The UN Secretariat held its Summit of the Future at its headquarters in New York this week, on September 22nd-23rd. Few could number the many global summits that have been held across this nebulous grouping of entities, programmes and funds, although a list of the major ones may be found. They all focus on the noblest causes such as human rights, the environment, education, sustainable development, children and indigenous people that no one can easily oppose.
These gatherings give professional politicians an opportunity to make declarations in front of the iconic blue and white peace flag, astutely posing for pictures for their domestic cover pages. International and national staff take advantage of business class travel and fancy hotels on taxpayers’ money, justifying again their irreplaceable jobs, comfortable salaries and perks. Journalists tell us how they all feel inspired and moved by the new agenda and how sincere these promises are. Pre-approved non-governmental organisations (NGOs), frequently led by former politicians and espousing humanitarian missions in concert with the international aid they parasitise move in to shake hands with the big boys and applaud the system.
All is beautifully scripted, staged and acted. This is the ever-growing UN industrial complex.
Only ‘We The Peoples’ are not there.
Once built on the premise of improving human lives, rights and livelihoods, the system has become a cause unto itself, repeating the same empty messages and hypocritical promises over and over again, and always expanding. There are always compelling reasons to spend the money of others.
A system self-proclaimed for ‘The Peoples’
The UN Charter, signed on June 26th 1945 in San Francisco in the aftermath of the Second World War began with the first famous words inspired by the 1787 U.S. Constitution for an international context: “We The Peoples of the United Nations…”. These are the words from which the UN system draws its legitimacy based on the principle that those elected by or representing ‘The Peoples’ make decisions on their behalf. Article 55 affirms the role of the organs to be created.
Article 55 (UN Charter)
With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
– higher standards of living, full employment and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
– solutions of international economic, social, health and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
– universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
However, unlike the American Founding Fathers who immediately chose to guarantee inalienable and fundamental rights of their citizens in the first set of amendments agreed in 1791 (known as the Bill of Rights), the UN’s founders merely achieved in 1948 a symbolic Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) without binding force, although it later inspired key international and regional human rights treaties.
A major provision, Article 19(2), is often overlooked, despite its profound impact on the interpretation of all other provisions recognising fundamental rights based on the circumstances where human rights may be limited. The second paragraph (highlighted below) allows limitations made to human rights and freedoms by authorities for the sake of preserving “morality, public order and the general welfare”.
Article 29 (UDHR)
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3, These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
The third provision here is where the UDHR and the U.S. Bill of Rights diverge most fundamentally. Whilst the purpose of the U.S. Bill of Rights was to stop a tyrannical government from overriding the will of the people, the UDHR specifically states that the UN, in its increasing determination to centralise authority within itself, can do so. After laying out the fundamental principles that humans are equal and of equal worth, they could not bring themselves to leave it there, but needed to ensure that some were more equal than others.
Human history has shown that it is effortless for any government to claim that restrictive laws meet requirements for “general welfare” and the greater good, especially in situations deemed by those in power to be endangering public order. The COVID-19 experience has shown that emergency measures are far more readily imposed than they are withdrawn, and ‘the People’s’ desire for fundamental rights and freedoms may be limited by irrational fear spread by those in power. This is exactly why constitutions should prevent such abuse, rather than justify it.
Two weeks for the UN to flatten human rights
The UN system is led by the highest servant of ‘The Peoples’ – the Secretary-General (UNSG). According to UNSG’s own website, “the Secretary-General is a symbol of United Nations ideals and a spokesperson for the interests of the world’s peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them”. This official is expected to “uphold the values and moral authority of the UN” even at the risk of challenging some member states.
On February 24th 2020, human rights were still proclaimed at the centre of the system. At a press conference at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva, UNSG Antonio Guterres urged that “all countries must do everything, respecting naturally the principle of non-discrimination, without stigmatisation, respecting human rights – but doing everything that they can to contain the disease”. While “doing everything they can” implicitly put the importance of the disease above human rights concerns, at least these rated a prominent mention.
On March 11th 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic.
On March 19th 2020, at a virtual press conference, UNSG sent out his blessing to any exceptional measure to be taken since the world was “at war with the virus”:
My central message is clear: We are in an unprecedented situation and the normal rules no longer apply. We cannot resort to the usual tools in such unusual times.
Nevertheless, he still made a verbal effort to uphold his mandate: “We must recognize that the poorest and most vulnerable — especially women — will be the hardest hit.” But recognition, of course, is not respect or protection. His statement was alarming in that he, and anyone paying attention, already knew that the vast majority of the world’s population were at minimal or no risk, and only the sick or elderly were shown to be likely to suffer from the virus directly. However, the impact of the unusual response on human rights and on increasing poverty and inequality were also expected.
On March 26th 2020, Guterres encouraged states to shut down completely until a vaccine came.
Allow me to highlight three critical areas for concerted G-20 action.
First, to suppress the transmission of COVID-19 as quickly as possible.
That must be our common strategy.
It requires a coordinated G-20 response mechanism guided by WHO.
All countries must be able to combine systematic testing, tracing, quarantining and treatment with restrictions on movement and contact – aiming to suppress transmission of the virus.
And they have to coordinate the exit strategy to keep it suppressed until a vaccine becomes available.
Was Guterres a real spokesperson for the poorest and the most vulnerable, those who were most disadvantaged by restrictive measures? No, he wasn’t. He never invited states to review their emergency measures.
One month later, on April 27th 2020, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), headquartered in Palais Wilson, Geneva, not far from the World Health Organisation (WHO), released its guidance on ‘Emergency measures and COVID-19‘. It validated the restrictive measures “for public health reasons”, encouraging rather than questioning the removal of the basic rights the organisation was once assumed to uphold, and listed the following six requirements for emergency measures:
– Legality: The restriction must be ‘provided by law’. This means that the limitation must be contained in a national law of general application, which is in force at the time the limitation is applied. The law must not be arbitrary or unreasonable, and it must be clear and accessible to the public.
– Necessity: The restriction must be necessary for the protection of one of the permissible grounds stated in the 1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which include public health, and must respond to a pressing social need.
– Proportionality: The restriction must be proportionate to the interest at stake, and be the least intrusive option among those that might achieve the desired result.
– Non-discrimination: No restriction shall discriminate contrary to the provisions of international human rights law.
– All limitations should be interpreted strictly and in favour of the right at issue. No limitation can be applied in an arbitrary manner.
– The authorities have the burden of justifying restrictions upon rights.
In addition, emergency legislation and measures taken must be: i) “strictly temporary in scope”; ii) “the least intrusive to achieve the stated public health goals”, and iii) “including safeguards such as review clauses, in order to ensure return to ordinary laws as soon as the emergency situation is over”.
No follow-up actions were taken by the UN regarding the consideration of this guidance.
‘We The Peoples’ have learned a hard lesson: our lives and rights were not the reason for the UN, but subject to it and its wealthy and powerful partners.
Remarkably, less than a year later, in February 2021, Guterres wrote an article in the Guardian newspaper to condemn the “pandemic of human rights abuses”. He conveniently did not mention the complicity of the UN system in aiding, abetting and promoting lockdowns. He completely failed to include any self-assessment of whether his public actions (speeches) and inactions, or those of his organisation, contributed to this unprecedented and protracted abuse on a global scale.
An irrational panic to kill the individual right to bodily autonomy
Following Guterres’s example, OHCHR did not defend the fundamental right to refuse vaccines, as one would assume its mandate demanded.
On December 17th 2020, the office released its statements on ‘Human Rights and COVID-19 vaccines‘. Amazingly, it proposed to recognise these vaccines as “global public goods” and called for their equitable distribution and affordable price. Nowhere in the document was mentioned the right for anyone to elect not to be injected, as the basis of international human rights agreements, such as the Nuremberg Code would seem to demand.
Nuremberg Code
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.
OHCHR’s inadequate understanding of human rights was not a mistake. It persisted and signed. On December 8th 2021, by a video message addressed to the Human Rights Council, its chief, Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet, stated (at 5’30”) that “any mandatory vaccination regime needs flexibilities for appropriate exceptions”, but that “it may be acceptable to condition the exercise of certain other rights and liberties – such as access to schools, hospitals or other public, or publicly accessible, spaces – on vaccination”.
Although Bachelet recognised that forced injections were not acceptable (“in no circumstances should people be forcibly administered a vaccine”), she was perfectly happy to restrict what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR, including that of education and participation in society. It was extremely strange that she did not define what was forced vaccination. Vast numbers of people on earth took the vaccines because they were threatened of losing jobs, or losing the right to see family members, attend schools, reopen their business, or even to receive medical treatment. Surely must this amount to forced injections within any reasonable assessment of human need.
Bachelet further stated that appropriate fines could be part of legal consequences for refuseniks. Her flawed arguments were probably based on the so-called ‘greater good’ approach of COVID-19, widely associated in the past with fascist and other totalitarian regimes. Such measures were falsely promoted through the WHO’s propagandistic slogan “no one is safe until everyone is safe”, referred to in her speech.
It is dumbfounding that, for Bachelet – a physician by training (Humboldt University of Berlin) and once Chile’s Minister of Health, then President – vaccine mandates did not violate human rights principles. Didn’t she know about the Nuremberg Code developed so near her place of learning, that codifies 10 principles of individual autonomy and the absolute principle of voluntary consent for medical experiments and treatments? (And yes, the mRNA vaccines were still experimental, but informed consent is also basic to all medical ethics.)
Didn’t she know that the UDHR also put the individual first before any greater good, and that there is no community good that doesn’t allow a free and full development of an individual’s personality?
Article 29 (UDHR)
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
These two texts, the Nuremberg Code and UDHR – though of non-binding nature, codifying the highest ethical and moral values of our societies – were developed after World War II to protect individuals at the mercy of authorities who, very often, have the monopoly of violence, control and punishment, while telling their populations to sacrifice for the community’s ‘greater good’.
Conclusion
The enormous harms to fundamental rights and freedoms of the voiceless billions have been fast buried, while the UN machinery continues its business-as-usual – this time with an ‘agenda for the future’ initiated by the same Guterres. While proposing three non-binding documents (‘Pact for the Future’, ‘Declaration for Future Generations’ and ‘Global Digital Compact’), the UN plans to expand its mandate and funding to advise and lead on every issue, including the “needs and interests of future generations” and “artificial intelligence”. It claims to be the only competent and legitimate authority to prevent and manage the eventual “complex global shocks”, meaning crises beyond one single state’s border and capacity. However, without serious and independent assessments of the outrageous Covid response, and without recognition of the UN’s technical, advisory and moral failures, any agenda should be assumed to be intended to serve the same authoritarian – and for the UN’s partners, very profitable – aims.
These documents likely will be adopted by the same political leaders who are yet to face inquiries for riding roughshod over the fundamental rights and freedoms of their own populations.
The UN machinery has grown too old and detached to remember ‘The Peoples’ it is supposed to serve. Worse, it continues to betray its own purposes and principles. It has become a self-serving system. It doesn’t care if ‘We The Peoples’ ignore its Summit, oppose or embrace it. We are not supposed to be part of the process, just its subjects as it forges a world in the image of those we once thought we had defeated.
This is the last part in a series looking at the plans of the United Nations and its agencies in designing and implementing the agenda of the Summit of the Future in New York on September 22nd-23rd 2024, and its implications for global health, economic development and human rights. Previous articles are accessible on Brownstone Journal:
- Part I: The UN Smothers The Peoples With Compassion
- Part II: The UN’s Green Agenda Will Spark Famine
- Part III: The UN Invites Its Friends To Dinner
- Part IV: Three New Pacts To Be Approved At The UN Summit
Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organisation partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings.
Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Director of the Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in the USA, Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a Senior Scholar at the Brownstone Institute.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Heritage Party:
“To truly regain our sovereignty, we must re-think our membership of international organisations and agreements which previous governments have signed. We should remain members of international bodies, treaties and conventions which are beneficial to our national interests, but we should not join or continue to be part of globalist arrangements which dilute our sovereignty and interfere with our democracy by imposing conditions and policies on the nation which the people never voted for. These include the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Paris Climate Agreement, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the World Health Organisation (WHO).”
Alliance for Democracy and Freedom:
“The UK should not be a member of any non-democratic supra-national bodies. This includes inter alia, the UN, WHO, IMF, and NATO. This does not preclude bi lateral agreements with individual nations which support the security and prosperity of the UK.”
Reform….Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Reform is focused on immigration as the main (and only) policy.
Totally agree with HP (Christian based) but they of course cannot win in a FPTP system.
A brief summary of what I have learned from the pandemic:
All the legal declarations about our “unalienable” human rights are not worth the paper they are written us. Our politicians will exert power on us to the extent that we allow them to. They have no moral scruples, they want to enslave us. They crave unlimited power. We should have no illusions about them. The only thing that will stop them is the resistance we put up.
That’s about it.
Exactly. Democracy requires vigilance from the populace.
So what you’re saying is that we’re screwed, right.
Looks that way to me
I’m not expecting any improvement in my lifetime
Having said that I think “Covid” was a huge overreach that woke a lot of people up. Just not enough of them.
Maybe 20-30% have critical thinking skills. The rest are useful idiots and sheeple. The Medical Nazis and State Fascists will be back with their ‘science’ to justify another round of Nazism.
No, I don’t think we are screwed.
There is hope.
For example, during the Covid crisis, they tried to mandate the vaccines. They nearly succeeded but ultimately they failed.
The conclusion I came to is that we have to push back. In small ways if that’s all we can do (we are not all heroes) or in big ways if we have the courage but we need to resist because that’s the only way.
Do not lose hope. They want you to lose hope and give up.
Ultimately, the authoritarians will not win according to Melanie Reinhart, well known and respected astrologer. The planetary constellations indicate that they will eventually fail. Unfortunately, I don’t have any details of time scale but I think we can see that the wheels are definitely coming off spectacularly quickly for the Sausage Man. I’ve heard it said that in this country, change comes about not by violent revolution but by satire and ridicule. How much more ridicule can FreeGearforTwoTierKier stand?
Boom
A lot of good people work for these organisations. Some of the most moral and competent and at every level. And yet there is always a constraining force that is purpose built to keep most of them in line and push the agenda. It is interesting to try and identify this force. Same with the NHS. Some of the best people in this country work for it and yet it has gone deeply wrong. This is a publically funded body. I’m not sure when they last consulted the general public on a major issue. I can’t recall any instances in my lifetime.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
I wonder if the road to heaven is paved with bad intentions. Like William Blake said, tha path of excess leads to wisdom.
There may well be some truth in that
Another good article from Mark Steyn:https://www.steynonline.com/14663/talking-trivia-on-the-cliff-edge
Russia is offering asylum for anyone fleeing neoliberal totalitarianism. You will have to learn a difficult language and you will have to become more virile. They will provide you with a homestead in the Urals and a beautiful wife. Just learn to husband the land in the same way as the wife. You plough the earth and you plough your wife in service to Christ. Your masculinity will be reawakened. It would be an abrupt change but consider enduring living in this cesspool forever.
You could be talking about this country a few decades ago. I’m reminded of how much better it was (with the usual drawbacks that come with advancement) when watching TALKINGPICS TV.
Well that one is being violated ina big way in Britain. From the moment you have “protected characteristics” written into law, you are in effect discriminating on the basis of race, sex and religion.
But it’s all bullshit anyway. We all know it’s all power games and for some odd reasons women, trans people, coloured people and Muslims seem to have the upper hand these days.
“Proportionality: The restriction must be proportionate to the interest at stake, and be the least intrusive option among those that might achieve the desired result”
It certainly was not proportional, that was something Mr Hitchens was pointing out from the get go. Never invited onto the BBC after that in any meaningful way.
It is too messed up here. There isn’t any return to rationality. Economically there is no way to restore what has been lost even in terms of rudimentary function. You can stay and wait for outside forces to make it better. I am just telling you where we stand with this situation. The government will disappear in three months time. The Green agenda in six months time. At that point they will have you by the balls. Just this once will you please let us introduce rationing and CBDCs because so many are suffering and hungry. And every step of the way they retreat further into their armoured redouts in New Zealand and the South Pacific. I am not saying you can do anything I just don’t want you to be shocked when it happens.
“ The authorities have the burden of justifying restrictions upon rights”
Go away you granny killer!
Trust me when it comes to state emplyees being ordered to turn up at your door they go weak at the knees. I usually answer the door in a dishevelled butcher’s apron. Give it a go it works a treat.
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”― Albert Camus
Summit of the Futile.
U.N, along with the WHO are corrupt, bought and paid for entities, they serve other masters and as such should be disbanded, they do not serve the citizen, they are octopus arms of a world government.