How and why the West is transforming international institutions. Part Two
UN reform and the “summit of democracies”
The roots of the UN and Security Council reform proposals lie in the change in the world balance after the collapse of the USSR. Until 1991, no questions were raised about this, and in the 45 years after the war, the Security Council underwent only one change: in 1971, the Chinese mandate, which belonged to the Kuomintang Taiwan regime, passed to the mainland Chinese authorities in Beijing.
The destruction of the Soviet Union gave rise to many processes, and the question of reforming the UN was raised in the general context of the Club of Rome “road map”, in the framework of proposals for a "more adequate" reflection of the current balance of power and the "contribution" of various countries to the UN, rather than the historical one. This is precisely what prompted to introduce the principle of regionalism into the organisation's structure.
The logic of raising this question was twofold. Firstly, in the development and testing of this principle at the level of the mentioned triad of elite shadow conceptual institutions ("Chatham House" and CFR + Bilderberg + Trilateral).
And secondly, the implementation of the regional principle in the activities of one of the main UN bodies - the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which has been turned into its "pilot" project. The ultimate meaning of this principle is to make Russia and China dependent on the institutions of globalism in one way or another.
REFERENCE:
ECOSOC is composed of five regional economic commissions – the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).. The absence of a North American regional representation in this list indirectly indicates the "superior", administrative or coordinating nature of this region to the rest. The United Kingdom, as the closest partner of the United States, after leaving the EU, is also outside the scope of the EEC. Russia is also missing from this list, but for other reasons. As already noted, the globalists who control the UN have not come to a final decision on the future of our country; the Eurasian Economic Commission (EAEC) has been functioning as a palliative since 2012 within the framework of the EAEU, but it is not part of ECOSOC and has no relation to the UN structure.
Simultaneously with the introduction of regionalism and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the issue of phasing out the right of veto began to be considered, which would remove the last obstacles to turning the UN into a "pocket" tool of the United States and the West. Firstly, the topic of expanding permanent membership in the UN Security Council was slyly introduced and actively discussed, supported by a populist appeal to the ambitions of a number of developing countries, primarily India and Brazil. Meanwhile, Germany and Japan were considered prime candidates for permanent membership.
This symbolic step was intended to "draw a line" under the “legacy" of the Second World War and turn the UN into a "modern" organisation, united not around a military victory, but around "universal", that is, Western values and the elite principles of the new global organisation dictated by them.
It is the reform of the Security Council that was considered as a recommendation in the aforementioned report "A Safer world...", developed, as we recall, at the initiative of the UN Secretary-General. However, the joint resistance of Russia and China to these plans makes their implementation frankly unlikely.
Secondly, along with the reform of the Security Council, the broader issue of reforming the UN as a whole is being raised. In this version, the authors of the draft are inclined to eliminate the veto right outright by establishing a new body in the structure of the organisation, parallel to the Security Council.
The new "council" is proposed to transfer the main current activities, leaving the "old" Security Council on the sidelines, with purely representative functions, in which the veto power is negated by the fact that there are no opportunities for, and areas of, its application.
The first attempt to move in this direction was made back in 1995 by the authors of the aforementioned report "Our Global Neighbourhood" (Commission on Global Governance and Cooperation I. Carlsson). In parallel, the Security Council was proposed to create a certain Economic Security Council (ESC) with no more than 23 members, selected in accordance with the contribution to the financing and peacekeeping of the UN.
The report closely linked the establishment of the ESC (which was considered a palliative measure to transform the current Security Council into the ESC) to "sustainable development". In particular, the fundamental formula of the "ecological imperative" was reproduced in the form of linking ecology with the socio-economic sphere in the "broad" reading of security [12]. Accordingly, the binding of the ESC project to regionalism as an instrument of interrelation between the "main economic zones" was emphasised [13].
It is important that it was proposed to extend the prerogatives of the ESC beyond the UN. And lock it to the "Big Seven" as a simultaneous public representation of the collective West and non-public representation of the Trilateral Commission [14]. In transit, the expansion of representation and adaptation of the structure of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development to regionalism were considered on the way to the ESC (it ended its active operation in 2011; since then, no sessions have been held).
The failure of the ESC project prompted the West to diversify its efforts to build institutions of the "new world order". Within the UN, the focus was shifted to reforming the Security Council (the aforementioned "A Safer World..." report); outside the UN, a phased project was launched that combined large-scale integration of the West with a radical restructuring of the global financial and economic architecture.
The main elements of this project, which was developed within the framework of the so-called Texas Agreements (2005) between the United States, Canada and Mexico, can be considered to be:
- the unification of these countries into the "North American Union" (NAU) with the transition from national currencies to the new currency "amero" (planned by 2010); in other words, the dollar default was an integral part of the project;
- connecting the European sector of the West to these processes with the creation by 2015 of the Transatlantic Union (TAU) with another common currency (presumably the pound sterling);
- Intermediate transit from NAU to TAU via the Greater Bay Area South Asian Triangle Alliance (Guangzhou-Hong Kong-Macao), Singapore and Australia. Apparently, a project was prepared for this purpose to separate the southern part of the country from China within the borders of at least the most developed province of Guangdong (the equivalent of this project was the “pilot” program "South China" of the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, which lasted until 2015).
Apparently, the man-made crisis of 2008-2009 should have served as a kind of signal for active actions. There is sufficient reason to believe that the financial and economic collapse was aimed at a global default with the beginning of the above global reformatting, which, however, was successfully prevented by the joint actions of Russia and China.
As a result, the architects of the project faced the prospect of the uncontrolled development of events and preferred to curtail it, replacing the escalation of the crisis with its repayment with a large-scale issue under the corresponding QE programs of the Bank of England, the Fed and the ECB. These events were accompanied by:
- bringing the Group of Twenty, a group that was prudently created back in 1999 in the format of heads of central banks and finance ministers, to the level of heads of state and government;
- the creation of a Financial Stability Board (FSB) based on it, in conjunction with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), whose task was to prepare lists of global banks that received QE injections;
- a series of lawsuits involving a number of global banks in the US, UK and continental Europe;
- reformatting the processes of global integration from the failed Texas Agreements to the formation of Transatlantic and Trans-Pacific trade and investment partnerships, which were essentially closed later by US President Donald Trump.
The failure of the second global transformation project, after the ESC, in the interests of the "new world order", gave rise to an internal crisis in the United States, connected with the presidency of D. Trump. After overcoming it with the help of a coup d'etat carried out in late 2020-early 2021 by the Democratic Party establishment, and the coming to power of J. Biden, the deep state elites, aware of the conceptual nature of the contradictions with the strengthening Russian-Chinese alliance, returned to the idea of transforming the UN.
Two projects are being developed simultaneously. One of them is related to the so-called "summit of democracies", the first session of which was held in December 2021 under the chairmanship of J. Biden in a remote format. Another project involves the introduction of a "new ESC" into the UN structure - the Human Security Council (HSC), the creation of which was announced at the end of last year by the aforementioned report of the US National Intelligence Council (NIC) "Global Trends 2040".
It draws attention to the fact that, unlike the ESC project, the HSC project was published not by the UN, but by the American intelligence community, which looks symptomatic. The NIC report does not specify the specific parameters of the HSC, but there is a high probability of repeating the "well-forgotten" version of the ESC with the transfer of real powers to the new "council" at the expense of the Security Council.
It cannot be ruled out that there is a combined option in the plans: if the project is successful, the HSC will try to pack the participants of the "summit of democracies" into its context, the second session of which in 2022, already in person, is promised at the December session.
It is significant that they are trying to expand their representation in the "summit of democracies” by collecting applications from new potential participants, whose admission is conditioned by the application of programs of "democratisation" of these countries in order to integrate them into the global fairway of Washington.
The “summit of democracies” has a backstory that is important for its original philosophical and political intent. The idea comes from Anne-Marie Slaughter, a political scientist and politician from the Democratic Party, who put it forward at the end of the last century in a series of public speeches and articles, and in 2004 formalised it in two monographs.
In its interpretation, the "global alliance" or "league" of countries that are "adherents of democracy” (Pax Americana) should first supplement and then replace the UN [15]. The idea was taken up by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Under her patronage, the founding conference of the “alliance of democracies” was even held, but at that stage everything was limited to this.
In 2008, during the presidential campaign, the development of A. M. Slaughter was intercepted by the “possessed" Republican Senator John McCain, who proposed to “immediately" replace the UN with a "League of Democracies" [16]. However, J. McCain lost the election to Barack Obama, who made the spread of "colour revolutions" a priority.
In 2016, during the campaign of Hillary Clinton, A. M. Slaughter published another monograph that combined the plan to replace the UN with a "democratic alliance” with the ideas of global hegemony on the "grand chessboard" of Zbigniew Brzezinski.
The arrival of Donald Trump in the White House slowed down the project for four years. The item on convening the "summit of democracies" was included in the election platform of J. Biden, who after the victory began to implement it. A symbolic gesture in this sense was the signing by J. Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in June 2021 of the "New Atlantic Charter", which was declared the successor to the Atlantic Charter of 1941 [17]. In other words, the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon West thereby announced plans to revise the existing world order, directed against Russia and China, and also called on other countries, as they did 80 years ago, to join the new "charter". That is, "make a choice", which Washington and London are now demanding from everyone in connection with the situation in Ukraine.
Currently, the dates of the second, in-person session of the summit have not been determined, and discussions about this have subsided against the background of the Russian military operation in Ukraine. Perhaps the reason for the hitch is certain difficulties with radically increasing the number of participants. The first summit was attended by just over half of the world's states; there is no information available on applications for new potential members, which may indicate that the process is stalling.
It seems that if the United States manages to increase the number of participants to at least 70-75% of the UN membership, the second session of the "summit of democracies" will be held. It is possible that it will take a course for the subsequent replacement of the UN by this association. Technically, this can be achieved by a combination of visa bans on the activities of countries that Washington does not like in the UN and its own withdrawal from the organisation.
At the same time, the issue of "privatising" the United States' tangible assets and organisational structure of the UN, especially its main bodies such as the Secretariat, the General Assembly, ECOSOC, and the International Court of Justice, cannot be ignored.
Another option, which is likely to be used when there is a shortage of participants in the second session of the summit of democracies, is to abandon, temporarily or permanently, the independence of this organisation, together with the preservation of the UN, but with an attempt to introduce a group of the main, primarily Western participants of the summit, as well as representatives of the developing world loyal to them, a new UN Human Security Council with the actual nullification of the powers of the current Security Council.
The mentioned lack of information on the dynamics of potential participation in the second session of the "summit of democracies" significantly reduces the reliability of the analysis of possible options for the subsequent development of the situation.
"Four horsemen of the apocalypse"
The struggle between the Western and Russian planned mise-en scenes - the military operation in Ukraine against the topic of COVID and vaccines - is notable for the fact that the Western project was "cut off" in the initial stage of implementing a whole chain of steps to plant a "new world order".
Planned actions have gained momentum and spread all over the world; planning centres have prepared to build on this success, and for this purpose they have begun to publish further prospects, in particular, the topic of the food crisis. And all this, having received a "hole", suddenly not only collapses under the influence of the Ukrainian issue, but also rolls back from a number of global agreements reached within the framework of the western mise-en-scene. In particular, in the context of curtailing the pandemic theme, the prospects of the Global Pandemic Agreement scheduled for signing are not clear.
The scale of the project fight that has unfolded, with the fate of the UN becoming a hostage, encourages us to return to the project of the "great reset", published by Klaus Schwab in the summer of 2020 in connection with the "fourth industrial revolution" [18]. Obviously, the head of the World Economic Forum (WEF) is not the real author of this project. He is only its "talking head", acting in the interests of the highest circles of the transnational "deep" establishment.
These developments, which require a radical reduction in the global population and the de facto elimination of industry, represent the ultimate goal of the Club of Rome roadmap. They are based on a foundation of misanthropic views rooted in the racial theories and colonial practices of British elites, closely linked to eugenics (Francis Galton) and population theory (Thomas Malthus) and inherited by fascism and nazism.
At the same time, the corporate aspect that dominates fascism, which asserts a private model of power, is supplemented in the framework of the "great reset" by the nazi "chosenness", based on the segregation of humanity into "higher" and “lower". In the optics of nazism, we are talking about the “Aryan" and "Gondwanan" races. In the program report of the Trilateral Commission "Crisis of Democracy" (1975), the arrival of a "new" fascism was predicted by the author of the European section Michel Crozier [19].
Modern followers emphasise the contrast between the theories of the "creative" class (Richard Florida) and the "precariat" - a set of declassed, marginal elements: coloured, "green", LGBT, etc., which are situated in the place of the industrial proletariat (Guy Standing). These views are also supported by Russian liberals [20].
The philosophical meaning of this type of segregation is fully revealed by Jacques Attali, a globalist theorist, adviser to three French presidents, former head of the EBRD, and teacher of current President Emmanuel Macron. In his writings, he predicts the emergence of a world of "new nomads", people without a family or homeland, doing business where there is more freedom and lower taxes.
Globalisation, according to J. Attali, is the power of a new "nomadic" elite, "citizens of the world" who are not tied to any country. The division between the poor, who live a traditional life, and the rich "nomads" is expected for them on the scale of not individual countries, but the whole of humanity [21].
It should be noted that Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne, who is known for his commitment to "green" deindustrialisation, participated in the presentation of the "great reset" together with Karl Schwab. UN Secretary-General A. Guterres and IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva expressed their support for this project in solidarity.
Recently, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who is closely associated as the former chairman of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors with the "deep" elites, has been actively promoting the "great reset" in conjunction with scathing criticism of the Russian military operation and its supporters in other countries. Thus, there is an alliance of the UN leadership with the oligarchic circles promoting the "great reset", which are closely connected in turn with global nazism, which merged into the structure of the collective West after the Second World War.
A comparative analysis of the main plans of the “great reset” with the “UN transformation” project, which is central to the above-mentioned report of the US National Intelligence Council, reveals four main areas that are being promoted in priority order.
It should also be noted that these directions are often presented to the public in the allegorical image of the "four horsemen of the apocalypse"; the biblical plot in this case is used intentionally, in order to disguise the implementation of the "road map" as God's Providence, thus paralysing the public will to resist.
These sources name the COVID pandemic associated with the introduction of compulsory vaccination as the first "horseman of the apocalypse". The ultimate goal, as was already noted, is the widespread establishment of a strict sanitary dictatorship, the standards of which are set at the global level.
Thus, the draft of the aforementioned Global Pandemic Agreement requires the transfer of control of previously sovereign public health systems to the hands of the WHO; in December 2021, this was directly demanded by the former President and ex-Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Medvedev [22].
Meanwhile, attention is drawn to the close and, apparently, not accidental correlation of support for this COVID panic in our country with protest opposition to the military operation in Ukraine. According to sociological data, about 20% of opponents of the operation face 80% of its supporters, who simultaneously oppose lockdowns and forced vaccination.
The second "horseman of the apocalypse", closely related to the mise-en-scene of COVID – is the creation of a "digital concentration camp"; the main unifying role of the total control system is based on the artificial intelligence of "big data". And also on its application for the universal introduction of QR codes and sanitary (vaccination) passports, facial recognition systems, social rating, etc.
It should be noted that the imperative of population reduction gives these innovations a particularly ominous connotation. The third "horseman of the apocalypse" is the "green transition" - the whole set of aspects related to "sustainable development". Moreover, this is done in the context of scientific unproven influence of anthropogenic factors on climate processes, as well as despite the obvious large costs of abandoning traditional energy production in individual countries and around the world.
If we talk about Russia, then external and internal supporters of the "green transition" openly blackmail the Russian economy by introducing a carbon tax on imported products in the EU [23]. Meanwhile, the development of the crisis in relations between Russia and the EU demonstrates that the solution to this problem is found in the plane of radical reduction of interaction in the energy sector. This also has a beneficial effect on the import substitution process, ensuring the self-sufficiency of the domestic economy.
Finally, the "fourth horseman of the apocalypse" refers to the deepening food crisis, which manifests itself in widespread shortages and rising food prices. The global media is full of warnings that food shortages are expected to be most severe in developing countries, especially in Africa, where they threaten famine.
They are trying to shift responsibility for the deterioration of the situation from the organisers of the pandemic and lockdowns that disrupted logistics supply chains to Russia, blaming it for the disruption of grain exports and rising world prices. We have repeatedly heard the argument about the crucial role of Russia and Ukraine in maintaining balance in the world grain markets.
Given the tone of statements made by US President Joe Biden and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, it is very likely that following the Global Pandemic Agreement, the world will be offered the same food agreement under the auspices of the UN World Food Programme (WFP).
The neo-nazi roots of the “great reset” project point to the critical importance of denazification, the goal of the Russian military operation in Ukraine. Given that, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, it is about the end of American and Western hegemony [24], that is, in Ukraine there is a clash between Russia and the United States and NATO, there is a very close intertwining of the modern West and its politics with nazism. The organisational form of this interweaving is revealed by the creation of the so-called Council for Inclusive Capitalism at the Vatican within the framework of the "great reset" [25].
This institution, represented by its founders – Pope Francis, who belongs to the Jesuit order, and Lynn de Rothschild, the wife of the ex-leader of the British branch of this oligarchic dynasty, is essentially a union of the main conceptual centres of the European West. The financial and economic centre, which reflects the interests of the oligarchy, intertwined with its connections and interests through banking networks, receives quasi-spiritual support from the Holy See in the Vatican Council, which, as part of its ecumenical course, proclaims a post-Christian turn to the metaphysics of money.
In fact, the collective West is in the process of forming the "fourth Reich", uniting in it against Russia, as well as China, on the occult, Satanic platform of dehumanising and thus completing history and the Divine “Man" project.
Conclusions
First. The world is undergoing a change of biblical proportions. The Russian military operation in Ukraine is a projection of a direct clash between the subjects of the main contradiction of our time - nation states and globalism. The current global crisis covers all aspects of socio-economic and political life, including the system of international institutions; the possibilities of compromise in it are exhausted.
It is this circumstance that determines the local crisis of the UN, which has served since the collapse of the USSR as a tool for instilling globalisation, which today reverses and turns into deglobalisation. A similar crisis is developing and is likely to break out in the Asia-Pacific region in the foreseeable future, where the United States and the West are trying to prevent Taiwan's reunification with mainland China.
The globalist project, based on the concept of the "great reset", has distinct nazi roots and is endowed with continuity in relation to the entire colonial policy of the West and the post-Christian metaphysics of money that nourishes it, promoted by the alliance of the oligarchy with the Jesuits ruling in the Vatican.
Second. Striving for total world hegemony, the West seeks the irreversibility of the implementation of the Club of Rome “road map” implemented at the UN. The veto of the permanent members of the Security Council - Russia and China - gives rise to various UN reform projects. In the recent past and in the present context, the West has considered three options.
The first option involves the creation of a new body in the UN structure, without the right of veto, with the transfer of the main powers of the Security Council to it; the second option involves reformatting the latter in accordance with the principle of regionalism, with the subsequent expansion of the number of participants and the erosion of the right of veto.
The third option, which is the most radical and goes beyond preserving the UN, considers the gradual discrediting of this organisation under the pretext of the fundamental impossibility of interaction between "democratic" states and “authoritarian" ones. This is followed by its split and de facto elimination through the transition of a group of vassals of the United States and the West to another, newly created international platform.
Russia and China counteract these trends, trying to preserve the UN as the "core" of the modern world system. However, the potential of this counteraction is not infinite. Moscow and Beijing cannot impose their position in the face of unilateral actions by the Western side. In addition, it is clear that on the one hand, the destruction of the UN would lead to the destruction of the entire system of international law, which the West seeks to replace with "a world based on (American) rules”.
However, on the other hand, this nullifies a whole set of obligations assumed by Russia in the post-Soviet period and grossly trampling on our sovereignty. At the same time, the controversy over international legal issues will continue, because the United States and the West will never recognise any other extraterritoriality than their own.
Third. The desire to destroy the balance of interests that still exists in the UN encourages the United States and the West to step up efforts to form parallel global institutions, the central place among which is given to the "summit of democracies". The project to create this institution as an alternative platform for UN-aligned supporters of the United States has been consistently promoted since the end of the 20th century.
Held in December 2021 at the initiative of J. Biden, the first session of the "summit of democracies" aimed to expand the circle of participants and prepare for the second session, which is supposed to publish projects and adopt certain conceptual documents that are related to its goals and objectives.
Opposing these plans and protesting against the artificial segregation of states, Russia and China are engaged in a tense discussion with the West, in which they prove the civilisational, rather than universal, Western interpretation of the categories of democracy and human rights, as well as the unreasonableness, damage and danger to the world system of their monopolisation by Washington. However, the prospects for the outcome of this discussion look uncertain.
Fourth. In a moderate scenario, if the UN persists, the West will continue to try to change the practice of using the right of veto, related to the reform of the Security Council or the creation of parallel bodies within the organisation.
If the situation around the UN begins to develop according to the most radical and destructive scenario, which implies the separation of the "summit of democracies" from the UN into a separate international organisation, Moscow and Beijing will have no choice but to develop existing international institutions and create their own new ones. Over time, our countries will most likely face the question of their reunification into to an independent international political system, independent of the West.
In this case, a global confrontation is expected, possibly protracted, significantly exceeding the intensity of the first Cold War between the USSR and the United States in the second half of the 20th century.
SOURCES AND LITERATURE:
[12] Our global neighbourhood. GDRC report // M., 1996. p. 163.
[13] ibid. p. 166.
[14] ibid.
[18] https://regnum.ru/news/3128652.html
[20] https://www.gazeta.ru/comments/column/bovt/14557543.shtml?ysclid=l229o5uk1f
[21] https://bookshake.net/r/na-poroge-novogo-tysyacheletiya-zhak-attali
[22] Medvedev D.A. Six lessons of one pandemic // https://rg.ru/2021/11/01/dmitrij-medvedev-o-proshlom-nastoiashchem-i-budushchem-borby-s-covid-19.html