“Global Governance” and The Adoption of the Controversial “Pact for the Future”

The document has eerie similarities with recent “recommended environmental governance actions” from Global Challenges Foundation

The third revision of the Pact for the Future was published August 27th. It is now under silent procedure until September 3rd. If nobody objects it will be accepted. The Pact, which is planned to be adopted at the Summit of the Future on Sunday 22 September, states in dramatic wording that:

We are at a time of profound global transformation. We are confronted by rising catastrophic and existential risks, many caused by the choices we make. Fellow human beings are enduring terrible suffering. If we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown.

According to the United Nations, the global governance system has to be updated to safeguard the interest of present and future generations, and be able to manage complex global shocks.

As a peculiar coincidence, the adoption will take place exactly 33 years after a disturbing document was distributed at a conference in Des Moines by United Nations Association of Iowa, in preparation of the UN’s environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro 1992.

The document, called “The Initiative for Eco-92 Earth Charter” by the Cobden Clubs Secretariat for World Order, claimed that the time was pressing, and put it bluntly that insufficient progress had been made in population reduction. This required immediate and decisive action:

The Security Council of the UN, led by the Anglo-Saxon Major Nation Powers, will decree that henceforth, the Security Council will inform all nations that its sufferance on population has ended, that all nations have quotas for REDUCTION on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embargo of credit, items of trade including food and medicine, or by military force, when required.

The Security Council of the UN will inform all nations that outmoded notions of national sovereignty will be discarded and that the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region of the world . . .

The Security Council of the UN will take possession of all natural resources, including the watersheds and great forests, to be used and preserved for the good of the Major Nations of the Security Council.

The Security Council of the UN will explain that not all races and peoples are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on sufferance that they cooperate with the Security Council. Decision making, including banking, trade, currency rates, and economic development plans, will be made in stewardship by the Major Nations.

The document was revealed by the business consultant George W. Hunt, whose companion managed to get in to a private meeting (no public allowed) with insiders at the conference and bring the document with her. According to Hunt, the Cobden Clubs was a think tank that promoted the British “Anglo-Saxon Race system”.

Although Hunt said he did not know whether the document was true or a joke, the statements bear some eerie similarities to recent “recommended environmental governance actions” for the Summit of the Future from the Global Challenges Foundation, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the United Nations University. Considering that the world’s population has increased from 5.4 billion to 8.2 billion since 1991, the tougher solutions have been brought back to the table.

For obvious reasons, their joint proposal is stripped of the crude and disturbing language of the Cobden Clubs and instead talks about “protecting” humanity from exceeding “dangerous tipping points” by expanding the “global commons” concept to include all life-supporting systems—“the atmosphere (air), hydrosphere (water), biosphere (life), lithosphere (land), and cryosphere (ice)”—and proposes that these “should be managed collectively”:

Governance of the planetary commons would require a shift from present-day nationalistic, siloed approaches to environmental protection, recognising the core fact that our planet is composed of interconnected, interdependent systems. Instead of a fragmented, treaty-based system, the planetary commons approach proposes a “nested” governance structure involving multiple layers of regulation enacting highly tailored local responses, all overseen by a global governance body.

This sounds very much like a capture of all of the world’s resources! As I wrote in a previous article, Global Challenges Foundation was founded by the billionaire financier László Szombatfalvy with the aim to develop “improved global decision-making models”.

Szombatfalvy wrote opinion pieces together with Club of Rome’s president Anders Wijkman about the “population problem”, and donated money to the Overpopulation Project, with its motto: “Too Many People Consuming Too Much”. One of their prescribed solutions was to:

Create a new global treaty to end population growth, with all countries choosing population targets every half decade with a plan on how to achieve them.[1]

This means that Szombatfalvy shared essentially the same Malthusian worldview as the “British Race Patriots” and “living sponsors of the will of the great Cecil Rhodes,” who claimed to be the authors of the document “The Initiative for Eco-92 Earth Charter” and who called for a New World Order, in which “all nations, regions and races will cooperate with the decisions of the Major Nations of the Security Council.”

It should be noted that the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in UK and its American branch Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) were launched as front organisations of the Round Table Movement, which had been created to carry out British imperialist Cecil Rhodes’ will to federate the English speaking world and promote the values of the British elite. This was later expanded to the goal of a world federation of all the nations on Earth.[2]

As CFR-historian and Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley wrote in Tragedy and Hope:

The chief aims of this elaborate, semi-secret organization were largely commendable: to coordinate the international activities and outlooks of all the English-speaking world into one (which would largely, it is true, be that of the London group); to work to maintain the peace; to help backward, colonial, and underdeveloped areas to advance toward stability, law and order, and prosperity along lines somewhat similar to those taught at Oxford and the University of London.

Quigley considered these men as “gracious and cultured gentlemen of somewhat limited social experience who were much concerned with the freedom of expression of minorities and the rule of law for all” but objected upon their wishes to remain unknown, and some of their methods.

The Stimson Center, which along with Global Challenges Foundation has been the main coordinators during the preparations for the Summit of the Future, was founded by CFR members Barry Blechman and Michael Krepon, and named after the “quintessential” CFR-member Henry Stimson, US Secretary of War 1940–45. Stimson was a lawyer at J.P. Morgan, the powerful banking dynasty that was the principal force behind CFR in its founding years.

CFR, chaired by David Rockefeller from 1970 to 1985, is also closely related with the Rockefeller-founded the Trilateral Commission think tank. Every CFR-chairman since David has been a member of TriCom. The current CFR chair, Carlyle Group chairman David Rubenstein, is also a board trustee of the World Economic Forum, the main official front for these groups’ activities.

[embedded content]

The Fourth Wilderness Congress

George W. Hunt, who was a volunteer at the Fourth World Wilderness Congress in Colorado in 1987, had been shocked by what he saw and heard at the conference and began to warn about a complete takeover of the world through the guise of environmental protection.

[embedded content]

Some of the attendees Hunt were surprised to encounter were Trilateral Commission members David Rockefeller, Edmond de Rothschild, William Ruckelshaus, Maurice Strong, IMF president Michel Camdessus, World Bank president Barber B. Conable, Jr. and Brundtland Commission secretary-general Jim MacNeill.

The discussions during the conference revealed some cynical and cold views. The Canadian investment banker David Lank said during one of the sessions:

I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process, that will take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, which populates the earth.

David Rockefeller wrote in the conference book For the Conservation of Earth that:

To place all of the blame for unacceptable environmental behavior on industrialization or large corporations, however, is clearly grossly inaccurate. Much of the devastation of the world’s environment, especially in today’s world, is due to individuals who are without power and who are trapped in grinding poverty. Deforestation, for instance, is often more the product of actions taken out of desperation by the poor rather than through irresponsible exploitation by industrial giants. Some 70 percent of the world’s rapidly growing population currently relies on wood for energy to cook and heat. The consequences of this fact are little short of disastrous.

The ultra-rich superclass seems to show a deep contempt for the poor and want to rob them the right to use the resources of the world. They are not included in the game. They are instead blamed for the ills of the world and portrayed as the polluting carbon emitting enemy of the Earth. They thus need to be governed by the “enlightened philosopher kings” and serve as subjects in the elites envisioned sustainable utopia. It is the “sustainable business practices” of the ultra-rich, as outlined in the Trilateral Commission report Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, that will save the world from the poor people’s environmental destruction and illegal hunting of wildlife.

The first World Wilderness Congress was hosted by South Africa in 1977 with French-Swiss banker Edmond de Rothschild and South African conservationist Ian Player in leading roles. Player received the Order of the Golden Ark from Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands in 1981.

The controversial choice of location was probably not a coincidence, given that Cecil Rhodes, with the support from Rothschild & Co, created a monopoly on the world’s diamond trade through the South African diamond company De Beers.[3]

As Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, Rhodes expropriated land from black Africans and instigated the colonisation of the area later named Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). He then used his large fortune to establish a “Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world”, with the end goal to lay “the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.”[4]

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary 

Notes

[1] The Overpopulation Project, overpopulation-project.com/solutions/

[2] Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations (excerpt from Tragedy and Hope, A History of the World in Our Time, 1966; pp.950-955), cooperative-individualism.org/quigley-carroll_council-on-foreign-relations-1966.htm

[3] Rhodes’ legacy is so problematic that De Beers nowadays distances itself from its founder. The company is, however, very “sustainable”.

[4] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, New York: Books in Focus, 1981

Featured image: A view of the Eduardo Kobra mural at UN Headquarters. (UN Photo/Rick Bajornas)