Corporations Poised to Take-Over the UN

In yet another WEF-fuelled move, Secretary-General Guterres aims to do the mega-corporations' bidding at the UN 'Summit for the Future' in Sept. 2024

Editorial note: for a German version, please venture over to tkp.at.

---

Planning documents for UN ‘reforms’ point in a clear direction: more power for transnational corporations (‘locusts’), more influence for high finance. After the ‘penetration of government cabinets’ (Klaus Schwab) by the acolytes of the World Economic Forum, ‘Davos’ is now targeting the UN headquarters.

More or less justified calls for ‘reforms’ of the United Nations are almost as old as the institution itself, which was founded in San Francisco in 1945. Created to avoid a third world war, such demands have been increasing not least since the outbreak of hostilities between Russia and of Ukraine on 24 Feb. 2022 greatly increased.

In September 2024, the UN will hold a ‘Summit for the Future’, which is described as

a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enhance cooperation on critical challenges and address gaps in global governance, reaffirm existing commitments including to the Sustainable Development Goals and the United Nations Charter, and move towards a reinvigorated multilateral system that is better positioned to positively impact people’s lives.

Never Let a UN Crisis Go to Waste

For some, it is an opportunity to ‘adjust’ the world order that was laid down in 1945 and modified in the 1970s through the ‘swapping’ of Taiwan with the People’s Republic of China in the Security Council.

This is appropriate, not least because of the massive economic changes of the past few decades—the relative decline of the G7 vs. the rise of China, Africa, to cite but a few issues—but unavoidable because of their implications for real politics (Realpolitik). Japan has already tabled a motion to permanently anchor Africa’s voice in the Security Council.

The ambition of the current Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, is clearly recognisable under the above-cited link, which, however, is deemed ‘ill-conceived and underwhelming’, according to Harris Gleckman from the Transnational Institute and collaborator at the University of Boston, Massachusetts:

Instead of expanding access to the UN system to communities of people impacted by today’s crises, it gives more influence and power to corporate actors who are most culpable of bringing us to the precipice of ecological and social disaster.

‘Multi-Stakeholder Governance’ as a Trojan Horse

The General Secretariat’s approach—dubbed ‘multi-stakeholder governance’—will drastically increase the influence of big business and high finance. The beneficiaries of such reforms are quickly identified: the asset management groups Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard, and a number of other corporations, whose representatives can all be found in Davos every year, working ‘behind the scenes’ clamouring for a ‘return on investment’ and ‘investor rights’ to take precedence over social and ecological considerations.

In practical terms, ‘multi-stakeholder governance’ means that CEOs bring together friendly groups from so-called ‘civil society’, governments, academics, UN staff, and other non-governmental organisations to make all decisions beforehand. A vote, for example in the UN General Assembly, would only be a formality, ultimately proving to be nothing more than an elaborate and costly smoke screen.

Consequently, this will ‘marginalise over two-thirds of the nations of the UN’, concludes Gleckman.

Big Business and High Finance Poised to Take Over

According to the planning documents of the UN General Secretariat, the role of national governments in the UN would be diluted by the de facto addition of corporation-led bodies with at least equal rights. The implications range from enormous to unspeakable, because it’s not as if the big business and high finance don’t already have an inappropriately large influence on the respective national governments—and the EU.

According to Guterres’ intentions, big business and high finance should soon take over decision-making powers in the United Nations over almost everything from the oceans to the financial markets. In a nutshell: if the UN reform goes through as planned, it will soon be ‘normal’, for example, for an oil and gas company to enjoy a privileged voice in decisions about the provision of energy—worldwide, legally binding, and with full immunity regarding any conflicts of interest.

‘Stakeholders’ to Seize the Means of Power

Possibly the most absurd—and at the same time worrying—change is that Guterres’ ‘future vision’ does not envisage new intergovernmental negotiations to deal with current debates.

Let this sink in for a moment: the permanent administration of a nation-state-founded, intergovernmental institution seeks to disempower the governments of those member states, as Gleckman puts it bluntly (my emphasis):

Governments, as representatives of their citizens, take the final decisions on global issues and direct international organisations to implement these decisions. This proposed new system would make ‘stakeholders’ the main players.

But who exactly is a ‘stakeholder’ and why? There are countless possible stakeholder categories. At last year’s multistakeholder Food System Summit, organised out of the Office of the Secretary-General, for example, the ‘stakeholders’ were large agribusinesses, data management firms and commodity dealers, not the six billion people who actually need the food or their local representatives or civil society advocates.

‘The womb is fertile still, which bore this fruit’

Much of this thinking goes back to the 2010 World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Redesign Initiative report, which proposed such a shift in global governance.

Note that the linked PDF is no longer available; although I haven't got hold of it (yet?), here is at least a report from Qatar about that meeting.

In the ‘Internet Archive’ you will also find part of this meeting as a video recording; here is also the link to the WEF press release .

Unsurprisingly, both the WEF and the UN General Secretariat are of the opinion that nation-states alone cannot solve the most important problems of ‘global governance’. The announced ‘solution’ is—more power for the big corporations and high finance.

After Klaus Schwab placed his acolytes in the government cabinets for decades, according to the WEF, the latter are no longer able to act. Therefore, if you follow this ‘logic’, those actors who are largely responsible for the loss of state power—big business and high finance—should now take over and safe the day.

In my workplace, this is called ‘circular reasoning’. At this point it should also be mentioned that there exists no compelling evidence of the ‘competences’ of big business and high finance to actually deliver any workable solution: if the state were to withdraw various ‘funds’ and ‘protective measures’ for big business and high finance, for example, a good part of the so-called ‘private sector’ would hardly survive long (of which small and medium-sized companies are only partially excluded, as evidenced by the beneficiaries of municipal contracts).

MO = Politics by Press Release, UN-WEF Edition

In 2021, the World Economic Forum and the UN General Secretariat entered into a ‘strategic partnership’ which, not coincidentally, has not been made public by the UN or presented to the General Assembly for discussion.

Appropriately, the linked article leads to a press release from the WEF, whereby ‘international’ politics merely reproduces what became the preferred modus operandi for state-based governance during the so-called “corona pandemic”: political goals are no longer prepared in committees, discussed in several public readings, debated in parliament, and finally put to the vote. The powers-that-be condescendingly inform ‘the rabble’ of any results during press briefings in front of an assembled coterie of sycophants from legacy media.

Governments and states are to be pushed out of the decision-making process step by step, and their powers are to be handed over to brand-new, corporate-controlled institutions. In these bodies, big business and high finance are to be given a de facto say in global politics that have a massive impact on all people and our planet.

Thirty Pieces of Silver For the Few, Fascism for the Many

For decades, big business and high finance have gaslit the world with claims of being more efficient than everyone else, especially government institutions. Regardless of the hypothetical nature of such pronouncements, these tendencies have resulted primarily in starved public administrations in industrialised countries and rapidly increasing debt burdens in developing countries, to say nothing of almost universal cultural impoverishment.

Now comes the next major onslaught by big business and high finance, who are ultimately the only real beneficiaries of these proposed changes. In return for their ‘participation’ in the global ‘decision-making processes’, the political showmen can look forward to lucrative engagements in the ‘philanthropic’ (by nature tax-privileged) foundations of the billionaires.

If one follows these considerations, this means the end of sovereignty as it currently exists. If non-state actors now act de facto on an equal footing with states, this undermines state responsibilities, obligations (e.g., unemployment benefits), and liabilities (esp. pension funds), since these new actors are not burdened by such legal requirements. On this Gleckman writes, again with my emphasis, that

Multistakeholder groups and their corporate participants get to choose which policy issues they want to participate in, picking and choosing the ones likely to generate a profit, reduce the rate of return or which may limit the continued acceptance of globalisation. When they do get involved in the governance of a certain issue, they act in such a way as to narrow the range of policy decisions to only those that are compatible with a commercial return. Needless to say, this is not always aligned with the public good.

Resistance is Mounting in the ‘Global South’

While the United Nations are creating the agenda for the coming decades in lockstep with big business and high finance, resistance is stirring, at least in the Global South. Represented by the G-77, it is intended that their voices will be heard at the forthcoming ‘UN Summit on Sustainable Development Goals’ to take place in September 2023 and the UN Future Summit a year later.

However, while the UN Secretariat-General originally proposed that the multi-stakeholder future summit in September 2023 merely endorsed the Secretary-General’s ‘reform concept’, in late 2022 a coalition of developing countries intervened to shift planning and decision-making to the General Assembly and stop the transfer of power to multi-stakeholders, at least for the time being.

It was also decided to suspend preparations for the time being, albeit with the argument that the UN must first concentrate on implementing the existing but stalled ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ this year.

Thanks to effective lobbying and ongoing pressure from activists and scientists, the G-77 countries are still—for the time being (?)—defending themselves against the looming global seizure of power by big business and high finance.

The UN Summit on ‘Sustainable Development’ will take place on 18-19. Sept. 2023 in New York. High time to observe this closely – you can find out more about it here.