UNITED NATIONS — Governments and dictators from around the world gathered in New York City for the UN Summit of the Future on September 22 and adopted a sprawling agreement to expand and further empower the United Nations. The controversial declaration approved by the UN General Assembly, known as the “Pact for the Future,” is seen by the UN and its member governments as a great leap forward for the cause of globalism. Legal experts are sounding the alarm about its significance, with one leading international law professor warning of an effort to create “a totalitarian, worldwide police state.” And opposition is growing quickly.
The shortest way to summarize the goal of the scheme: It is designed to transform the UN into “UN 2.0,” as top leaders of the organization put it. Whereas once the UN was supposed to be merely about keeping “peace” among nations — at least that is how it was marketed to humanity — the Pact for the Future and associated UN agreements make clear that the organization now has far grander ambitions. From education, health, and the environment, to the economy and even emergency management, the UN wants a much larger role.
In the United States, at least, lawmakers, governors, and grassroots leaders are growing increasingly restless about what they perceive as a historic power grab. However, as The New American questioned attendees at the UN summit, it was clear that many of them were on edge as Donald Trump, a historic and self-proclaimed nemesis of globalism, prepared for a possible return to the White House. Those asked about it recoiled in horror at the prospect.
Officials at the summit were giddy thinking about the new order they were building. UN General Assembly President Philemon Yang of Cameroon claimed the new UN deal would “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order — for all peoples and nations.” Other leaders of the organization and an endless parade of “world leaders” — including senior officials from mass-murdering communist regimes such as the one ruling over mainland China — echoed the sentiment.
According to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, former leader of the world’s preeminent alliance of socialist and communist political parties known as the Socialist International, the UN Summit of the Future was a major deal. It represented, he said, “an essential first step towards making global institutions more legitimate, effective, and fit for the world of today and tomorrow.” Bringing globalism “back from the brink” was a key theme and talking point throughout.
Globalism on the March
Of course, empowering the UN was always on the agenda of its founders, even if they kept mostly silent about it at its inception. U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, a co-founder of the globalist Deep State outfit known as the Council on Foreign Relations, was instrumental in setting up the UN, even serving as a delegate in the process. After the organization’s founding, Dulles revealed the endgame in his 1950 book War or Peace.
“The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization,” Dulles wrote. “I have never seen any proposal made for collective security with ‘teeth’ in it, or for ‘world government’ or for ‘world federation,’ which could not be carried out either by the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter.”
That is exactly what is taking place. “Transforming” (read: empowering) the UN with vast new authorities and responsibilities was one of the major focuses of the massive gathering and is woven into the pact. “We can’t create a future fit for our grandchildren with systems built for our grandparents,” explained Guterres, a line that was printed out on giant signs throughout UN headquarters, giving critical talking points not just to his minions but also to propagandists posing as “journalists” from all over the world.
Among the many proposals aimed at centralizing power and facilitating action is a vow in the pact to “reform” the powerful UN Security Council. The body, which has five veto-wielding permanent members, including the United States, purports to have the authority to make binding decisions, including the deployment of military “peace” forces. Eventually, the goal is to eliminate the veto power of the permanent members while adding new members, including governments from Africa, Latin America, and Asia.
The final agreement adopted at the Summit of the Future formalizes the push for more “global governance” with the backing of virtually every national government and dictatorship on Earth. “We recognize that the multilateral system and its institutions, with the United Nations and its Charter at the center, must be strengthened to keep pace with a changing world,” reads the Pact for the Future.
“We renew our commitment to multilateralism and international cooperation,” the pact adds, one of countless references to the supposed need to work through “multilateral” institutions and programs to save humanity and the planet. “We will transform global governance and strengthen the multilateral system.”
Only more globalism can handle the real and imagined problems facing humanity, according to the document. A “recommitment to international cooperation based on respect for international law,” the pact says, is “required,” with the term “international cooperation,” like “multilateralism,” serving as a synonym for globalism. “This is not an option but a necessity,” it continues, suggesting the views of voters and taxpayers matter little.
In fact, the agreement specifically claims that nations and their governments cannot possibly handle the alleged problems that face humanity without the UN. “Our challenges are deeply interconnected and far exceed the capacity of any single State alone,” the pact states, a reformulated version of the “global problems require global solutions” mantra. “They can only be addressed collectively, through strong and sustained international cooperation.”
The term “global governance,” often used as a less-ominous placeholder for “global government,” is mentioned repeatedly throughout the document, always as something positive to be advanced. Under the heading “Transforming global governance,” for instance, the pact calls for a dramatic expansion of these mechanisms for governing all of humanity.
“Today, our multilateral system, constructed in the aftermath of the Second World War, is under unprecedented strain,” the pact says, pointing to supposed (and undefined) “remarkable achievements” over the last 80 years. “But we are not complacent about the future of our international order, and we know that it cannot stand still.”
One of the institutions that receives a shoutout is the would-be global supreme court known as the “International Court of Justice,” often ridiculed by critics as a “kangaroo court.” “We will fulfil our obligation to comply with the decisions and uphold the mandate of the International Court of Justice,” the pact states.
Another area where the UN hopes to expand its power is on taxation, vowing to “explore options” for “international cooperation” on taxes and on taxing “high net worth” individuals. “We are committed to strengthening the inclusiveness and effectiveness of tax cooperation at the United Nations,” the deal explains, one of many efforts to eventually implement global taxation under whatever pretext.
Ultimately, though, globalism must expand across the board. “We will take action to strengthen and reinvigorate multilateralism and deepen international cooperation,” it continues, offering “unwavering commitment to international law” for dealing with supposed challenges. “A transformation in global governance is essential to ensure that the positive progress we have seen across all three pillars of the work of the United Nations in recent decades does not unravel. We will not allow this to happen.”
Controlling the Narrative
However, as highlighted by The New American in a September 23 online article, the UN recognizes that humanity — and especially American taxpayers, who pay the bulk of the bills — is growing weary of the UN. “We must renew trust in global institutions by making them more representative of and responsive to today’s world and more effective at delivering on the commitments that we have made to one another and our people,” the agreement reads.
One of the major tools to help the UN “renew” trust in globalism is controlling information, as the pact makes clear. It calls on governments to “address” so-called “disinformation, misinformation, hate speech and content inciting harm, including content disseminated through digital platforms.” Of course, “hate speech” was a term introduced into the UN lexicon by the mass-murdering Soviet dictatorship to describe speech it hated.
“We will work together to promote information integrity, tolerance and respect in the digital space,” governments vow in the UN agreement, followed by a dizzying array of actions they intend to take. “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.”
It is not just about restricting information that counters the UN narrative. A confidential memo sent to communications executives across the UN system earlier this year and obtained by The New American included provisions on how to propagandize humanity on the Summit of the Future and its agenda. “The Summit of the Future is a pivotal moment on our agenda,” the memo said, adding that the UN Department of Global Communications “wants to make sure we take the media with us — starting with briefs on specific parts of the agenda.”
“The Summit will have a narrative and key message booklet to help staff understand how to communicate on the issues,” it added. “There is an increasingly large group of people who are mobilizing to get past cynicism, but some of the issues are hard to sell. Making multilateralism work is something we should sell. Advertising agencies are happy to help — we should consider how we can ‘flood the internet’ with positive, factual campaigns.”
One way the UN has worked to “flood the internet” with its propaganda is by partnering with Google to hide information contrary to its narratives, especially on issues such as climate. In 2022, at a World Economic Forum sustainability event, UN Under-Secretary-General for Communications Melissa Fleming boasted of 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.”
Asked by The New American after a panel on “freedom of the press” about how the UN and Google determine what information to conceal from humanity, Fleming refused to answer. “Sorry — I’m sorry, I’m not sure who you are; we can’t do this right now,” she said as her aides swooped in to prevent further questions while Fleming proceeded to talk to other journalists. The full video of the interaction is available at thenewamerican.com/tag/un-summit-of-the-future/.
Power Grabs & Human Rights
One of the major power grabs in the final agreement inked this weekend involves the UN response to what it describes as “complex global shocks.” These could be anything from “climate” issues or economic problems to environmental crises or even unpredictable “black swan” events, according to UN officials.
Under a proposal outlined in a policy brief dubbed “Our Common Future” released by UN boss Guterres last year, Guterres himself would essentially become a global dictator to deal with real or imagined international emergencies, declared at his sole discretion. The proposal called for nations, businesses, and all sectors of society to recognize the “primary role of intergovernmental organs [such as UN agencies] in decision-making.”
While the final agreement does not contain everything he asked for, it does provide a “mandate” from member states for Guterres to pursue the agenda vigorously. “We recognize the need for a more coherent, cooperative, coordinated and multidimensional international response to complex global shocks and the central role of the United Nations in this regard,” the pact declares, calling on Guterres to devise new ways to “strengthen the United Nations system response to complex global shocks.”
A key theme of the pact is reaffirming commitments to previous UN agreements and schemes such as the UN’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” a tool of tyrants aiming to replace the U.S. understanding of God-given unalienable rights with UN-granted revocable privileges.
In particular, the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a recipe for global tyranny adopted in 2015 as the “master plan for humanity,” is a focal point of the new deal. “We reaffirm our enduring commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals,” the new agreement states, vowing to “urgently accelerate” its implementation with “concrete political steps” and more tax money.
As part of that, the UN claims it needs virtually limitless amounts of power and money to do everything from “eradicat[ing] poverty” and “eliminat[ing] food insecurity,” to dealing with alleged man-made “climate change” and reducing “inequality” both “within” and “among” countries. Ironically, as this magazine has documented, many of the real and imagined evils the UN pretends to fight were created or worsened by UN policies or those of its member states.
The deal also vows that governments will subject all children on earth to a “quality” and “equitable” so-called education, with the key terms left undefined. Based on the array of UN agreements and policies dealing with education, though, the UN has a very different vision of what constitutes a “quality” education than, say, an American Christian who homeschools his or her children would.
Added to the pact are annexes, including the Global Digital Compact to have the UN take the lead on regulation of the digital realm (data, internet, artificial intelligence, and more). Also attached to the final agreement is the Declaration on Future Generations, pretending that all the efforts to usurp more power for the UN (and even wage war on energy) are really “for the children” and generations yet unborn.
Legal Push for a “Totalitarian, Worldwide Police State”
To understand the legal implications of the new pact, The New American reached out to Dr. Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois. Describing the move as a “massive, overwhelming power grab by the UN Secretary General and the globalist forces behind him” that “violates the terms of the United Nations Charter,” Boyle warned that the censorship agenda and the “emergency” language in the agreement are especially dangerous.
“In the event that the secretary general declares an emergency as defined by him in accordance with his own Ipse Dixit [“he himself said it”], he will arrogate to himself the powers not only of the secretary, which he already has, but the powers of the General Assembly, the powers of the Trusteeship Council, the powers of the Economic and Social Council, and also powers over the UN’s specialized agencies and affiliated organizations,” warned Boyle, who serves on the board of Amnesty International.
Approval of the pact by the UN General Assembly through “consensus” can make it part of “customary international law,” Boyle explained while disputing the UN claim that there is in fact “consensus” to adopt it. But there is more to the story, as the globalists work to impose “a totalitarian, worldwide police state” on humanity through international agreements and bodies, he added. This pact is a major piece of that threat.
“What they are trying to do now is to get UN member state heads of state and heads of government to sign on to this pact and commit their nations,” Boyle said. “Under the Vienna Convention on Law Treaties and general principles of international law, heads of state and heads of government have extraordinary and plenipotentiary powers to conclude treaties on behalf of their own states. So, if and when heads of states sign on to this pact for the future, it will become an international treaty that could pose a dire threat to the sovereignty of any state that signs on to it.”
While in the United States the U.S. Constitution requires consent of the Senate, by a two-thirds majority vote of the senators present, to ratify a treaty, the goal is ultimately to impose this pact on all nations. “This is an attempt, then, to turn this into hard law and to basically take the agenda of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, and turn it into hard international law,” continued Boyle, who wrote the unanimously approved U.S. legislation for implementing the Biological Weapons Convention. “Clearly they put the word pact in there on purpose to make it clear this will be a treaty that will have profound consequences on the domestic legal orders of the states involved.”
Blasting the globalists who tried to “poison” humanity with the “Nazi frankenshots,” Boyle also warned that the language in the pact on “misinformation” and “disinformation” would be used just as it was during Covid: to silence anyone and everyone who tries to tell the truth and expose the agenda. As such, he added, it is imperative that elected officials at every level of government pledge to resist and disobey the UN and the World Health Organization. “That’s what needs to be done right now to protect this republic and our Constitution,” concluded Boyle. “It must be done.”
Growing Opposition
Adopted by supposed “consensus,” the pact drew token opposition from a handful of governments. Before it was formally adopted without opposition, a coalition of autocratic regimes led by the Kremlin tried to add an amendment stating that the UN would not interfere with domestic issues within national jurisdiction. The move was rejected, but not before the global propaganda media seized on it as proof that only tyrants are concerned about national sovereignty.
Kremlin officials later criticized the pact, though they allowed it to pass without filing a formal objection. The only real official criticism came from Argentinian authorities, who publicly “distanced” their government from the pact after allowing it to be adopted unchallenged. “Argentina wants the freedom to develop itself, without being subjected to the undue weight of decisions that are alien to our goals,” said Foreign Minister Diana Mondino, adding that Argentinian authorities are pursuing a policy of freedom.
In his colorful speech at the summit, libertarian firebrand Argentinian President Javier Milei blasted the UN 2030 Agenda, which features prominently in the pact, as a “supranational program of a socialist nature.” Among many other criticisms, Milei slammed the global organization’s central role in prescribing what he described as “crimes against humanity” to deal with Covid.
Opposition in the United States has always existed, but is growing quickly. In fact, the UN summit was held on the heels of a major event outside the U.S. Capitol vowing to resist the agreement. On September 17, just days before the summit, a coalition of U.S. congressmen, foreign-policy experts, and faith leaders summoned the press and denounced the impending UN power grab disguised as a “pact.”
“It looks like they are attempting to sell out our sovereignty once again with this agreement,” said Representative Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) at the press conference. Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), the former leader of the House Freedom Caucus, was also blunt: “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.”
After the pact was approved, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) also blasted it. “Though legally non-binding, this 66-page pact is limitless in scope,” the congressman told The Epoch Times. “It calls for dramatically increased public spending and vague ‘action’ on countless left-wing priorities. The pact also completely ignores the most urgent issues facing the UN today, like reforming [the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East] and combatting malign [Chinese Communist Party] influence. It does nothing to advance U.S. interests, and the Biden administration should never have signed it.”
Already, more than half of U.S. governors have publicly pledged to resist UN dictates in their respective states. Meanwhile, for the first time, Congress currently has bills to end U.S. involvement in the UN in both houses of Congress: House Bill 6645 and Senate Bill 3428, both labeled the “DEFUND Act.” The issue is quickly becoming mainstream following Trump’s unprecedented assault on UN agencies and schemes during his first term in the White House that saw the U.S. government leave multiple key global organs.