Graham WilliamsonSeptember 2016
Foreign Minister Signs United Nations 2030 Agenda
In September 2015 Julie Bishop signed the United Nations 2030 SDG agenda, an agenda which represents a continuation and expansion of Agenda 21, and an agenda which aims to “transform” the world. In April 2016 GregHunt also signed the COP21 Paris Climate Agreement. The United Nations would assume the role of redistributing global wealth and resources, ensure all climatic problems are ‘fixed’, and ensure all countries and people live ‘sustainably’. Australia also participated in the Addis Ababa Action agenda to plan the best means of supplying the required sum of $2-$3 trillion annually to finance this agenda. This UN global agenda has bipartisan support in Australia although both major Parties like to keep this issue off the electoral agenda and refuse to give the people any democratic choice.
United Nations Announces 2030 SDG Agenda is Part of their Plan to Build a New World Order
On 20th July 2016 the UN reported that the three 2015 global agreements, the 2030 SDG agenda signed by Julie Bishop, the Paris climate change conference signed by Greg Hunt, and the Addis Ababa Action agenda, all feed into (see A/71/168) their long term new world order agenda, as initiated by the 1974 Declaration on
the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (see A/RES/S-6/3201). As the report summarises:
“the participatory process through which the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were formulated, the emphasis on North-South technology transfer in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), and the acknowledgement of the need for financial assistance by developed countries to developing countries in the Paris Agreement on climate change are signs of progress toward the NIEO.”Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order
On the 1st of May 1974 the United Nations unveiled their plan to restructure the global economic order with two foundational documents, the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (NIEO), and the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order. The New Order was driven by third world countries, which dominated the UN, in a reaction against the Bretton Woods system which was dominated by Western Nations. Developing nations wanted to become more dominant and achieve preferential treatment from successful Western nations by central planning and direct transfer of financial aid, technology, and resources, by expansion of favourable global laws and treaties, and by favourable trade terms and investments. However, because of opposition from the West, many considered the NIEO dead and buried only a decade later.
The UN’s New World Order Continues Through the 2030 SDG Agenda Signed by Julie Bishop
The influence of anti-Western socialist developing nations and theocracies within the UN has continued however, as manifested by the linking of the NIEO to the UN's sustainability agenda in the recent Report of the Secretary General. According to the Report:
“More than 40 years ago, on 1 May 1974, the General Assembly, in its resolutions 3201 (S-VI) and 3202 (S-VI), adopted the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order and the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, respectively. In those outcome documents, the United Nations pledged to correct the inequities in the international system; redress the injustices; eliminate the gap between developed and developing countries; ensure steadily accelerating economic and social development; and secure peace and justice for the present and future generations...... The Declaration called for an even greater role for the United Nations in the establishment of the New International Economic Order (para. 6)........Continuing in that spirit, the Sustainable Development Goals, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the Paris Agreement all call for a greater role for the United Nations.”The Report continues to emphasise the continuation of the NIEO through the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the2030 agenda, which has been described as a “roadmap to global socialism”:
“An important issue that the New International Economic Order emphasized was the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions in order to give more voice to developing countries. The Declaration called for a “reformed international monetary system..... The Addis Ababa Action Agenda carries forward many of the above-mentioned ideas and suggestions of the New International Economic Order. In the Agenda, the world community urges IMF to continue its efforts to provide more comprehensive and flexible financial responses to the needs of developing countries”But the Paris Climate agreement is also part of the attempt to restructure the world by taking down the richer western nations:
“Greater attention to adaptation in the Paris Agreement goes together with a stronger call for financial assistance from developed to developing countries. Article9 (1)) clearly states that developed countries shall provide financial resources to assist developing country parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention....... The emphasis in the Paris Agreement on technology transfer, capacity- building and necessary support from developed to developing countries in those respects is in agreement with the New International Economic Order, which also emphasized those issues, as previously noted.”The Report underlines the fact that the UN is continuing its goal of creating a new world order in which the richer western nations are no longer dominant:
“The three outcomes, namely the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement, have been supported by the leadership and persistent work of the United Nations. The future success of those outcomes also depends crucially on the role of the United Nations....... At present, the United Nations is devising the work modalities of the new forums and processes that have been created by the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement. Increasingly, the United Nations is enlisting in its work the participation of non-State actors, such as civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations and the business community...... The enhanced role of the United Nations was already envisaged in the New International Economic Order”Understanding UN Strategies & Goals
The UN, having spent more than half a $trillion in 70 years, is an undemocratic, unaccountable international policeman that is in the business of inventing ‘global problems’ which can only be ‘solved’ by a transfer of power and money from nation states to the UN. It has been elevated to this status by cooperative national governments. Most western nations have accepted the burden of guilt placed upon them by the third world countries, theocracies, and dictatorships, which dominate the UN.
According to Doug Bandow in his article, “Totalitarian Global Management: The UN's War on the Liberal InternationalEconomic Order”:
“the UN has become "a center of agitation against the democratic order."... Under the control of the numerous Third World nations, the UN has been actively promoting a comprehensive and totalitarian system of global management........The overriding UN ideology is one of international control of natural, financial, and informational resources, as well as the global regulation of economic and even cultural activities......In addition to providing a forum for the ideology of global management, the UN also helps underwrite the development and spread of redistributionist ideas......Thus, as a wellspring for the ideology of global management, the UN is posing a serious threat to the liberal international economic order, as well as to the basic political values underlying the democratic nations of the West.”As Bandow prophetically notes (even back in 1985), the UN seeks to expand its global power base by “redistribution of natural resources”, “redistribution of financial resources”, “redistribution of technological resources”, “regulation of speech and culture”, and by increased “foreign aid”. This strategy is facilitated by what Bandow describes as “A Guilty West” and an attack on the “moral under-pinnings of the liberal international economic system”.
“The UN is at the forefront of a global assault on the United States and the liberal international economic order. Repeated Third World demands for a NIEO are more than just rhetoric; they are part of a concerted effort to impose global management over a host of natural, financial, and technological resources, as well as to regulate world business activities........Extending regulatory systems to the international level that have failed at the national level is not an act of compassion.........Western nations should place the blame for poverty and stagnation where it primarily belongs--on ill-conceived, foolish indigenous economic policies. Third World leaders who knowingly stifle economic incentives, confiscate private wealth, deter foreign investment, and oppress their people should not be allowed to get away with blithe assertions of Western guilt. For it is they, not American taxpayers and businesses, who bear the moral responsibility for a stagnant and impoverished Third World.”
Most conspicuously, there is apparently unanimous agreement that the final goals, in terms of cost, freedom, democracy, and global power structure, are unmentionable.
In Australia we urgently need to answer the question:
In Australia we urgently need to answer the question:
Do we truly wish to address the causes of global poverty, or are we happy to continue to increasingly disenfranchise the people by enriching and empowering global power mongers?