Authored by Alex Newman via The Epoch Times (emphasis BY TYLER DURDEN),

The United Nations and its member governments, with strong support from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), adopted a landmark agreement last week to bestow the U.N. with more power and influence in global affairs.

 

The controversial agreement, known as the Pact for the Future, outlines 56 actions for governments and international institutions to take over the coming years.

 

Among the key provisions is “transforming global governance” and further empowering international institutions across a range of issues, including “sustainable development and financing for development,” as well as “science, technology and innovation, and digital cooperation.”

The pact includes a Global Digital Compact to restrict “misinformation” and “disinformation” and a Declaration on Future Generations that encompasses the 2030 Agenda climate goals that include the phase-out of fossil fuels.

It is also part of transforming the U.N. into what the organization is touting in promotional materials as “U.N. 2.0.”

U.N. leaders and top officials from the CCP celebrated the pact as a historic effort to create a better future for humanity and increase global cooperation on international problems.

“We can’t create a future fit for our grandchildren with systems built for our grandparents,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said.

Despite opposition from various quarters, the 193-member body adopted the pact by consensus on Sept. 22 at the Summit of the Future during the U.N. General Assembly after about nine months of negotiations.

In the days before the pact was adopted, a coalition of U.S. lawmakers and grassroots leaders held a press conference on Capitol Hill criticizing the agreement as an effort to undermine national sovereignty and freedom.

“We can’t give up any more of our sovereignty, any more of our geopolitical integrity, or any more of our economic integrity to foreign actors who have no concerns for the United States of America other than to take our power and money away,” said Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), former leader of the House Freedom Caucus.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mike McCaul (R-Texas) told The Epoch Times that the pact ignores the “malign influence of the CCP” within the global organization.

McCaul said that although the pact isn’t legally binding, “this 66-page pact is limitless in scope.”

“It calls for dramatically increased public spending and vague action on countless left-wing priorities,” he said.

“The pact also completely ignores the most urgent issues facing the U.N. today, like reforming UNRWA and combating malign CCP influence. It does nothing to advance U.S. interests.”

The CCP, which plays an increasingly powerful role within the U.N., boasted about its significant role in developing the pact.

Speaking at U.N. headquarters, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the pact as an effort to “galvanize” the U.N.’s “collective efforts for world peace and development and to map out the future of humanity.”

Wang talked about advancing “global governance.”

On the other side, the Argentine government officially distanced itself from the pact and the U.N. in general.

“Argentina wants the freedom to develop itself, without being subjected to the undue weight of decisions that are alien to our goals,” said Argentine Foreign Minister Diana Mondino, noting that Argentinian authorities are pursuing a policy of freedom.

President Javier Milei, in his address to the U.N. General Assembly, called the organization a “multi-tentacled Leviathan that seeks to decide what each nation state should do and how the citizens of the world should live.”

Milei also criticized the global organization’s central role in prescribing what he called “crimes against humanity” in responding to the China-originated coronavirus.

He called the U.N. 2030 Agenda, which features prominently in the pact, a “supranational program of a socialist nature.”

The new pact makes repeated commitments to expedite the implementation of the U.N. 2030 Agenda, also known as the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

“We will urgently accelerate progress towards achieving the Goals, including through concrete political steps and mobilizing significant additional financing from all sources for sustainable development,” the pact reads.

The Sustainable Development Goals, which U.N. leaders described as the “master plan for humanity” when they were adopted in 2015, encompass everything from education and agriculture to health care and the environment.

After they were adopted, CCP-owned propaganda outlets around the world boasted that Beijing played a “crucial role” in creating the 2030 Agenda.

The U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission has been sounding the alarm for years.

“Since the U.S.–China Commission began tracking officials from the People’s Republic of China serving in leadership positions in international organizations, Beijing’s influence has only grown over key U.N. agencies responsible for funding and policymaking on a wide range of important issues,” the Commission told The Epoch Times.

“Contrary to the International Civil Servant Standards of Conduct, they [Chinese officials] use those positions [in the U.N.] to pursue China’s foreign policy goals,” the Commission said.

When asked about the concerns of U.S. policymakers and other critics, Guterres’s spokesman, Stéphane Dujarric, defended the pact.

“The Pact for the Future is not about world government,” he said at a press conference. “It is about making an organization of independent, sovereign member states work better.

“It’s not as if anyone is granting the secretary-general authority over governments—clearly not.”

Still, according to Dujarric, it is important to increase global cooperation because “not one country can deal with the rising seas, not one country can deal with global pandemics, not one country can deal with international terrorism.”

“This is about bringing sovereign, independent countries, and working together,” he said, urging people to read original documents to become well informed and “make up their own minds.”

The strengthening of the U.N. and, in particular, efforts to have the U.N. secretary-general lead the response to emergencies, received special attention from opponents.

As The Epoch Times reported in April 2023, empowering the U.N. as the central force in dealing with international emergencies and “complex global shocks” was a key goal heading into the Summit of the Future.

In his original policy brief on the issue, Guterres argued that all nations, businesses, governments, and other stakeholders must recognize the “primary role” of intergovernmental organs such as the U.N. and its agencies in “decision-making,” the document states.

Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations Kevin Moley, who oversaw U.S. relations with the U.N. during the previous administration, warned of the dangers.

“Allowing the U.N. to deal with this is the equivalent of putting the CCP in charge of global emergencies,” Moley told The Epoch Times.

He warned that the CCP takeover of international organizations represents a potentially mortal threat to the West.

Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, told The Epoch Times that Americans must resist what he described as a “power grab” of historic proportions.

“The U.N. secretary-general has arrogated to himself dictatorial powers ... upon his mere proclamation of an ‘emergency,’ as defined by himself,” he said.

Boyle, who wrote the implementing U.S. legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention and serves on the board of Amnesty International, said that because of the involvement of heads of state and government in the process, the new U.N. pact could constitute a “treaty” with “legal obligations” under both domestic and international law.

“This totalitarian arrangement constitutes a grave and immediate threat to the sovereignty and independence of all United Nations member states,” he said.

Free Speech, Free Press

One of the major components of the U.N. deal, adopted as an annex to the pact, focuses on U.N. governance of artificial intelligence (AI). Wang said that the CCP “supports the U.N. in serving as the main channel in AI governance.”

Another major concern for critics is the targeting of free speech in the Global Digital Compact, approved as an annex to the Pact for the Future.

Stating that it is protecting “information integrity,” the U.N. deal calls for drastically scaling up efforts to combat “hate speech,” “discrimination,” “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and more.

Global censorship about the COVID-19 pandemic, with YouTube removing content that went against the World Health Organization’s pronouncements, has been cited by opponents of the plan as an example of the threat.

The U.N. has also become more aggressive on this front. In 2022, at a World Economic Forum sustainability event, U.N. Undersecretary-General for Communications Melissa Fleming announced a partnership with Google.

“We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top,“ she said. ”We’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.”

Fleming has also highlighted working with CCP-linked TikTok and recruiting “influencers” to promote U.N. messaging.

Asked about the U.N. partnership with Google, Fleming declined to comment.

The compact calls for “Internet governance” to be “global and multi-stakeholder in nature.”

“We will strengthen international cooperation to address the challenge of misinformation and disinformation and hate speech online and mitigate the risks of information manipulation in a manner consistent with international law,” the Global Digital Compact reads.

The repeated emphasis on the alleged “risks” of misinformation is one of the most concerning elements of the agreement, said Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers and co-chair of the Sovereignty Coalition.

“We need only look back to the pandemic to see that these terms will be defined as anything that is counter-narrative to the U.N., the WHO, and their collaborators,” she told The Epoch Times, referring to the World Health Organization.

“Controlling the narrative by suppressing dissenting voices is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. It is, moreover, a hallmark of totalitarianism, which begins with and relies upon censorship.

“Further, censorship deprives both individuals and nations of their sovereignty.”

Littlejohn has been working with U.S. lawmakers to protect U.S. independence from international organizations.

“Sovereign persons and nations make decisions concerning how they will govern themselves,” she said. “They are deprived of this decision-making process if they are denied access to the true facts upon which their decisions will be made.”

Littlejohn also said the pact should be understood as a treaty under the traditional definition. As such, treaties are required to be ratified by the U.S. Senate—something she said would be unlikely to happen.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/un-pact-future-draws-concerns-over-ccp-backing

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

 

Dangerous Escalations: Biden’s Indo-Pacific Legacy    Salman Rafi Sheikh

 

When Joe Biden, a key architect of the Obama administration’s “Asia Pivot” policy, became the US president in 2020 and introduced his Indo-Pacific Strategy in February 2022, his apparent objective was to make the region more “peaceful” and manage its seas according to accepted international “rules”.

 

Yet, two years later, as Biden prepares to leave the White House permanently, the region is facing dangerous escalations more deeply than ever. From persistent US efforts toward the steady securitisation of the Quadrilateral Security Group (QUAD) and the certain nuclearisation of the Pacific via the AUKUS treaty to the most recent permanent deployment of the US Typhon missile system aimed at China in the Philippines, Biden has laid a path that might continue to grow regardless of who becomes the US president in November. Harris will most likely follow her president’s legacy. While Trump’s anti-China position naturally aligns with these developments in the region, regional countries might still find it difficult to deal with him.

Biden’s Pacific Dream

“The passage of time has underscored the strategic necessity of the United States’ consistent role” in the Indo-Pacific region, says Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy document. How this so-called necessity was established and how the so-called consistent role was imagined is irrelevant today insofar as we do see some form of permanence taking root. This is most clearly evident from the recent reports in the Western media indicating the permanent deployment of the US Typhoon Missile system in the Philippines.
The missile system was brought to the Philippines earlier this year as part of joint exercises. Now that Washington is citing “tensions with China” to justify a permanent deployment of this system, make it crystal clear that the former never intended to take it back, since “tensions” with China are nothing new. Had the US indicated earlier its actual intentions, it would have drawn a very strong response from Beijing. But Washington’s strategy was to present Beijing with a fait accompli. Washington preferred deceit to strategic clarity to establish Biden’s dream: a consistent (read: permanent) role in the region.

US dominance is now highly questionable, as several Asian countries do not take the US dictate seriously

Biden’s other treaties, such as AUKUS and the trilateral strategic pact with Japan and South Korea, also stand to reinforce the sense of permanent presence. Even though Washington does not have a clear advantage over China in the region in terms of the latter’s depth of economic ties with regional countries, there is little denying that the US has been able to push itself militarily in the region. This is a limitation as well as an advantage.

Who/What Washington is Targeting

It is China for several reasons. But it is not only China for other reasons. The purpose of this “permanent” presence and military deployment is to remind many other countries in the region of Washington’s global dominance. This reminder is necessary because this dominance is highly questionable now, with several countries in Asia not taking US dictates seriously. This is most clearly evident from, for instance, the continuous flow of Russian oil, despite US sanctions and threats, to countries in Asia. While the immediate exporters are China and India, Russian oil and related petroleum products are also travelling elsewhere. India, for instance, has been earning millions of dollars not only by purchasing discounted Russian oil but also by exporting it to Europe. In 2023, India imported 34 per cent of its oil from Russia. In the same year, it imported roughly 225,000 barrels per day (b/d) of petrol and diesel products, up from an average of 120,000 b/d in the previous five years, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Clearly, Washington is unable to force its QUAD ally to change its behaviour towards Russia. Fearing that other countries in the region might follow the “Indian model”, it needs to deter them. A good way of deterring them is to increase the military footprint in the region, indicating Wahington’s so-called indispensability to the region’s security and the necessity of not annoying it.

Russia matters also because it has recently begun to extend support to China in Southeast Asia. Russia was invited to attend the three-day meeting of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc in the Laos capital of Vientiane in July 2024.  In this meeting, Chinese and Russian foreign ministers met their Southeast Asian counterparts after vowing to counter “extra-regional forces” (read: Washington). More importantly, they announced their joint resolution only a day before Antony Blinken arrived in the region. Russia’s support for China – which might be tied to Chinese support for Russia against the combined forces of the US/NATO and Ukraine – naturally meant that Washington needed to up the ante; hence, the decision to permanently deploy the missile system in the Philippines.

The AUKUS alliance is pouring billions of USD.  The UK pledged US$5.3 billion, the US is contributing US$17.5 billion, and Australia has committed more US$20.7 billion. The amount of money being spent is not only due to the nuclear aspect of the treaty but also the more worrisome possibility of a more direct Russian-Chinese alliance in the Pacific that, without this treaty, might easily outgun and outpace Washington’s interests.

Does “Asia Pivot” Live on?

To the extent that Biden’s dream included a permanent “pivot” to Asia, there is little denying that he has been able to put in place structures that might remain relevant in the years to come. Because his legacy critically lacks an economic component – which many countries in the region consider very important – the actual success of Washington will be determined not simply on the basis of the military hardware it can put in the region but also on the basis of the ways, and whether or not, it can offer itself as alternative force partnering in the region’s economic development. More importantly, even if Washington is unable to offer any concrete economic plan, the mere deployment of military hardware can run into problems. For instance, even if the Typhoon system is placed in the Philippines, its usefulness can quickly change in the event of the current pro-US president losing elections and/or a pro-China leadership capturing power. Does Biden’s legacy leave with a mechanism to manage such a crisis? Apparently, No.

  

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Yet, two years later, as Biden prepares to leave the White House permanently, the region is facing dangerous escalations more deeply than ever. From persistent US efforts toward the steady securitisation of the Quadrilateral Security Group (QUAD) and the certain nuclearisation of the Pacific via the AUKUS treaty to the most recent permanent deployment of the US Typhon missile system aimed at China in the Philippines, Biden has laid a path that might continue to grow regardless of who becomes the US president in November. Harris will most likely follow her president’s legacy. While Trump’s anti-China position naturally aligns with these developments in the region, regional countries might still find it difficult to deal with him.

Biden’s Pacific Dream

“The passage of time has underscored the strategic necessity of the United States’ consistent role” in the Indo-Pacific region, says Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy document. How this so-called necessity was established and how the so-called consistent role was imagined is irrelevant today insofar as we do see some form of permanence taking root. This is most clearly evident from the recent reports in the Western media indicating the permanent deployment of the US Typhoon Missile system in the Philippines.
The missile system was brought to the Philippines earlier this year as part of joint exercises. Now that Washington is citing “tensions with China” to justify a permanent deployment of this system, make it crystal clear that the former never intended to take it back, since “tensions” with China are nothing new. Had the US indicated earlier its actual intentions, it would have drawn a very strong response from Beijing. But Washington’s strategy was to present Beijing with a fait accompli. Washington preferred deceit to strategic clarity to establish Biden’s dream: a consistent (read: permanent) role in the region.

US dominance is now highly questionable, as several Asian countries do not take the US dictate seriously

Biden’s other treaties, such as AUKUS and the trilateral strategic pact with Japan and South Korea, also stand to reinforce the sense of permanent presence. Even though Washington does not have a clear advantage over China in the region in terms of the latter’s depth of economic ties with regional countries, there is little denying that the US has been able to push itself militarily in the region. This is a limitation as well as an advantage.

Who/What Washington is Targeting

It is China for several reasons. But it is not only China for other reasons. The purpose of this “permanent” presence and military deployment is to remind many other countries in the region of Washington’s global dominance. This reminder is necessary because this dominance is highly questionable now, with several countries in Asia not taking US dictates seriously. This is most clearly evident from, for instance, the continuous flow of Russian oil, despite US sanctions and threats, to countries in Asia. While the immediate exporters are China and India, Russian oil and related petroleum products are also travelling elsewhere. India, for instance, has been earning millions of dollars not only by purchasing discounted Russian oil but also by exporting it to Europe. In 2023, India imported 34 per cent of its oil from Russia. In the same year, it imported roughly 225,000 barrels per day (b/d) of petrol and diesel products, up from an average of 120,000 b/d in the previous five years, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Clearly, Washington is unable to force its QUAD ally to change its behaviour towards Russia. Fearing that other countries in the region might follow the “Indian model”, it needs to deter them. A good way of deterring them is to increase the military footprint in the region, indicating Wahington’s so-called indispensability to the region’s security and the necessity of not annoying it.

Russia matters also because it has recently begun to extend support to China in Southeast Asia. Russia was invited to attend the three-day meeting of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc in the Laos capital of Vientiane in July 2024.  In this meeting, Chinese and Russian foreign ministers met their Southeast Asian counterparts after vowing to counter “extra-regional forces” (read: Washington). More importantly, they announced their joint resolution only a day before Antony Blinken arrived in the region. Russia’s support for China – which might be tied to Chinese support for Russia against the combined forces of the US/NATO and Ukraine – naturally meant that Washington needed to up the ante; hence, the decision to permanently deploy the missile system in the Philippines.

The AUKUS alliance is pouring billions of USD.  The UK pledged US$5.3 billion, the US is contributing US$17.5 billion, and Australia has committed more US$20.7 billion. The amount of money being spent is not only due to the nuclear aspect of the treaty but also the more worrisome possibility of a more direct Russian-Chinese alliance in the Pacific that, without this treaty, might easily outgun and outpace Washington’s interests.

Does “Asia Pivot” Live on?

To the extent that Biden’s dream included a permanent “pivot” to Asia, there is little denying that he has been able to put in place structures that might remain relevant in the years to come. Because his legacy critically lacks an economic component – which many countries in the region consider very important – the actual success of Washington will be determined not simply on the basis of the military hardware it can put in the region but also on the basis of the ways, and whether or not, it can offer itself as alternative force partnering in the region’s economic development. More importantly, even if Washington is unable to offer any concrete economic plan, the mere deployment of military hardware can run into problems. For instance, even if the Typhoon system is placed in the Philippines, its usefulness can quickly change in the event of the current pro-US president losing elections and/or a pro-China leadership capturing power. Does Biden’s legacy leave with a mechanism to manage such a crisis? Apparently, No.

  

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

 

Berlin supports Israel’s escalation of war in the Middle East    BY Johannes Stern

 

Following Tehran’s missile strike on Israel this week, the US and Israel are preparing a massive attack on Iran. Despite its public warnings of a “wildfire” in the Middle East, the German government would support strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, military installations, or oil fields that would plunge the entire region into a catastrophic war. The statements from Berlin leave no doubt about that.

Although the Netanyahu regime provoked the Iranian response through a series of provocative attacks, the German government exclusively condemns Iran and supports Israel’s war offensive.

Green Party Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock wrote during the Iranian attack on X (formerly Twitter): “Israel is being attacked by Iran with missiles in these hours. I condemn the ongoing attack in the strongest possible terms. We have strongly warned Iran against this dangerous escalation. Iran must stop the attack immediately. It is leading the region further to the abyss.”

Chancellor Olaf Scholz (Social Democrats) expressed similar views. “The Iranian missile attacks on Israel are to be condemned in the strongest possible terms,” he said. Iran risks “setting the whole region ablaze” and it is necessary “to prevent it under all circumstances.” Hezbollah and Iran must “stop their attacks on Israel immediately.”

He went on to declare his solidarity with the Israeli war aims. Hezbollah must “withdraw from the border area with Israel,” because this would “pave the way for a return of the people to the north of Israel.” A few days “before the anniversary of Hamas’ terrible attack on Israel,” his thoughts were “with the hostages held and their families.” Their fate must be “an incentive for everyone to reach an agreement on the basis of the proposals made by US President Biden.”

What are these “proposals?” In fact, the US and the other imperialist powers are using Iran’s attack as a pretext to give Israel carte blanche to wage direct war against the region’s second-most populous country. “We will discuss with the Israelis what they will do, but we [the G7] agree that they have the right to respond,” Biden said Wednesday. 

The WSWS explained in a recent perspective the broader objectives of the war:

One year after the start of the Gaza genocide, it has become clear that Israel seized upon the events of October 7 to implement long-held plans to ethnically cleanse and annex all Palestinian territories. This is part of a regional war throughout the Middle East to conquer what the Zionist state claims to be its biblical borders.

For the United States, it has been a means to cement imperialist control over the oil-rich Middle East region and to establish the Middle East and Central Asia as a firm base for US military operations in order to press ahead with its confrontation with Russia and China.

Germany does not want to stand aside in the imperialist redivision of the world but intends to secure as much of the spoils as possible. For this reason, it plays a leading role in the NATO war offensive against Russia in Ukraine and also in supporting Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza, which is now being extended to the entire region.

The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) foreign policy expert Roderich Kiesewetter openly stated in a post on X that the imperialist powers are concerned with a reorganization of the entire region. Israel is “creating the opportunity for a new security structure in the Middle East by weakening the terrorist regime in Iran and significantly destroying the Iranian tentacles Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi.” For Lebanon, too, “this is an opportunity for a new beginning and stabilization,” he added cynically. 

In a guest article for Focus under the title “No more taboos in the Middle East – seize the opportunity,” Kiesewetter argues in favour of military intervention. “If necessary, we would also have to be prepared to defend Israel with our armed forces,” he demanded. At the moment, we are “not yet ready,” but at least we are talking “about military support measures, for example in the field of aerial refuelling or in the medical service.”

It is now important “to show a presence and stand united as Europe by investing in the building of the state in Lebanon,” he continued. It must be clear that an Israeli peace arrangement with the Palestinian territories must be militarily and robustly secured in the future if it is to be credible. Therefore, “It is prudent not to engage in exclusionary activities with a view to a future peace arrangement in the Middle East. Even the involvement of German soldiers should not be ruled out, even if that is still a long way off.”

In fact, the deployment of German troops in the Middle East is already being openly discussed by the German government. “Peace needs international security guarantees that Gaza will never again be a source of terror against Israel,” Baerbock explained in an interview with Stern this week. Germany, together with its allies, is ready to contribute to this. However, she went on, we have learned from the Afghanistan mission “that you always need strong regional partners for peacekeeping missions.”

The mere reference to Afghanistan underlines that the issue is not “peace,” but neocolonial occupation. German and international “peacekeepers” would support Israel in alliance with the corrupt, pro-imperialist Arab regimes in the region and brutally suppress any opposition among the population. 

Comments like Kiesewetter’s show that the ruling class admires Israel’s genocidal war policy and views it as a model. Israel is “making the Middle East safer, especially with diplomacy and toughness” and fighting “the essential evil in the region: Iran and its henchmen.” Now Germany too must “say goodbye to its Middle Eastern romance and finally combine diplomacy with toughness and thus become credible.”

A particularly filthy comment from the pen of Die Welt editor-in-chief Ulf Poschardt celebrated Netanyahu as the “avant-garde of the West.” More than any other head of state, he considers “the combativeness of the West, liberal democracies and free societies not to be a punchline of absurd Sunday speeches, but a mandate.” According to Poschardt, this makes Netanyahu, “a role model, especially for those cowardly, self-confident representatives of the West who encourage the enemies in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran or Ankara to reach out.”

Cynically, Poschhardt justifies the Israeli policy of violence and his own enthusiasm for it with the crimes of the Nazis. “In the shadow of the Shoah,” he writes, “‘never again’ has always shaped the Israeli security identity, but this identity has never been so endangered, even shaken, as it was after the barbaric attack almost a year ago.” Netanyahu and his generals worked “against this trauma: not driven by it, but calmly.” 

Poschhardt et al. can rub their blood-smeared hands as long as they want. The genocide in Gaza, which is now being extended to the entire region, shows that it is the ruling class that, eight decades after the Holocaust and the war of annihilation against the Soviet Union, is returning to the policy of genocide and putting it into practice in an increasingly comprehensive and “calm” way.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/10/05/knpy-o05.html

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

Common voice for the challenges of the future

The countries of the Global South showed Russia the red card, allowing the Pact for the Future of the United Nations that had been drawn up by Germany and Namibia to be adopted after all. 

 

In the end there was great relief. Germany and Namibia had spent 18 months working hard to draw up a Pact for the Future - incorporating countless requested amendments - that will see the United Nations commit to more cooperation on global issues. It had originally been hoped that the 42-page paper would be unanimously approved by all 193 UN member states at the start of the Summit of the Future on 22 September 2024. Russia, however, supported by Iran, Belarus, North Korea, Nicaragua, Sudan and Syria, decided at the eleventh hour to be awkward by requesting an amendment emphasising the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states in an attempt to significantly water down the commitment to greater multilateralism.

Red card for Russia

What happened then was absolutely remarkable, recalls Niels Annen, who took part in the Summit for the Future in his capacity as parliamentary state secretary at Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ): “It offered an insight into the United Nations of the future,” he said during a German Bundestag debate on a matter of topical interest. Russia’s attempt to split the UN was thwarted, mainly by a motion submitted by the Democratic Republic of Congo, which in the end was followed by all 54 African nations: “It is not the West that showed Russia and its allies the red card, but the Global South,” says Annen. Ultimately, a clear majority of 143 states voted for the Pact. “The world found a common voice for how it plans to address the challenges of the future,” is how German Chancellor Olaf Scholz commented on the result.

Successful cooperation between Germany and Namibia

One reason why the African Union stood so resolutely behind the Pact was the good cooperation between Germany and Namibia. The two countries succeeded in getting the influential Group of 77 on side, a coalition of states of the Global South that currently has 134 members. The German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Namibia’s President Nangolo Mbumba expressed their mutual respect for one another for what they had accomplished. Two states with such a difficult shared history and such different political and socio-economic situations had managed to work together as friends, Scholz said in a speech directly after the pact had been adopted.

Reform of the financial system, roadmap for the digital future, representation of future generations

One of the key achievements of the Pact is the reform of the international financial system. Better global cooperation on dealing with debt and taxation is to ensure that more money is available for sustainable development - especially in the poorest and most vulnerable countries. German Development Minister Svenja Schulze and US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen had initiated the reform process in early 2023. A summit meeting of the UN member states and international financial institutions is to be held every two years.

The topic of digitisation was also a focus. The United Nations adopted a Global Digital Compact, the first time the member states succeeded in agreeing on a common framework for dealing with developments in the area of artificial intelligence and promoting a human-centred approach to and use of AI that is geared towards sustainable development. Also for the first time, the United Nations has set its sights on the needs of future generations in a “youth pact”. Among other things, the pact calls for a UN special envoy to be appointed for future generations.

The future of the Security Council

People had been particularly interested to see whether and how the member states would agree to reform the Security Council, one of the matters particularly close to António Guterres’ heart. The Security Council has long been failing to live up to its remit of representing the key actors of the international community, believes the UN secretary-general: “In 1945, most of today’s African countries were still under colonial rule and had no voice in international affairs. We cannot accept that the world’s preeminent peace and security body lacks a permanent voice for a continent of well over a billion people.”

The need for the Security Council to be restructured is obvious, in other words. This was also underscored by Chancellor Scholz: “We see time and again how dysfunctional the current structure of the Security Council is. That’s why reforms finally need to happen now.” Just four days after the Pact was adopted, French President Emmanuel Macron recommended concrete steps for expanding the Security Council, which BMZ State Secretary Niels Annen viewed as an initial success: “This is good news, coming as it does from a current member of the Council.” If Macron has his way, Germany, Japan, India and Brazil would be included as permanent members, along with two African countries.

https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/pact-for-the-future-of-the-united-nations

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

MEANWHILE:

Berlin (dpa) - Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has described the Hamas massacre one year ago as a turning point in Jewish and German history. She wrote in a guest article that 7 October 2023 was a turning point for Jews following which there was only a “before” and “after”.

“7 October is also a turning point for us in Germany.” She said she was ashamed that Jews had also felt unsafe in Germany ever since and that there had been an increase in anti-Semitic attacks. “We are countering this. With the full force of the law,” stressed Baerbock. Addressing the people in Israel, she said: “We stand by your side. Your safety is part of our raison d’état. Israel has a right to defend itself. Both against the violence committed by Hamas and against the missile terror of Iran and Hezbollah.”

On 7 October 2023, Hamas terrorists had killed more than 1,200 people in Israel and taken around 250 more to the Gaza Strip as hostages. This led to the Gaza War, in which some 42,000 people have been killed so far, according to the Hamas-controlled health authority.

https://www.deutschland.de/en/news/anniversary-of-hamas-attack-baerbock-germany-israel

 

READ CARTOON AGAIN.....

AND AGAIN...