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

...

UN Agenda’s 21/2030 Blog Posts View all Categories

NEW ZEALAND – A CASHLESS SOCIETY

The idea of a cashless society is not a new one, and in some form or another, has been tossed around for decades. With the onslaught of COVID-19, concerns have been raised on whether handling cash can spread the virus. This has once more ramped up the discussion of America becoming a cashless society.
Essentially a cashless society means exactly that. No cash. Nothing. Zilch

Its a fact that a cashless society is is not perfect. Catastrophes, computer glitches or even human error can leave you without the ability to purchase necessities. The Balance points out that these same events make it impossible for merchants to accept payments as well.
A cashless society would leave people more susceptible to economic failure on an individual basis: if a hacker, bureaucratic error, or natural disaster shuts a consumer out of their account, the lack of a cash option would leave them few alternatives

What would happen to these individuals in a cashless society had no ability to open a bank account or had their bank account cancelled, it would become very difficult, if not impossible, for these individuals to purchase necessities.

Basically we are moving into a cashless Orwellian society, where they check everything. Check where you live, whom you visit and communicate with and how your mind works that makes you behave the way you do. Just another massive stepping stone to control populations.

Living in a cashless society also increases the risks of loss of security, privacy as people become even more reliant on technology and the information age. The information age of data modelling that produces so called evidence based results, it’s bad enough now but its going to get so much worse.

Other risks are, its takes a chunk out of small business profits, that’s if you are lucky enough to own a small business after Ardern’s government have finished stripping us all of our rights. Of course when you pay for products with a bank card then in tis digital world the information gained is huge, where you shop, what eat etc.

This new wonderful world of enlightenment and utopia is suppose to be so trusting NOT. A utopian cashless society is merely a mirage, another delusionary socialist, Marxist communist ploy.
Approximately 500 years ago Thomas More’s Utopia has influenced everything from the thinking of Gandhi to the tech giants of Silicon Valley,. More is best known for his invention of a word – and for his development of an idea that would be exported around the world. This concept would shape books, philosophies and political movements as varied as Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, Mahatma Gandhi’s doctrine of passive resistance and the founding of the state of Pennsylvania. The idea, of course, was ‘utopia’.
More coined the word to describe an island community with an ideal mode of government. First published in Latin in 1517, the book Utopia means “no place” in Greek; Some coined the word utopia to describe an island community with an ideal mode of government

More’s Utopia was not the first literary work to play around with policy ideas: dreaming of a better life is an innate part of being human. Is vision was attractive to early socialists who saw this imaginary society as a blueprint for a socialist nation. These became known as the ‘utopian socialists’. Those who favoured an egalitarian distribution of goods, alongside the total abolition of money in order to achieve perfect social and financial equality.

Animal Farm by George Orwell brilliantly exposed the flaws in the communist view of society. The novel offers a view of human behaviour at odds with the philosophies and principles of a ‘perfect society’ as described in Utopia.
Many advocates of the ‘cashless society’ suggest it could offer a better and more-efficient world, but do they also fail to see how the behaviour of humans means the utopia of a cashless society is merely a mirage?

Utopia goes even further back in history to 380BC, when Plato wrote his dialogue, he described it as a communistic egalitarian city-state ruled by philosopher-kings called guardians, made up of both men and women. Instead of procreating within a family unit, these leaders leave the city once a year for a wild sex orgy. The resulting children, happily ignorant of their real parentage and brought up by the state, become the new generation of guardians.

For some people a cashless society may sound like science fiction, however its very real. Citibank and other financial institutions are already discussing, planning this.
The Computer Weekly News on 17/11/2016 reported, Citibank will no longer handle cash at its six branches in … which has been identified as potentially being the first cashless society, Today Citibank call this ‘banking for sustainable development’ (UN Agenda 2030)

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand documented a government paper entitled “Future of Money-Te Moni Anamata. Have your say (a what do you think article).
Below is part of the article a link is provided:-
The Reserve Bank is inviting your feedback on a series of issues papers to test our thinking about how we should approach our new role as steward of the cash system and make sure that central bank money continues to do its job in light of significant changes affecting how New Zealanders pay, receive and save money.
Future of Money – Stewardship (Te Moni Anamata – Kaitiakitanga) seeks your feedback on how we should steward of money and cash following a recent law change. • Future of Money – Central Bank Digital Currency ( Te Moni Anamata – Aparangi ā Te Pūtea Matua) wants your views on how we propose to explore whether a CBDC is right for Aotearoa.
You can both read and give your feedback online for these issues papers by 10am, Monday, 6 December 2021. • Future of Money – Cash System (Te Moni Anamata – Punaha) to publish in November 2021 will explain issues facing the cash system and explore options to achieve greater efficiency and resilience. Feedback will close in February 2022
The link is below and well worth a read.

https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Files/Notes%20and%20coins/Future-of-Money/Future-of-Money-issues-overview.pdf?revision=c7b72a5f-4924-43ef-bd5f-f109db8bfbf2&la=en.

...

THE POWER HUNGRY, WEALTHY CLUB OF ROME

THE CLUB OF ROME DOCUMENTS:- ‘The Greenhouse Effect’… “In searching the new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would bit the bill…all these dangers are caused by human intervention….the real enemy, then, is humanity itself” ‘The Council of the Club of Rome 1991’

Most influential organizations begin with the meeting of a few like minds. In 1965, Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, made a speech that proved inspirational to Alexander King, the Scottish Head of Science at the OECD. The two found that they shared a profound concern for the long-term future of humanity and the planet, what they termed the modern ‘predicament of mankind’.

Three years later, King and Peccei convened a meeting of European scientists in Rome. Although this first attempt failed to achieve unity, a core group of like-minded thinkers emerged. Their goal: to advance three core ideas that still define the Club of Rome today: a global and a long-term perspective, and the concept of “problematic”, a cluster of intertwined global problems, be they economic, environmental, political or social.
At the group’s first major gathering in 1970, Jay Forrester, a systems professor at MIT, offered to use computer models he had developed to study the complex problems which concerned the group more rigorously.

An international team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began a study of the implications of unbridled exponential growth. They examined the five basic factors that determine and, in their interactions, ultimately limit growth on this planet – population, agricultural production, non-renewable resource depletion, industrial output and pollution.

The Club of Rome was founded, formed at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy. They described themselves as ‘a group of world citizens sharing a common concern for the future of Humanity.

The Club of Rome consists of current and former Heads of State, UN bureaucrats, high level politician and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, business leaders from around the world

It is the membership of the Club of Rome that has formed a think-tank that provides ‘suggestions to the United Nations that are planned to radicalise the world, transform people, planet for prosperity (profit). The transformation that is going on right before our eyes that relates to COP26, UN Agenda 21, UN Agenda 2030 and IA2030, these are no accidents, nor are they mindless, they have been carefully construed and orchestrated. The Club of Rome think tank have played a huge part in all of this.

The Club Of Rome founded two sibling organizations namely the ‘Club of Budapest’ and the ‘Club of Madrid’, focusing on social and cultural aspects of their agenda also concentrating on the political aspects

The three clubs share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences, they are ‘all in the one same beast’. The Club of Rome established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the main club is limited to 100 individuals at one time.

Al Gore, Maurice Strong are just two of those individuals who are affiliated to the main Club Of Rome through National Associations USACOR, CACOR etc.,
But one must ask who and what is the Club of Rome, it is not some little group of nobody’s or greenie activists or unheard of politicians.
They are senior officials of the UN, current and ex world leaders, founders of environments organizations.

If you research Ann Bressington’s exposure of UN Agenda 21, Club of Rome.

‘The Inconvenient Truth’ Al Gore who led the US delegation to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference chaired a meeting at the Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997

The following are just a few who are members of the Club of Rome:-
Javier Solana, the Secretary General of the ‘Council of the European Union, the representative of EU Foreign Policy and Maurice Strong the former head of the UN Environment Programme and chief advisor to the leader of the UN – Kofi Annan.
Kofi Annan was the Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit and also the co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter and the Kyoto Protocol, also the founder of the Earth Council.

Mikhail Gorbachev the former president of the Soviet Union was a member of the Club of Rome, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation.

Diego Hidalgo an executive member of the Club of Rome with Gorbachev of the Club of Madrid was also the founder and President of the European Council on Foreign Relations in association with George Soros.

Founding member of the Club of Rome and also the president of the ‘Club of Budapest’ is Erwin Lazlo, he also is the chairman of the ‘World Wisdom Council’’.
Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist is married to Paul Ehrlich, she and hher husband Paul authored many books on human overpopulation
Hassan bin Talal president of the Club of Rome and the president of ‘Arab Thought’ is a member of the UN’s Global Roll of Honour, also a former director of ‘Friends of the Earth’ and the ‘Sierra Club’

Sir Crispin Tickell founder of the World Future Council, named as the United Nations champion of the Earth Forum, a former British Permeant Representative to the UN and permanent Representative to the UN Security Council, also the Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’.
Sir Crispin Tickell is also the Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute and a leading British Climate Change Campaigner.

Kofi Annan – former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Javier Perez de Cuellar is the former Secretary General of the United Nations.

Gro Harlem Brundtland is the former President of Norway and the UN Special Envoy for Climate Change

Robert Muller is the former Assistant Secretary General of the UN, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace.

The Dalai Lama, the ‘Spiritual Leader’ of Tibet. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Father Berry Thomas a Catholic Priest is one of the leading proponents of deep ecology, eco-spiritualaity and global consciousness.

David Rockefeller is a Club of Rome Executive Member and the former Chairman of Chase, founder of the Trilateral Commission also the executive member of the World Economic Forum.

David Rockefeller donated land on which the United Nations stands.

Stephen Schneider a professor of Biology and Global Change at Stanford was one of the earliest most vocal proponents of man-made global warming, he is also a leader of IPCC Reports.

Bill Clinton the former President of the United States also founder of the Clinton Global Imitative.

Jimmy Carter – former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Of course Bill Gates is a member of the Club of Rome. He is the founder of Microsoft, makes his wealth in investing into research that brings him billions of dollars of profit though philanthropy.

Naming a new more members of the Club of Rome including Ted Turners, George Soros, Jimmy Carter, Tony Blair, Deepak Chopra, Desmond Tutu, Henry Kissinger.
Of course there are many more far too many to mention right now, also those associated with Temples of Enlightenment and New Age Spiritual Activists.

George Matthews – Chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation Harlan Cleveland – former Assistant US Secretary of State and NATO Ambassador Barbara Marx Hubbard – President Foundation for Conscious Evolution Betty Williams – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Marianne Williamson – New Age ‘Spiritual Activist’ and key members of the United Nations and leading professors of Academia. Eco-political and Eco-environmental.

The committee of the Club of Rome include more than 300 members. On the 21st March 2018 the Club of Rome report clled for a new enlightenment stating that is human beings do not fundamentally alter their current lifestyles and the economy planetary boundaries will soon be transgressed.
The bones of UN Agenda 21 and UN Agenda 2030 were laid out in a series of Club of Rome reports. one of the first being Limits to Growth (1971) this was mainly about ‘overpopulation

“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”

This text is taken from the Club of Rome’s 2002 report, Planetary Emergency Plan: Securing a New Deal for People, Nature and Climate.
In that the Great Panic of 2020 (pandemic) is currently dominating the new cycle, don’t think for a minute that radical climate change alarmism has gone away. To the contrary, it is just waiting for the massive funding that will be sprung during the Great Reset

SOURCE: https://www.technocracy.news/club-of-rome-planetary-emergency-plan-declared/

...

BE VERY FEARFUL- DEMAND VACCINES, IMMUNIZATIONS AS YOU RIGHT. ( IA: 2030 ) UN AGENDA 2030 INTRODUCED IN 2015

https://www.who.int/teams/immunization-vaccines-and-biologicals/strategies/global-vaccine-action-plan
Global Vaccine Action Plan
The Global Vaccine Action plan (GVAP) was developed to help realize the vision of the Decade of Vaccines, that all individuals and communities enjoy lives free from vaccine preventable diseases.

As the decade is drawing to a close, the SAGE Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) 2011-2020 review and lessons learned report, provides an overall assessment of plan’s successes and challenges. It also proposes 15 recommendations for the development, content and implementation of the next decade’s global immunization strategy
The Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) ― endorsed by the 194 Member States of the World Health Assembly in May 2012 ― is a framework to prevent millions of deaths by 2020 through more equitable access to existing vaccines for people in all communities.
GVAP was the product of the DoV Collaboration, an unprecedented effort that brought together development, health and immunization experts and stakeholders. The leadership of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI Alliance, UNICEF, United States National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases and WHO, along with all partners – governments and elected officials, health professionals, academia, manufacturers, global agencies, development partners, civil society, media and the private sector – are committed to achieving the ambitious goals of the GVAP. Many more are expected to add their support in the future as the plan is translated and implemented at the country and regional levels.
https://iris.wpro.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665.1/10921/9789290617099_eng.pdf;jsessionid=3588ABFA01DADF7788502691C106876B?sequence=1 WORLD HEALTH ORG., (UN) REGIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLENMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL VACCINE ACTION PLAN IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC (This includes Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands) 92 page Report.
Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011–2020 (GVAP). Aims of the Regional Framework for Implementation of the Global Vaccine Action Plan in the Western Pacific Introduction of new vaccines, immunizations

BE FEARFUL ENOUGH TO DEMAND IMMUNIZATIONS, VACCINATIONS.
In May 2012, the 194 Member States of the World Health Assembly endorsed the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011–2020 (GVAP), a global framework that builds on its predecessor, the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy 2006–2015 (GIVS). GVAP offers a broad range of strategies and activities and establishes new goals for achieving the Decade of Vaccines vision of a world in which all individuals and communities enjoy lives free from vaccine-preventable diseases.
A wide array of stakeholders was involved in the development of GVAP. The Regional Framework for Implementation of the Global Vaccine Action Plan in the Western Pacific has been prepared to translate strategies and activities recommended by GVAP into the context of the Western Pacific Region and to incorporate all global and regional immunization goals. By consolidating all of this information in one document, the framework aims to accelerate progress towards achievement of global and regional immunization goals and to help stakeholders better understand how to work together in implementing GVAP in the Region

Strategic Objective: All countries commit to immunization as a priority. Individuals, communities understand the value of immunization and vaccines, o much so they demand them as their right and responsibility.
Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011–2020 In May 2012, the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011–2020 (GVAP) was endorsed by the 194 Member States of the World Health Assembly. GVAP builds on the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy 2006–2015 (GIVS), endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 2005, and outlines a vision in which the full benefits of immunization are extended to all people, regardless of where they are born, who they are or where they live. Developing GVAP brought together multiple stakeholders involved in immunization, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United States National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and WHO, along with all partners – governments and elected officials, health professionals, academia, vaccine manufacturers, global agencies, development partners, civil society, media and the private sector

https://iris.wpro.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665.1/10921/9789290617099_eng.pdf;jsessionid=3588ABFA01DADF7788502691C106876B?sequence=1

...

PFIZER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE REPORT 2019-2020

The Pfizer Inc. Political Action Committee (the “Committee”) was formed by Pfizer Inc. (the “Company”) to solicit and receive voluntary political contributions from employees and stockholders of the Company and certain subsidiaries to assist candidates for elective office. The Committee was registered with the Federal Election Commission in April 1976. During 2020 and 2019, contributions could be designated by the contributor to a specific candidate or political party for political office.

Political Contributions to US Senate Candidates, US House Candidates. State and Local Candidates and Political Parties and other PAC funds. 2019 total $ 1,310,711 2020-$1,513,439

How much money does Pfizer give to political committees?
Pfizer also sponsors a federal political action committee and is one of the nation’s most generous PAC givers. The company has so far donated more than $2.64 million to politicians and political committees during the 2019-2020 election cycle.

On November 16th 2020 our Upjohn business, which was our global, primarily off-patented branded and genetic patented business was spun off and combined with Mylan N.V to create a new global pharmacy company, Viatris Inc. Beginning in the 4th quarter of 2020, the financial results of the Upjohn business are reflected as discontinued operations for all periods presented. Following the combination, we now operate as a focused innovated biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, development, manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution of biopharmaceutical products worldwide as of February 2nd 2021.

The Governance Sustainability Committee of Pfizer oversees the practices, policies, procedure of the board and its committees this includes political spending-donations to political parties

For achieving SDG, it should be noted that only one of these goals, SDG3, refers specifically to vaccines (3.b.1). However, in addition, we have also identified 7 other SDG goals strongly related to vaccines and 6 SDG goals related to vaccine, in a total of 14 vaccine-related goals in 17 SDGs. Two of these goals are related to innovation and technological development of vaccines (SDG9 and SD17). We discuss the main vaccine development challenges for achieving SDG and current technological and regulatory obstacles particularly affecting developing countries. From this perspective, we propose STI governance strategies to overcome these gaps and increase global access to vaccines, focusing on institutional and regulatory perspectives, including intellectual property and ethics. Policy recommendations for vaccine funding and incentives for innovation, development, and production are made. Finally, we emphasize the enormous potential role that access to innovative vaccines can play on global sustainability (Milstien et al. 2007; Possas et al. 2015), benefiting particularly the poorest countries in a global context permeated by sharp social inequalities.

The Governance & Sustainability Committee Charter is available on Pfizer website at-

https://investors.pfizer.com/corporate-governanceboard-committees-and-charters/default.aspx

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000078003/e170b925-2933-4572-8e4e-6490c4d4237c.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7120800/

...