{"id":220259,"date":"2022-09-26T12:00:40","date_gmt":"2022-09-26T11:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=220259"},"modified":"2025-01-10T15:06:34","modified_gmt":"2025-01-10T15:06:34","slug":"sustainable-debt-slavery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2022\/09\/sustainable-debt-slavery\/","title":{"rendered":"Sustainable Debt Slavery"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

How the UN\u2019s \u201csustainable development\u201d policies, the SDGs, do not promote \u201csustainability,\u201d as most conceive of it, but instead utilize the same debt imperialism long used by the Anglo-American empire to entrap nations in a new, equally predatory system of global financial governance. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

13 Sep 2022 – <\/em>The UN\u2019s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is pitched as<\/a> a \u201cshared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future.\u201d At the heart of this agenda are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals<\/a>, or SDGs.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Many of these goals sound nice in theory and paint a picture of an emergent global utopia \u2013 such as no poverty, no world hunger and reduced inequality. Yet, as is true with so much, the reality behind most \u2013 if not all \u2013 of the SDGs are policies cloaked in the language<\/em> of utopia that \u2013 in practice \u2013 will only benefit the economic elite and entrench their power.<\/p>\n

This can clearly be seen in fine print of the SDGs, as there is considerable emphasis on debt and on entrapping nation states (especially developing states) in debt as a means of forcing adoption of SDG-related policies. It is then little coincidence that many of the driving forces behind SDG-related policies, at the UN and elsewhere, are career bankers<\/a>. Former executives at some of the most predatory financial institutions in the history of the world, from Goldman Sachs to Bank of America to Deutsche Bank, are among the top proponents and developers of SDG-related policies.<\/p>\n

Are their interests truly aligned with \u201csustainable development\u201d and improving the state of the world for regular people, as they now claim?\u00a0 Or do their interests lie where they always have, in a profit-driven economic model based on debt slavery and outright theft?<\/p>\n

In this Unlimited Hangout<\/em> investigative series, we will be exploring these questions and interrogating \u2013 not only the power structures behind the SDGs and related policies \u2013 but also their practical impacts.<\/p>\n

In this first instalment, we will explore what actually underpins the majority of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, cutting through the flowery language to deliver the full picture of what the implementation of these policies means for the average person. Subsequent instalments will focus on case studies based on specific SDGs and their sector-specific impacts.<\/p>\n

Overall, this series will offer a fact-based and objective look at how the motivation behind the SDGs and Agenda 2030 is about retooling the same economic imperialism used by the Anglo-American Empire in the post-World War II era for the purposes of the coming \u201cmultipolar world order\u201d and efforts to enact a global neo-feudal model, perhaps best summarized as a model for \u201csustainable slavery.\u201d<\/p>\n

The SDG Word Salad<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The UN educates young people in developing nations to welcome \u201cSustainable Development\u201d without disclosing the impact it will have on their lives or their national economy, Source: UNICEF<\/strong><\/p>\n

Most people are aware of the concept of \u201cSustainable Development\u201d but, it is fair to say that the majority believe that SDGs are related to tackling problems allegedly wrought by climate disaster<\/a>. However, the Agenda 2030 SDGs encompass every facet of our lives and only one, SDG 13, deals explicitly with climate.<\/p>\n

From economic and food security to education, employment and all business activity; name any sphere of human activity, including the most personal, and there is an associated SDG designed to \u201ctransform\u201d it. Yet, it is the SDG 17\u2014Partnerships for Goals\u2014through which we can start to identify who the beneficiaries of this system really are.<\/p>\n

The stated UN SDG 17<\/a> aim is, in part, to:<\/p>\n

Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherence. [. . .] Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships [. . .] to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries. [. . .] Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

From this, we can deduce that \u201cmulti-stakeholder partnerships\u201d are supposed to work together to achieve \u201cmacroeconomic stability\u201d in \u201call countries.\u201d This will be accomplished by enforcing \u201cpolicy coordination and policy coherence\u201d constructed from the \u201cknowledge\u201d of \u201cpublic, public-private and civil society partnerships.\u201d These \u201cpartnerships\u201d will deliver the SDGs.<\/p>\n

This word-salad requires some untangling, because this is the framework that enables the implementation of every SDG \u201cin all countries.\u201d<\/p>\n

Before we do, it is worth noting that the UN often refers to itself and its decisions using grandiose language. Even the most trivial of deliberations are treated as \u201chistoric\u201d or \u201cground breaking,\u201d etc. There is also a lot of fluff to wade through about transparency, accountability, sustainability and so on.<\/p>\n

These are just words which require corresponding action in order to have contextual meaning. \u201cTransparency\u201d doesn\u2019t mean much if crucial information is buried in endless reams of impenetrable bureaucratic waffle that isn\u2019t reported to the public by anyone. \u201cAccountability\u201d is an anathema if even national governments lack the authority to exercise oversight over the UN; and when \u201csustainable\u201d is used to mean \u201ctransformative,\u201d it becomes an oxymoron.<\/p>\n

Untangling the UN-G3P SDG Word Salad<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The UN Economic and Social Council<\/a> (ECOSOC) commissioned a paper<\/a> which defines \u201cmulti-stakeholder partnerships\u201d as:<\/p>\n

[P]artnerships between business, NGOs, Governments, the United Nations and other actors.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These \u201cmulti-stakeholder partnerships\u201d are supposedly working to create global \u201cmacroeconomic stability\u201d as a prerequisite for the implementation of the SDGs. But, just like the term \u201cintergovernmental organisation,\u201d the meaning of \u201cmacroeconomic stability\u201d has also been transformed by the UN and its specialised agencies<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While macroeconomic stability used to mean \u201cfull employment and stable economic growth, accompanied by low inflation,\u201d the UN have announced<\/a> that isn\u2019t what it means today. Economic growth now has to be \u201csmart\u201d in order to meet SDG requirements<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Crucially, fiscal balance<\/a>\u2014the difference between a government\u2019s revenue and expenditure\u2014must accommodate \u201csustainable development\u201d by creating \u201cfiscal space.\u201d This effectively disassociates the term \u201cmacroeconomic stability\u201d from \u201creal economic activity.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The \u201ctransformative\u201d SDGs, Source: UN<\/strong><\/p>\n

Climate change is seen, not just as an environmental problem, but as a \u201cserious financial, economic and social problem.\u201d Therefore \u201cfiscal space\u201d must be engineered to finance the \u201cpolicy coordination and policy coherence\u201d needed to avert the prophesied disaster.<\/p>\n

The UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) notes that<\/a> \u201cfiscal space\u201d lacks a precise definition. While some economists define it simply as \u201cthe availability of budgetary room that allows a government to provide resources for a desired purpose,\u201d others express \u201cbudgetary room\u201d as a calculation based upon a countries debt-to-GDP ratio and \u201cprojected\u201d growth.<\/p>\n

UN-DESA suggests that \u201cfiscal space\u201d boils down to the estimated\u2014or projected\u2014\u201cdebt sustainability gap.\u201d This is defined as \u201cthe difference between a country\u2019s current debt level and its estimated sustainable debt level.\u201d<\/p>\n

No one knows what events may impact future economic growth. A pandemic or another war in Europe could severely restrict it, or cause a recession. The \u201cdebt sustainability gap\u201d is a theoretical concept based upon little more than wishful thinking.<\/p>\n

As such, this allows policy makers to adopt a malleable, and relatively arbitrary, interpretation of \u201cfiscal space.\u201d They can borrow to finance sustainable development spending, irrespective of real economic conditions.<\/p>\n

The primary objective of fiscal policy used to be to maintain employment and price stability and encourage economic growth through the equitable distribution of wealth and resources. It has been transformed by sustainable development. Now it aims to achieve \u201csustainable trajectories for revenues, expenditures, and deficits\u201d that emphasise \u201cfiscal space.\u201d<\/p>\n

If this necessitates increased taxation and\/or borrowing, so be it. Regardless of the impact this has on real economic activity, it\u2019s all fine because, according to<\/a> the World Bank:<\/p>\n

Debt is a critical form of financing for the sustainable development goals.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Spending deficits and increasing debt are not a problem because \u201cfailure to achieve sustainable development goals\u201d would be far more unacceptable and would increase debt even further. Any amount of sovereign debt can be heaped upon the taxpayer in order to protect us from the much more dangerous economic disaster that would allegedly befall us if the SDGs aren\u2019t quickly implemented.<\/p>\n

In other words, economic, financial and monetary crises will hardly be absent in the world of \u201csustainable development.\u201d The rationale outlined above will likely be used to justify such crises. This is the model envisioned by the UN and its \u201cmulti-stakeholder partners.\u201d For those behind the SDGs, the ends justify the means. Any travesty can be justified as long as it is committed in the name of \u201csustainability.\u201d<\/p>\n

We are faced with a global policy initiative, affecting every corner of our lives, based upon the logical fallacy of circular reasoning<\/a>. The effective destruction of society is necessary in order to protect us from something that we are told is to be much worse.<\/p>\n

Obedience is a virtue because, unless we adhere to the policy demands imposed upon us, and accept the costs, the climate disaster might come to pass.<\/p>\n

Armed with this knowledge, it becomes much easier to translate the convoluted UN-G3P word-salad and figure out what the UN actually means by the term \u201cSustainable Development\u201d:<\/p>\n

Governments will tax their populations, increasing deficits and national debt where necessary, to create financial slush funds that private multinational corporations, philanthropic foundations and NGOs can access in order to distribute their SDG compliance-based products, services and policy agendas. The new SDG markets will be protected by government sustainability legislation, which is designed by the same \u201cpartners\u201d who profit from and control the new global SDG-based economy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cGreen\u201d Debt Traps<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) headquarters building in Washington DC, Source: Brookings<\/strong><\/p>\n

Debt is specifically identified as a key component of SDG implementation, particularly in the developing world. In a 2018 paper<\/a> written by a joint World Bank-IMF team, it was noted on several occasions that \u201cdebt vulnerabilities\u201d in developing economies are being addressed by those financial institutions \u201cwithin the context of the global development agenda (e.g., SDGs).\u201d<\/p>\n

That same year, the World Bank and IMF\u2019s Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF) became operational. Per the World Bank, the DSF \u201callows creditors to tailor their financing terms in anticipation of future risks and helps countries balance the need for funds with the ability to repay their debts.\u201d It also \u201cguides countries in supporting the SDGs, when their ability to service debt is limited.\u201d<\/p>\n

Expressed differently, if countries cannot pay the debt they incur through IMF loans and World Bank (and associated Multilateral Development Bank) financing, they will be offered options to \u201crepay\u201d their debt through implementing SDG-related policies. However, as future instalments of this series will show, many of these options supposedly tailored to SDG implementation actually follow the \u201cdebt for land swap\u201d model (now re-tooled as \u201cdebt for conservation swaps<\/a>\u201d or \u201cdebt for climate swaps<\/a>\u201d) that precede the SDGs and Agenda 2030 by a number of years. This model essentially enables land grabs and land\/natural resource theft on a scale never before seen in human history.<\/p>\n

Since their creation in the aftermath of World War II, both the World Bank and IMF have historically used debt to force countries, mostly in the developing world, to adopt policies that favour the global power structure. This was made explicit in a leaked US Army document<\/a> written in 2008, which states that these institutions are used as unconventional, financial \u201cweapons in times of conflict up to and including large-scale general war\u201d and as \u201cweapons\u201d in terms of influencing \u201cthe policies and cooperation of state governments.\u201d The document notes that these institutions in particular have a \u201clong history of conducting economic warfare valuable to any ARSOF [Army Special Operations Forces] UW [Unconventional Warfare] campaign.\u201d<\/p>\n

The document further notes<\/a> that these \u201cfinancial weapons\u201d can be used by the US military to create \u201cfinancial incentives or disincentives to persuade adversaries, allies and surrogates to modify their behavior at the theater strategic, operational, and tactical levels.\u201d Further, these unconventional warfare campaigns are highly coordinated with the State Department and the Intelligence Community in determining \u201cwhich elements of the human terrain in UWOA [Unconventional Warfare Operations Area] are most susceptible to financial engagement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Notably, the World Bank and the IMF are listed as both Financial Instruments and Diplomatic Instruments of US National Power as well as integral parts of what the manual calls the \u201ccurrent global governance system.\u201d<\/p>\n

While they were once \u201cfinancial weapons\u201d to be wielded by the Anglo-American Empire, the current shifts in the \u201cglobal governance system\u201d also herald a shift in who is able to weaponize the World Bank and IMF for their explicit benefit. As the sun sets on the imperial, \u201cunipolar\u201d model and the dawn of a \u201cmultipolar\u201d world order is upon us. The World Bank and IMF have already been brought under the control of a new international power structure following the creation of the UN-backed Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) in 2021.<\/p>\n

At the COP26 conference that same year, GFANZ announced plans<\/a> to overhaul the role of the World Bank and IMF specifically as part of a broader plan aimed at \u201ctransforming\u201d the global financial system. This was made explicit by GFANZ principal and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink during a COP26 panel<\/a>, where he specified the plan to overhaul these institutions, saying:<\/p>\n

If we\u2019re going to be serious about climate change in the emerging world, we\u2019re going to have to really focus on the reimagination of the World Bank and the IMF.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

GFANZ\u2019s plans to \u201creimagine\u201d these international financial institutions involve merging them with the private-banking interests that compose GFANZ; creating a new system of \u201cglobal financial governance\u201d; and eroding national sovereignty (particularly in the developing world) by forcing them to establish business environments deemed friendly to the interests of GFANZ members.<\/p>\n

As noted in a previous Unlimited Hangout<\/em> report<\/a>, GFANZ seeks to use the World Bank and related institutions \u201cto globally impose massive and extensive deregulation on developing countries by using the decarbonization push as justification. No longer must MDBs [multilateral development banks] entrap developing nations in debt to force policies that benefit foreign and multinational private-sector entities, as climate change-related justification can now be used for the same ends.\u201d<\/p>\n

GFANZ Progress Report, November 2021<\/a> – Download<\/a><\/h3>\n

Debt remains the main weapon in the arsenal of the World Bank and IMF, and will be used for the same \u201cimperial\u201d ends, only now with different benefactors and a different array of policies to impose on their prey \u2013 the SDGs.<\/p>\n

The UN\u2019s Quiet Revolution<\/strong><\/h2>\n

GFANZ is a significant driver of \u201csustainable development.\u201d It is, nonetheless, just one of many SDG related \u201cpublic-private partnerships.\u201d The GFANZ website states<\/a>:<\/p>\n

GFANZ provides a forum for leading financial institutions to accelerate the transition to a net-zero global economy. Our members currently include more than 450 member firms from across the global financial sector, representing more than $130 trillion in assets under management.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

GFANZ is formed from a number<\/a> of \u201calliances.\u201d The banks, asset managers, asset owners, insurers, financial service providers and investment consultancies each have their own global partnership networks that collectively contribute to the GFANZ forum.<\/p>\n

For example, the UN\u2019s Net Zero Banking Alliance<\/a> affords Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan, HSBC and others the opportunity to pursue their ideas through the GFANZ forum. They are among the key \u201cstakeholders\u201d in the SDG transformation.<\/p>\n

In order to \u201caccelerate the transition,\u201d the GFANZ forum\u2019s \u201cCall to Action\u201d empowers these multinational corporations to stipulate specific policy requests<\/a>. They have decided that governments should adopt \u201ceconomy-wide net-zero targets.\u201d Governments also need to:<\/p>\n

[R]eform [. . . ] financial regulations to support the net zero transition; phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies; pric[e] carbon emissions; mandat[e] net zero transition plans and [set] climate reporting for public and private enterprises by 2024<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

All of this is necessary, we are told, to avert the \u201cclimate disaster\u201d that might happen one day. Therefore, this \u201cglobal financial governance\u201d policy agenda is simply unavoidable and we should allow private (and historically predatory) financial institutions to create policy aimed at de-regulating the very markets in which they operate. After all, the \u201crace to Net Zero\u201d must happen at break-neck speed and, per GFANZ, the only way to \u201cwin\u201d involves scaling \u201cprivate capital flows to emerging and developing economies\u201d like never before. Were the flow of this \u201cprivate capital\u201d to be impeded by existing regulations or other obstacles, it would surely spell planetary destruction.<\/p>\n

King Charles III, explained the new global SDG economy<\/a> that will relegate elected governments to \u201cenabling partners.\u201d Then titled Prince Charles, speaking at COP26, in preparation for the GFANZ announcement, he said:<\/p>\n

My plea today is for countries to come together to create the environment that enables every sector of industry to take the action required. We know this will take trillions, not billions of dollars. We also know that countries, many of whom are burdened by growing levels of debt, simply cannot afford to go green. Here we need a vast military style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector, with trillions at its disposal far beyond global GDP, [. . .] beyond even the governments of the world\u2019s leaders. It offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Just as the alleged urgency to implement the SDGs exonerates public policy makers, it also lets the private sector, that drives the antecedent policy agendas, off the hook. The fact that the debt they collectively create primarily benefits private capital is just a coincidence; an allegedly inescapable, consequence of creating the \u201cfiscal space\u201d needed to deliver \u201csustainable development.\u201d<\/p>\n

The UN\u2019s increasing reliance upon these \u201cmulti-stakeholder partnerships\u201d is the result of the \u201cquiet revolution\u201d that occurred in the UN during the 1990s. In 1998, then UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan,<\/a> told the World Economic Forum\u2019s Davos symposium:<\/p>\n

The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world. [. . .] We also promote private sector development and foreign direct investment. We help countries to join the international trading system and enact business-friendly legislation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Kofi Annan, Secretary-General, United Nations (1997 \u2013 2006) is a member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum and Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum on Africa. Here, he speaks at the Opening Plenary on Africa and the New Global Economy at the World Economic Forum on Africa 2009 in Cape Town, South Africa, Source: WEF<\/strong><\/p>\n

The 2017 UN General Assembly Resolution 70\/224<\/a> (A\/Res\/70\/224) decreed that the UN would work \u201ctirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda [Agenda 2030]\u201d through the global dissemination of \u201cconcrete policies and actions.\u201d<\/p>\n

In keeping with Annan\u2019s admission, these enacted policies and actions are designed, via \u201cglobal financial governance,\u201d to be \u201cbusiness-friendly.\u201d<\/p>\n

A\/Res\/70\/224 added that the UN would maintain:<\/p>\n

The strong political commitment to address the challenge of financing and creating an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development. [. . .] [P]articularly with regard to developing partnerships through the provision of greater opportunities to the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society in general [. . .], in particular in the pursuit of sustainable development [SDGs].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This \u201cenabling environment\u201d is synonymous with the \u201cfiscal space\u201d demanded by the World Bank and other UN specialised agencies. The term also makes an appearance<\/a> in the GFANZ progress report, which states that the World Bank and Multilateral Development Banks should be used to prompt developing nations \u201cto create the right high-level, cross-cutting enabling environments\u201d for alliance members\u2019 investments in those nations.<\/p>\n

This concept was firmly established in 2015 at the Adis Ababa Action Agenda<\/a> conference on \u201cfinancing for development.\u201d The gathered delegates from 193 UN nation states committed their respective populations to an ambitious financial investment programme to pay for sustainable development.<\/p>\n

They collectively agreed to create:<\/p>\n

\u2026an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development; [. . .] to further strengthen the framework to finance sustainable development.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The \u201cenabling environment\u201d is a government, and therefore taxpayer-funded commitment to SDGs. Annan\u2019s successor and the 9th Secretary General of the UN, Ant\u00f3nio Guterres, authorised a 2017 report<\/a> on A\/Res\/70\/224 which read:<\/p>\n

The United Nations must urgently rise to the challenge of unlocking the full potential of collaboration with the private sector and other partners. [. . .] [T]he United Nations system recognizes the need to further pivot towards partnerships that more effectively leverage private sector resources and expertise. The United Nations is also seeking to play a stronger catalytic role in sparking a new wave of financing and innovation needed to achieve the Goals [SDGs].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While called an intergovernmental organisation, the UN is not just a collaboration between governments. Some might reasonably argue that it never was.<\/p>\n

The UN was created, in no small measure, thanks to the efforts of the private sector and the \u201cphilanthropic\u201d arms of oligarchs. For instance, the Rockefeller Foundation\u2019s<\/a> (RF\u2019s) comprehensive financial and operational support for the Economic, Financial and Transit Department (EFTD) of the League of Nations (LoN), and its considerable influence upon the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), arguably made the RF the key player in the transition of the LoN into the UN.<\/p>\n

In addition, the Rockefeller family, which has long promoted \u201cinternationalist\u201d policies that expand and entrench global governance, donated the land<\/a> on which the UN\u2019s headquarters<\/a> in New York sits, among other sizeable donations to the UN over the years. It should come as little surprise that the UN is particularly fond of one of their main donors and has long partnered<\/a> with the RF and praised the organisation as a model for \u201cglobal philanthropy.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The five Rockefeller brothers. Left to right: David, Winthrop, John D Rockefeller III, Nelson and Laurance, source: World Finance<\/strong><\/p>\n

The UN was essentially founded upon a public-private partnership model. In 2000, the Executive Committee of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) published Private Sector Involvement and Cooperation with the United Nations System<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The United Nations and the private sector have always had extensive commercial links through the procurement activities of the former. [. . .] The United Nations market provides a springboard for a company to introduce its goods and services to other countries and regions. [. . .] The private sector has also long participated, directly or indirectly, in the normative and standard-setting work of the United Nations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Being able to influence, not only government procurement, but also the development of new global markets and the regulation of the same is, obviously, an extremely attractive proposition for multinational corporations and investors. Unsurprisingly, UN projects that utilise the \u201cpublic-private\u201d model are the favoured approach of the world\u2019s leading capitalists. For instance, it has long been the favoured model of the Rockefeller family<\/a>, who often finance such projects through their respective philanthropic foundations.<\/p>\n

In the years since its inception, public-private partnerships have expanded to become dominant within the UN system, particularly with regard to \u201csustainable development.\u201d Successive Secretary Generals have overseen the UN\u2019s formal transition into the United Nations\u2019 Global Public-Private Partnership<\/a> (UN-G3P).<\/p>\n

As a result of this transformation, the role of nation state governments at the UN has also changed dramatically. For instance, in 2005, the World Health Organisation (WHO), another specialised agency of the UN, published a report on the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in healthcare titled Connecting for Health<\/a>. Speaking about how \u201cstakeholders\u201d could introduce ICT healthcare solutions globally, the WHO noted:<\/p>\n

Governments can create an enabling environment, and invest in equity, access and innovation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As King Charles III noted last year in Glasgow, governments of \u201cdemocratic\u201d nation have been given the role of \u201cenabling\u201d partners. Their job is to create the fiscal environment in which their private sector partners operate. Sustainability policies are developed by a global network comprised of governments, multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations and \u201cother actors.\u201d<\/p>\n

The \u201cother actors\u201d are predominantly the philanthropic foundations of individual billionaires and immensely wealthy family dynasties, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates (BMGF) or the Rockefeller Foundations. Collectively, these \u201cactors\u201d constitute the \u201cmulti-stakeholder partnership.\u201d<\/p>\n

During the pseudopandemic<\/a>, many came to acknowledge the influence of the BMGF over the WHO, but they are just one of many other private foundations that are also valued UN \u201cstakeholders.\u201d<\/p>\n

The UN is, itself, a global collaboration between governments and a multinational infra-governmental network of private \u201cstakeholders.\u201d The foundations, NGOs, civil society organisations and global corporations represent an infra-governmental network of stakeholders, just as powerful, if not more so, than any power block of nation states.<\/p>\n

Public-Private Partnership: An Ideology<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The UN and the WEF, which bills itself as the premier global promoter of public-private partnerships, signed a strategic framework in June 2019, Source: WEF<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2016, UN-DESA published a working paper investigating the value of public-private partnerships (G3Ps) for achieving the SDGs. The lead author, Jomo KS, was the Assistant Secretary General in the United Nations system responsible for economic research (2005-2015).<\/p>\n

UN-DESA broadly found that G3Ps, in their current form, were not fit for purpose<\/a>:<\/p>\n

[C]laims of reduced cost and efficient delivery of services through [G3Ps] to save tax payers money and benefit consumers were mostly empty and [. . .] ideological assertions. [. . ] [G3P] projects were more costly to build and finance, provided poorer quality services and were less accessible [. . .] Moreover, many essential services were less accountable to citizens when private corporations were involved. [. . .] Investors in [G3Ps] face a relatively benign risk [. . .] penalty clauses for non-delivery by private partners are less than rigorous, the study questioned whether risk was really being transferred to the private partners in these projects. [. . .] [T]he evidence suggests that [G3Ps] have often tended to be more expensive than the alternative of public procurement while in a number of instances they have failed to deliver the envisaged gains in quality of service provision.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Citing the work of Whitfield (2010)<\/a>, which examined G3Ps in Europe, North America, Australia, Russia, China, India and Brazil, UN-DESA noted that these led to \u201cthe buying and selling schools and hospitals like commodities in a global supermarket.\u201d<\/p>\n

The UN-DESA reports also reminded the UN\u2019s G3P enthusiasts that numerous intergovernmental organisations had found G3Ps wanting:<\/p>\n

Evaluations done by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Investment Bank (EIB) \u2013 the organizations normally promoting [G3Ps] \u2013 have found a number of cases where [G3Ps] did not yield the expected outcome and resulted in a significant rise in government fiscal liabilities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Little has changed since 2016 and yet the UN-G3P insist that public-private partnership is the only way to achieve SDGs. Ignoring the assessment from its own investigators, In General Assembly Resolution 74\/2<\/a> (A\/Res\/74\/2) the UN declared:<\/p>\n

[UN member states] Recognize the need for strong global, regional and national partnerships for Sustainable Development Goals, which engage all relevant stakeholders to collaboratively support the efforts of Member States to achieve health-related Sustainable Development Goals, including universal health coverage [UHC2030] [. . .] the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders is one of the core components of health system governance. [. . . ] [We] Reaffirm General Assembly resolution 69\/313 [. . .] to address the challenge of financing and creating an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development. [We will] provide [. . .] sustainable finances, while improving their effectiveness [. . .] through domestic, bilateral, regional and multilateral channels, including partnerships with the private sector and other relevant stakeholders.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This UN commitment to global public-private partnership is an \u201cideological assertion\u201d and is not based upon the available evidence. In order for G3Ps to actually function as claimed, UN-DESA stipulated that a number of structural changes would need to be put in place first.<\/p>\n

These included careful identification of where a G3P could work. UN-DESA found that G3Ps may be suited to some infrastructure projects but were damaging to projects dealing with public health, education or the environment.<\/p>\n

The UN researchers stated that diligent oversight and regulation of pricing and the alleged transfer of risk would be required; comprehensive and transparent fiscal accounting systems were needed; better reporting standards should be developed and rigorous legal and regulatory safeguards were necessary.<\/p>\n

None of the required structural or policy changes recommended in the UN-DESA 2016 report have been implemented.<\/p>\n

Sustainability for whom?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Agenda 2030 marks the waypoint along the path to Agenda 21<\/a>. Publicly launched at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, Section 8 explained how \u201csustainable development\u201d would be integrated into decision making:<\/p>\n

The primary need is to integrate environmental and developmental decision-making processes. [. . .] Countries will develop their own priorities in accordance with their national plans, policies and programmes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sustainable development has been integrated with every policy decision. Not only does every country have a national sustainability plan, these have devolved to local government.<\/p>\n

It is a global strategy to extend the reach of global financial institutions into every corner of the economy and society. Policy will be controlled by the bankers and the think-tanks that infiltrated<\/a> the environmental movement decades ago.<\/p>\n

No community is free of \u201cglobal financial governance.\u201d<\/p>\n

Simply put, sustainable development supplants decision making at the national and local level with global governance. It is an ongoing, and thus far successful, global coup.<\/p>\n

But more than this, it is a system for global control. Those of us who live in developed nations will have our behaviour changed as a psychological and economic war is waged against us to force our compliance.<\/p>\n

Developing nations will be kept in penury as the fruits of modern industrial and technological development are denied to them. Instead they will be burdened with the debt foisted upon them by the global centres of financial power, their resources pillaged, their land stolen and their assets seized \u2013 all in the name of \u201csustainability.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet it is perhaps the financialisation of nature, inherent to sustainable development, that is the greatest danger of all. The creation of natural asset classes, converting forests into carbon sequestration initiatives and water sources into human settlement services. As subsequent instalments of this series will show, several SDGs have financialising nature at their core.<\/p>\n

As openly stated by the UN, \u201csustainable development\u201d is all about transformation, not necessarily \u201csustainability\u201d as most people conceive of it. It aims to transform the Earth and everything on it, including us, into commodities \u2013 the trading of which will form the basis of a new global economy. Though it is being sold to us as \u201csustainable,\u201d the only thing this new global financial system will \u201csustain\u201d is the power of a predatory financial elite.<\/p>\n

_____________________________________________-<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Iain Davis is an independent investigative journalist, author and blogger from the UK. His focus is upon widening readers awareness of evidence that the so-called mainstream media won’t report. A frequent contributor to <\/em>UK Column, Iain’s work has been featured by the <\/em>OffGuardian, Corbett Report, Technocracy News, Lew-Rockwell and other independent news outlets. You can read more of his work on his blog<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for <\/em>Mint Press News. She currently writes for <\/em>The Last American Vagabond.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Go to Original – unlimitedhangout.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

13 Sep 2022 – How the UN\u2019s \u201csustainable development\u201d policies, the SDGs, do not promote \u201csustainability,\u201d as most conceive of it, but instead utilize the same debt imperialism long used by the Anglo-American empire to entrap nations in a new, equally predatory system of global financial governance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":220263,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[232,550,563,354,555,562,626,1966,1050,610,2198,2060,1714,647,1213,330,124,1160],"class_list":["post-220259","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-capitalism","tag-capitalism","tag-corruption","tag-debt","tag-economics","tag-elites","tag-finance","tag-greed","tag-hunger","tag-imperialism","tag-inequality","tag-post-capitalism","tag-profits","tag-right-to-food","tag-slavery","tag-super-rich","tag-sustainability","tag-united-nations","tag-world-order"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220259","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=220259"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220259\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":284596,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220259\/revisions\/284596"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/220263"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}