt Assessment Reports, they are character assassinated, just as Cardinal Pell was. Public debate is soon shut down time and time again.

However Pope Francis in 2015 released his encyclical on the environment- Laudato Si- calling for global action on climate change to mitigate the risk of serious consequences for ecosystems and humanity. Forbes reported on 9th December 2020 that ‘Pope Francis with his Corporate Titans were to make Capitalism More Fair”.” Corporations to be Holier than thou”. Pope Francis’s virtual signaling to global populations worldwide. As he ignored the rest of society, jumped on the bandwagon of Lady Lynn De Forester Rothschild’s Corporate bandwagon. Yes, the pope spoke about the hundreds of millions of people in extreme poverty, he talked the talk but did not walk the walk. Pope Francis, the Vatican partnered with the Rothschild ‘Council for Inclusive Capitalism’ that boosts over $10.5 trillion in assets under management, companies with more than $2.1 trillion of market capitalization and 200 million workers in over 163 countries.

Members of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism’ calling themselves ‘Guardians’, these are top CEO’s of Corporations that include CEO’s of Mastercard, Dupont, Salesforce, Rothschild Inclusive Capital Partners, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, BP, Bank of America, the Rockefeller Foundation. These are the world’s top wealthiest elite. Key players of the World Economic Forum. The Corporate Capture of the World. Corporate Governance. Digital Governance. A One World Governance to control ALL populations worldwide.

Those church bells that tolled up and down NZ in 2009, should have been ringing for Corporate Alarmism, warning the people of New Zealand what was about to come. Communist Degrowth. Destruction of democracy, democratic states, totalitarian. The loss of the Free-market Enterprising economy- the freedom to choose. Replacing this for a Stakeholder Capitalism where peoples freedoms are seriously at stake. Today we have Eco Churches in NZ funded supported by Local Government.

Auckland Council website that refers to the WEF data. Klaus Schwab ‘4th Industrial Revolution’. Where did the caring churches of humanity go? Earlier this year I emailed the main churches in NZ requesting a ‘day of prayer’ for those jab injured, jab dead” and zilch.

The World Council of Churches that have collaborated with Governments, Authorities on mandatory COVID 19 Jabs, and the implementing of Climate Alarmism. The suffering of Eco Anxiety is reported by National Health in the UN, of the young and thevunerable. I have included my personal thoughts, and evidential information to share with you, for your response.

Links:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/12/09/pope-francis-partners-with-corporate-titans-to-make-capitalism-more-inclusive-and-fair-is-this-for-real-or-just-corporate-virtue-signaling/?sh=1ee896254c7b

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/13/george-pell-saw-climate-science-as-a-dangerous-religious-dogma-in-the-end-his-hardline-stance-held-the-church-back

https://www.tni.org/en/article/the-corporate-capture-of-global-governance-and-what-we-are-doing-about-it

https://hbr.org/2020/01/making-stakeholder-capitalism-a-reality

https://austrian-institute.org/en/blog/do-we-need-a-great-reset-or-more-capitalism/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-its-time-for-a-massive-reset-of-capitalism/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/human-development-falling-behind-un-report-countries-global

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/church-bells-peal-climate-action

https://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2009/10/ringing-the-alarm-on-climate-change/

https://www.catholic.org.nz/news/media-releases/church-leaders-urge-bolder-action-on-climate-change/

 

 

 

...

OPPOSITION TO THE CA + WHO INTERNATIONAL PANDEMIC TREATY (ACCORD) OBJECTIONS EMAILED TO THE NZ ‘HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES’ ON 8TH MAY 2023.

Please find below  my opposition to the LEGALLY BINDING  WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty.

I have found that the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) “Zero Draft” the new agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, called WHO CA+, is significantly flawed.  Due to the evidence and information provided below I oppose the WHO CA+ Treaty.

(1)WHO failed miserably in preventing the spread of COVID-19, the WHO CA+ draft would dramatically expand WHO authority to declare a pandemic and, thereby, trigger provisions in the treaty that would re-allocate resources and encourage governments to waive intellectual property rights

(2)New Zealand is already playing an active part in planning the WHO CA+ without consultation of the public of New Zealand’s input. The Government have been deliberately non-transparent as to the WHO CA+ and its purposes, aims, goals as to its intention as to the WHO Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

(3)The proposed Treaty is due to be introduced at the 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024.  If New Zealand agrees and are compliant to the WHO CA+ this will risk  further increased significant tax payer payments  as to the allocation  to the added expenditure it will cost our country

(4)The World Health Organization has already miserably failed since the pandemic first evolved on many accounts, yet it appears that members of the New Zealand Government are supporting and even promoting the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

(5)The draft of the WHO CA+ clearly focuses on significantly strengthening, expanding the powers of the World Health Organization which I note signed a ‘Partnership Memorandum with the World Economic Forum on 13th June 2019.

(6)The WHO/ WEF is now  a Public-Private Partnership. The UN was never originally declared as such when it was created.  Obviously through the extraordinary super powers awarded to the WHO would also reward the Multi-stakeholder Corporations that WEF represents., therefore there is a massive conflict of interest that would effectively bring multistakeholder corporations, and those represented by the WEF huge wealth and power in the realms of  global politics and economies. The WEF is the whisperer in the ears of the WHO.

(7)The ZERO draft of the International Pandemic Treaty focuses on hugely expanding the authority, powers of World Health Organization, which give WHO the super powers to trample on ‘intellectual property rights’ and the redistribution of knowledge and technology. The WHO will become the only one, so called source of ‘Truth’, therefore having the ability to shut down the ‘True’ source of Truth., this is very dangerous.

 (8)WHO International Health Regulations 2005 failed miserably when it came to accessing China’s part in the origins of the COVID19 pandemic instead of holding them to account and responsible for their failings under the IHR2005 the WHO now parrots the CCP and even praises the Chinese regime. Therefore cannot be trusted to be such a superior force of authority over all UN Nation States.

 (9)In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of International Laws the people of New Zealand have the right to self-determine and manage their own autonomous approach to public health. This is a ‘sovereign’ right, the people of New Zealand are the ‘sovereignty who have that right. The global superior authoritative right does not lay with the WHO to control, cause damage to society, business, infrastructure or medical, technical determinations of the people of New Zealand. The people rights in New Zealand are that of ‘self determination’

(10)The people of New Zealand have in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Principles of International Law the sovereign right to determine, manage their own approach to public health, this notably also means ‘pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems pursuant to the autonomy of domestic policies, legislations. That is provided that within this domestic jurisdiction the control awarded to the state through the vote of the people in New Zealand ‘causes no harm, damage to the peoples of New Zealand’.

(11)Sadly I say there has been much damage done to the peoples of New Zealand through the governments misinformation as to the COVID19 immunizations and the mandating of these. The closures of businesses throughout New Zealand and the loss of work and income.  Also the closure of schools where many children have not returned back to school.

(12)The members of  New Zealand House of Representatives have shown themselves to be  non-transparency upon publicly  exposing the serious harms and deaths of post COVID 19 immunizations. The many law abiding decent people of New Zealand have been deliberately abused by members of the New Zealand mainstream news media that has been paid for by the Governments Journalist Fund.

 (13) A member of Parliament namely Michael Wood character assassinating, labelling people those who are grieved through loss of work and income, loss of businesses as a so called ‘River of Filth’. Amongst those people he called a ‘River of Filth’ and ‘Anti -Vaxers’ were those that had been vaxed and were suffering serious harms post immunization.  As noted, not one member of Parliament has apologised for this cruel emotional harm caused to people of New Zealand by members of the House of Representatives. 

(14)The mandating of COVID19 Immunization. The following  term has often been quoted by members of WHO and WEF,  and even members of NZ House of Representatives ‘No-one is safe until everyone is Safe’. Pfizer Chief Executive has publicly admitted that they did not test their COVID19 immunization for transmission prior to entering the global market place.  Evidence has shown us that those that have been injected with the Pfizer mRNA  Injection have still been infected by the virus.. . Obviously the people of New Zealand have been misled when it has come to mandating of COVID19 immunizations and mandates

(15)It is a huge concern that large Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer have and continue to advise the Intergovernmental working group on the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty as to the Zero Draft which is a huge conflict of interest.

(16)It is a deep concern that if the New Zealand Government continues to pursue, support the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) it would give the WHO superior authority over NZ Domestic policies. WHO would have the power to declare a pandemic globally whether New Zealand is affected or not and could have the power to reallocate resources.

(17)The Zero Draft of the WHO CA + Pandemic Treaty makes transparency and cooperation mandatory (legally Binding). Uses the word ‘shall’ when referencing facilitating accessing, sharing of research and genomic data, however there are no repercussions for ‘non-compliance’. It is evidently clear that the WHO and those drafting this treaty , and those that support, promote it have learned nothing. There is no reason to believe that China would be compliant with the obligations set out in the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)  I also note that the  World Health Organizations failure to quietly abandon investigations into China’s incompetence to comply to the legally binding WHO Health Regulations (IHR 2005)

(18)The WHO CA+ Draft lets China off the hook. Despite China having the largest economy in the world the United Nations considers China as a developing country. Developed countries financially support developing countries when it comes to ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ among nations. Developed countries would share the greater costs therefore  China will likely be the beneficiary of the WHO CA+ obligation for developed nation parties, among other provisions.

(19)The WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty Zero Draft calls on the parties to tackle misleading, misinformation or disinformation. Yet the WHO  themselves have been the source of disinformation when they tweeted  “preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of COVID 19.

I refer to the ‘World Health Organization ‘Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no evidence of human to human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-n CoV) identified in Wuhan Vina. Twitter January 14th 2020 18

https://twitter.com/WHO/status​/1217043229427761152 

(20)As for the CDC on the efficacy of facial mask wearing that shifted over time, when Anthony Fauci defended flip flop accusations after shifting mask guidance, this has reported changed time and time again. There is much controversy about mask wearing. It is clearly evident that many people wear masks as chin straps. Masks do risk emotional, psychological damage to some extent. Mask wearing is not normalised behaviour so will affect people in different ways.  LINK: Independent, July 29, 2021, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fauci-cdc-mask-flip-flop-b1892600.html

(21)A recent study found that natural immunity acquired by a COVID-19 infection was “associated with lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of the variant, than mRNA primary-series vaccination. Yet WHO superior authorities under a legally binding Pandemic Treaty could mandate all populations to be vaccinated, immunized without accountability. This is very dangerous.

LINK:” Hiam Chemaitelly et al., “Protection from Previous Natural Infection Compared with mRNA Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Severe COVID-19 in Qatar: A Retrospective Cohort Study,” The Lancet, November 11, 202, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(​22)00287-7/fulltext (accessed February 24, 2023).

(22)The WHO and UN Member Nation Governments and their  so called experts have been proven wrong far too often, yet the WHO Pandemic Treaty gives WHO the global super power authority to police “disinformation. This seriously infringes on the internationally accepted right to freedom of expression. (UN International  Human Rights and NZ Domestic Human Rights Legislations)

(23)The WHO CA+ Treaty Draft emphasizes ‘Equity’. It is guided by ‘Equity’, which is defined by the absence of unfair, unavoidable or remediable differences among and within countries, including between different groups of people, whether these groups are defined socially, economically, demographically, geographically or references ‘Inequality’. The term ‘Equity’ and ‘Equitable’ appear more that thirty times in the ZERO Draft of the Treaty, however there is no clear definition what this means.

(24)The people of New Zealand have the right to have clear, concise information. (ibid., Art 3,4 (3) ). It is evidential by the ZERO Draft of the WHO CA+ Treaty that it is guided by ‘Equity’, a term that is deeply rooted in ‘Marxist’ ideology and should never be embedded in the guiding principles of any international legally binding commitment of any State, including that of New Zealand.

(25)The ZERO Draft of the CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord- Convention) commits to the term ‘Universal Health Coverage’, this is not clearly defined. I stand to be corrected, but does that mean that the Government provides the peoples of New Zealand health care, is that with or without costs to the peoples of New Zealand, and at what costs must the people of New Zealand pay?. How will this indeed affect tax payers pockets?

(26)Its obvious that if the NZ House of Representatives agree, comply to the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty domestic legislations will have to be amended.  The people of New Zealand are not awarded end decision making rights when it comes to domestic policy making.    I refer to the (Non-Legally Binding Citizens Initiated Referenda), and even if this did become ‘Legally Binding’ the people of New Zealand would have no end decision rights when it comes to Domestic Policies due to the legally binding nature of the WHO CA+ Treaty.. Therefore upon voting for political parties at election time, this means that promises made to the voting public can be over- ridden by the WHO Pandemic Treaty

(27)The WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty (Accord) incorporates a ‘One Health’ approach framework. This includes ‘Humans, Animals-wild and domestic and all Eco-systems’. This means that the WHO under the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty has massive super superior control over every aspect of life on this planet.

(28)WHO CA+ Treaty under the classification  of ‘Climate Change’ will have the authority to restrict, control food systems, trade and travel, infrastructure, land use and property rights. This is scandalous and extremely dangerous when it comes to the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.

(29)Those that reside in the NZ House of Representatives are accountable to the people of New Zealand who voted them in to the political positions they hold in the New Zealand House of Representatives. To be responsible and accountable to ALL peoples of New Zealand.  Through researched evidence of viewing speeches in the House and other UN Information that New Zealand Members of Parliament are supporting, promoting and are in agreeance with the WHO ZERO Draft of the CA +.

(30) I also note that at the 77th gathering of the World Health Assembly the final draft of the CA+ WHO International Pandemic Treaty will be produced, introduced to all UN Member Nation States to determine whether, and which UN Member States agree on the WHO International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

(31) I therefore request that the NZ House of Representatives transparently accords the peoples of New Zealand open public debate, discussion without political intrusion as to all knowledge, information that is pertained in every ZERO draft of the WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty as it is produced, introduced.

The draft states that the WHO CA+ “shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by UN Member Nation States, therefore clearly requires advice and consent under the process outlined., “Circular 175 Procedure,” https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/c175/index.htm (accessed February 24, 2023).

(32)I conclude that the  WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) is highly problematic and deeply flawed and would allow the global superior powers of the World Health Organization (UN) to have authority over New Zealand’s domestic policies. One size does not fit ALL and there is no evidence of ‘trustworthiness’ as to why the people of New Zealand should support this WHO Treaty proposal.

(33)The ‘Public-Private’ partnership of the World Economic Forum with the UN is a huge conflict of interest as they are  the ‘whisperers in the ear’ of the UN, therefore also  rewarded global superiority political, economical control through the  WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) agreeance.

Therefore, for all the above reasons , information provided I totally oppose the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord). I find it to be highly dangerous to the health and wellbeing of ALL peoples of New Zealand. I have cc’d other groups, individuals, organizations, members of parliament the above information-communication t as outlined to the NZ House of Representatives as to opposition of the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty.

I request a response at your earliest. Thank you.

 

Carol Sakey

...