UN Passes ‘Pact for the Future’: Smart Vaccines, More Censorship, but No New Emergency Powers
The final version of the pact excludes a proposal that would have granted the secretary-general emergency powers to respond to “global shocks,” but some critics said the pact still represents a thinly veiled U.N. power grab.
Hailed as a “blueprint for the future,” the United Nations (U.N.) last week passed the Pact for the Future — a set of 11 policy briefs and “56 pledges to action seeking to protect the needs and interests of present and future generations amid the climate change crisis and conflict currently gripping the globe.”
The pact is the product of nine months of negotiation among U.N. nation-states and other stakeholders, including civil society and non-governmental organizations. It includes a “Global Digital Compact” and “Declaration on Future Generations,” alongside policy proposals on “Information Integrity on Digital Platforms” and “Transforming Education.”
“We are here to bring multilateralism back from the brink,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the Summit of the Future, held during the 79th U.N. General Assembly in New York.
The final version of the pact excludes a proposal that would have granted the secretary-general emergency powers to respond to “global shocks.”
Writing on Substack, Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, said the exclusion of emergency powers for the secretary-general is a positive development. “They added a lot of useless verbiage to confuse the unwary. But in the end, the [secretary-general] is only asked to use whatever powers he already has.”
However, according to critics, the pact still represents a thinly veiled U.N. power grab.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman on leave of Children’s Health Defense, called it an “unconstitutional attempt to pass a treaty that allows international organizations to violate the sovereignty of the United States of America.”
Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, biotech consultant and senior scholar at the Brownstone Institute, told The Defender, “The overall thrust is to reduce the status of member states (i.e., sovereign countries) in favor of centralized control.”
Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a professor of international law at the University of Illinois, called the pact “an end run by globalists around the terms for amendment of the U.N. Charter.”
UN rejected amendment prohibiting interference in nations’ domestic affairs
The Pact for the Future was passed by consensus, without a vote.
However, the General Assembly also passed a separate motion, put forth by the African Group, that “underscored the need to show unity in finding solutions to today’s multiple, complex challenges.” The motion passed 143 to 7, with 15 countries abstaining.
The countries that opposed the motion — Belarus, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan, Russia and Syria — proposed an amendment barring the U.N. from intervening “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.”
The African Group’s motion rejected this amendment, paving the way for the U.N. General Assembly to pass the pact without a vote.
“The U.N.’s globalist handlers want to be able to interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations,” said Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, executive director of Children’s Health Defense Africa. “Refusing to accept this common-sense amendment sends a clear message: The days of national sovereignty are running out fast.”
Still, not all U.N. member states appear to fully support the pact. Nass noted that 22 countries are “on record as not being overwhelmingly happy” with it.
Argentina, for instance, decided to “dissociate” itself from the pact. Argentina Foreign Minister Diana Mondino said, “Many points in this pact go against or would hold back Argentina’s new agenda,” referring to the country’s new government.
‘Nonbinding’ pact may carry same weight as an international treaty
According to Al Jazeera, the pact is “nonbinding,” raising “concerns about implementation.”
However, Boyle told The Defender the pact will carry more weight once nation-states begin signing off on it.
Under Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the pact “will actually be a treaty that will be binding on all the states that sign it,” Boyle said. “All signatories will be obliged to act in a manner so as not to defeat the object and purpose of the convention.”
According to Bell, the pact “allows bureaucrats drafting future mandatory agreements to claim there is already agreement.”
Nass told The Defender the pact contains no new mandates but “seeks to gain consensus for nations carrying out prior commitments,” adding that “multilateralism” is a euphemism for “global governance.”
She highlighted paragraph 17, which states, “We will advance implementation of these actions through relevant, mandated intergovernmental processes, where they exist.”
Bell also questioned the term “multilateralism.” He said that while it “previously meant an agreement between multiple states,” it now refers to “an agreement by a central bureaucracy … that states then adhere to.”
Pact calls for ‘smart’ vaccines
Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo, said the Pact for the Future is aligned with the goals of the World Health Organization (WHO), itself a U.N. agency, and that it “could lead to global health mandates that infringe on medical freedom.”
Negotiations for the WHO’s “pandemic treaty” are still ongoing, with the goal of passing the treaty by the time of the next World Health Assembly, in May 2025.
The pact contains several goals related to vaccination, including ensuring “that all young people enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, including immunizations and vaccinations.”
The pact’s “Global Digital Compact” calls for “Novel platform-based vaccine technologies and smart vaccine manufacturing techniques.”
According to Nass, while “The Pact specifically desires to ensure universal access for sexual and reproductive health and for vaccinations,” it “fails to make similar assurances for access to primary health care.”
Pact for the Future, digital compact may deliver censorship, surveillance
The pact and digital compact frequently address “misinformation” — and the need to combat it. Some experts warned this may lead to a global censorship apparatus.
According to the pact (paragraph 34), nations will cooperate 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 pact also calls for the provision “of independent, fact-based, timely, targeted, clear, accessible, multilingual and science-based information to counter misinformation and disinformation” and of “relevant, reliable and accurate information in crisis situations, to protect and empower those in vulnerable situations.”
The policy brief on “Information Integrity on Digital Platforms” calls for “empirically-backed consensus around facts, science and knowledge,” but does not clarify how this “consensus” would be determined.
The digital compact sets a “comprehensive global framework for digital cooperation and AI [artificial intelligence] governance” and calls for the use of technology “for the benefit of all.” Its passage was accompanied by pledges of $1.05 billion to advance digital inclusion and by calls to bridge digital divides globally.
Some experts said bridging the digital divide is a veiled attempt to introduce global digital ID.
“The major concern over the Digital Compact is its potential overreach, such as increased censorship or surveillance and the linking of digital IDs with central bank digital currency under the guise of sustainable development goals,” said Dr. Kat Lindley, president of the Global Health Project.
‘Turbocharged’ sustainable development goals a means to ‘centralize control’
According to the U.N., the pact “is designed to turbo-charge implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) — 17 goals and 169 targets aimed at addressing global challenges by 2030.
The pact also calls for the removal “of all obstacles to sustainable development.”
“We will take bold, ambitious, accelerated, just and transformative actions to implement the 2030 Agenda, achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and leave no one behind,” the pact states.
Lindley warned that “turbo-charged” SDGs “might lead to an overreach of international bodies into national policies, potentially undermining national sovereignty.”
Enhanced SDGs, especially those linked to digital identities or health data, “raise concerns about privacy, surveillance, and potential data misuse by states or corporations,” she said.
Bell said that while the SDGs themselves are not particularly dangerous, the problem “lies in them being used as an excuse to centralize control.”
An excuse to ‘restrict and plunder populations’?
Nass also pointed out that the pact calls for “a world in which humanity lives in harmony with nature” — a goal which she called “outlandish.”
This objective is aligned with the WHO’s “One Health” agenda, which equates human health with that of animals and the environment — but which some experts have argued promotes a biosecurity and surveillance agenda.
“Expanding health measures into areas like free speech or travel under a One Health banner raises alarms about the potential suppression of rights and freedoms,” Lindley said. “This could lead to censorship or control mechanisms under the pretext of health or environmental safety.”
Other experts argued the push for “turbo-charged” SDGs is about money. Noting that the SDGs require “mass financing,” Mohamed said, “The SDGs serve to create even more wealth for the 1%.” She said multinational corporations will benefit from the development of digital IDs and surveillance technologies.
Along similar lines, Nass said she believes the pact “will be used to put pressure on nations to provide more money to ‘turbocharge’ the SDGs.”
Bell said the U.N. and WHO “don’t believe in the SDGs,” as demonstrated by their actions during the COVID-19 pandemic, when “the goal of centralization — and profit — was better served by the opportunity to restrict and plunder populations.”
The Defender on occasion posts content related to Children’s Health Defense’s nonprofit mission that features Mr. Kennedy’s views on the issues CHD and The Defender regularly cover. Mr. Kennedy, an independent candidate for president of the U.S., is on leave from CHD. In keeping with Federal Election Commission rules, this content does not represent an endorsement of Mr. Kennedy’s candidacy or his support for President Donald Trump’s campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment