How and why the West is transforming international institutions. Part One
The Russian military operation in Ukraine, against the background of which there is a serious aggravation of the military-political situation in another key region of the planet – around Taiwan, has strengthened the irreversibility of a new bipolar division of the world. On the eve of the G7, EU and NATO summits in March, US President Joe Biden openly acknowledged this.
Speaking to American businessmen, he spoke for the first time about the fact that "undemocratic" Russia and China are not just in opposition to the United States and the collective West, but also went beyond the Western project even "conceptually" [1]. That is, they formed their own alternative project, which opposes the project of the "new world order".
There is also visual confirmation of this. The consistent escalation of the pandemic threat, which was carried out in order to impose a strict sanitary dictatorship, was suddenly and very quickly replaced by a military "picture" that caused hysteria in the West. There is no doubt that Russia's pre-emptive military operation in Ukraine, having disrupted the immediate plans of the West, dealt a serious blow to the Western project as a whole.
This change of scenery clearly demonstrates the actual presence of a serious conceptual framework in countries that oppose the West, an external "contour of power" that manages current events by creating mise-en-scene in which subjects of public policy are situated.
COVID is a Western mise-en-scene, and the military “picture" is a domestic, competing development that overturned the pandemic "procurement", and the outcome of the fight between these mise-en-scenes, which is clearly not in favour of the West, confirms the sharpness of the conceptual confrontation.
The information howl raised by American and European politicians and media around the military operation does not allow the Western public to think about the obvious contradiction. On the one hand, the US and EU accuse Moscow of "invading" Ukraine.
On the other hand, all the facts – from the discovery of Ukrainian documents with the date of an attack on Donbass and further on Russia, scheduled for March 8, to the large-scale and ever-expanding military assistance of the West to the Kiev regime - say only one thing. The war is beneficial to the West, the West actively sought it, forcing Russia to start it by its actions.
Judging by the statements of Western leaders, for example, the head of EU diplomacy Josep Borrell, about the need to win on the battlefield [2], the West is ready to wage this war to the last Ukrainian. And not just to lead, but to escalate, taking into account both the declared readiness of Poland to engage in a conflict with Russia [3], and the reservations made by J. Biden during a visit to this country.
Firstly, he said that the US military will soon see the situation in Ukraine "with their own eyes", which highlights the Pentagon's plans that are not publicly declared. Secondly, the revelation of J. Biden requires serious consideration, that the United States is seeking the overthrow of the legitimate president and Supreme Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Putin in our country [4]. In other words, they expect to repeat the big combination that they pulled off a little more than a century ago, provoking the February 1917 coup in Russia, which put the country under external control.
Despite the change of conceptual mise-en-scene, the West does not intend to retreat. In the context of the planned reshuffle of the world order by the ruling circles of the West, the blow is expected to be applied to all the main pillars of the former world order.
First of all, on the UN, which, apparently, is faced with a choice between self-destruction (which Vladimir Zelensky recently mentioned [5]) and internal transformation under the restoration of the unipolar model. And this topic has a deeper conceptual justification, revealed in the report of the US National Intelligence Council "Global Trends 2040", published in November 2021 [6].
Given that it was around the UN that the extensive system of global institutions was built after the collapse of the USSR, its transformation is expected to be directed against Russia and China; recently, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who came to power, has already openly called for Russia's exclusion from the UN Security Council [7].
China's turn, presumably, will come when Beijing, which has refused to follow in the wake of the Western response to the Ukraine crisis, finds itself at the centre of a similar Far Eastern crisis involving Taiwan and its reunification with the mainland Motherland.
The UN and the world system surrounding it
The theme of the UN first appeared with the creation of the United Nations, which took shape in January 1942 on the basis of the Declaration of 26 states signed in Washington [8], which formed the foundation of the Anti-Hitler coalition. The USSR participated in it in the status of a country that joined in September 1941 to the goals and principles of the Atlantic Charter, signed in August 1941 by the heads of the United States and Great Britain F. Roosevelt and W. Churchill.
The question of creating an "international organisation for the maintenance of international peace and security" after the war was first raised at the end of October 1943, following the results of the Moscow conference of the United States, Great Britain, the USSR and China. And it was reflected in the Declaration adopted at it [9]. Then it was the basis for the following Declaration of the three powers – the United States, Great Britain and the USSR, adopted by the Tehran Conference of the Allies in late November – early December 1943 [10].
It should be emphasised that unlike the West, which was guided by a plan aimed far into the future, Moscow agreed to the creation of the UN reluctantly, yielding to the insistent wishes of its allies. Therefore, while the United States and Great Britain sought to give the UN global management features and functions of a kind of analogue of the "world government", the USSR was concerned about minimising damage on its part to its sovereignty.
Disagreements and intrigues of the West against the East permeate the entire history of the UN. Already the Atlantic Charter, with which it began, contained provisions unacceptable to the USSR and adopted under the pressure of the war and the situation on the fronts. One of them is about restoring "self-government of peoples deprived of it by force" (this provision later became the basis of the anti-Soviet law of the United States on enslaved peoples); the other is about equal access to trade and to world raw materials sources (promoting the idea of global control over natural resources).
On their way to the Tehran conference, the leaders of the United States and Britain stopped in Cairo, where they attended another conference with the participation of Chinese ruler Chiang Kai-shek. It was agreed that after the war, Kuomintang China would enter the Western sphere of influence and create tension on the Soviet border.
This dangerous prospect for the USSR, which seems to be connected with the Operation Unthinkable plan, was overturned by the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949 and the rise to power of the CPC. However, the example is significant in the sense that, unlike the USSR, the Western allies tried to diversify the options for the outcome of the war, organising various anti-Soviet intrigues long before the victory over Nazi Germany.
At the stage of direct preparation for the creation of the UN, which took place at the end of April 1945 at the international conference of the United Nations in San Francisco, a serious controversy arose between the USSR and the West on the future Charter of the organisation. The peak of the controversy was revealed in the early autumn of 1944 during a conference in Dumbarton Oaks (USA).
Contrary to the Soviet Union, the United States tried in every possible way to push a number of provisions into the future UN Charter that would affirm its global leadership. For example, on a preventive, rather than factual, response to military threats, legalising external interference in internal conflicts and expanding the powers of regional organisations, counting on their creation under their own auspices, limiting sovereign rights in the field of defence and security in favour of collective ones, etc.
Moscow, on the other hand, insisted and defended the right of veto, which implied that any decisions of the Security Council should be taken strictly on the basis of the consensus of its permanent members. The Soviet Union, while not understanding the general globalist intent of the American proposals, nevertheless had a clear understanding of the West's desire to use the UN against our country.
As was expected by the Soviet leadership, with the advent of the Iron Curtain, the UN's activities were essentially paralysed; the Soviet veto prevented the United States and its satellites from implementing the original plan to turn the organisation into an instrument of global power. The Security Council went from being a decision-making body in the interests of a "world hegemon" to an ineffective, dead-end discussion platform where any attempts to infringe on the interests of the USSR were blocked.
Since that time, the practice of unilateral Western sanctions against the USSR and other socialist and later other countries, bypassing the UN, began to develop most widely after the destruction of the Soviet Union. Currently, in addition to Russia, sanctions are imposed on China, North Korea, Syria, Iran and a number of other countries that the United States and the West accuse of "violating human rights and the principles of democracy”.
The current period of UN activity is conventionally divided into two stages. The first of them, associated with the Club of Rome (1965-1991), formed a "road map" for future managed global changes. An analysis of the Rome program reports, from "Limits to Growth" (1972) to "The First Global Revolution” (1990), makes it possible to attribute the following to the main points of the goals set:
- division of the world into ten regions/zones in order to consolidate Western coordinating leadership in the system of the international division of labour; the subsequent formation of three "world blocs" based on these regions, which is reflected in the three-tier organisation of world elites with end-to-end control of Anglo-Saxon elites ("Chatham House", Council on Foreign Relations) over European ones (Bilderberg Club) and Asia-Pacific (Trilateral Commission);
- introduction of plans to stop industrial development, as well as population control by limiting the birth rate (production was proposed to be frozen at the level of 1975, and the birth rate – two children in a family) into the global agenda;
- instilling the concept of global "collective sovereignty" instead of national and state sovereignty;
- promoting the integration of world religions through their syncretic connection based on the dogma of Judaism and Shinto ideas;
- revision of the policy in the field of education and enlightenment with placing in the centre instead of communities an individual deprived of civilisational and national identity, as well as related socialisation;
- proclamation of the transition to an "energy efficient", i.e. energy-deficient development model with a revision of priorities in energy generation sources in favour of"renewable" ones;
- combining in the "new world order" the principles of corporate monopolism, totalitarian unanimity and the atomisation of society, implicated in the cults of the individual and "harmony with nature";
- global promotion of "coloured" political technologies for the destruction of existing states under the slogan "revolution of world solidarity".
In 1990, this range of tasks was reinforced by the formalisation of the subordination of the USSR on the eve of its collapse, as well as its subsequent fragments to the United States, which was spelled out in the Charter of Paris for a new Europe. In 2000, another European policy document appeared – the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which introduces the principle of "democratic globalism "as a kind of core of the second stage (1992 – present), related to the implementation of the "road map" of the Club of Rome.
It has its own periodisation, which includes the preparatory period (1992-2000), during which the "road map" was implemented in the UN governing documents, and the period of extensive construction of the institutions of the "new world order" on this basis (2000 - present).
At the turn of the two stages, joint commissions with the Socialist International are created on the periphery of the UN, through which the main ideas of the Club of Rome are combined with the policy practices of social democratic and socialist parties that occupy the left flank of two-party systems, acting within the framework of a common "left-liberal" consensus with liberals.
Within the framework of the work of these commissions, two policy reports appear that formalise the Rome road map into concrete strategies. The first report - "Our Common Future" (1987), prepared by the World Commission on Environment and Development (Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway, Vice-President of the Socialist International), introduces the concept of "sustainable development" and introduces the corresponding term, which today forms the ideological basis of the Western project.
The second report, "Our Global Neighbourhood" (1995), presented by the Commission on Global Governance and Cooperation (Ingvar Karlsson, former Prime Minister of Sweden, Vice – President of the Socialist International), instills a view of humanity as a "global community". In this regard, the issue of the internationalisation of the use of natural resources with their withdrawal from state jurisdictions and the introduction of global taxes in favour of the UN is raised.
The authors of this report, which was first distributed and then removed from libraries and retail chains in Russia, promote globalisation and put on the agenda the "privatisation" of states by corporate interests, in fact, following the Rockefeller clan, asserting the primacy of private power and corporate public organisation.
The combination of the content of these two reports, translated into plans for UN reform and the removal of the taboo imposed by the UN Charter on external intervention in internal conflicts, encoded by the term "Peacemaking", is expressed in the resulting report "A safer world: our shared responsibility" (2004).
Developed by the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, established in 2002 by the UN Secretary-General, this document completes the process of indoctrinating the UN agenda with the Club of Rome road map. And it puts at the forefront of global processes the principle of regionalism, which implies the consolidation of the division of the world into ten regions and three "world blocs".
The key point of this report is two options for reforming the UN, revising the principle of permanent membership in the Security Council following the Second World War and transferring it to the so-called regional groups. With this approach, the delegation of the mandate of a permanent member of the Security Council to Russia is transferred to the European group, and the withdrawal of this mandate remains only a matter of time, especially since the main criteria for such membership were the amount of contributions to the UN budget and the number of peacekeeping military contingents.
In the future, the agenda includes a choice between dividing Russia into two parts – European and Asian (the project "Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals") and its inclusion entirely in Europe (the project "Europe from the Atlantic to Vladivostok"). The establishment of “peace-building" was accompanied by the creation of appropriate institutions – the Office, the Foundation, and the Peace-building Commission (PBC), which quickly became a tool for fuelling and managing the "resolution" of conflicts in third world countries, as well as, indirectly, in the post-Soviet space.
REFERENCE:
The PBC has a governing body - the Organising Committee; it includes 31 states: permanent members of the UN Security Council and subject to rotation, the remaining participants. When the Organising Committee included such post-Soviet republics as Georgia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, each time a large-scale internal political destabilisation took place in or around them, or, as in Georgia, the republic served as a source of external aggression.
Today, the UN has formed two main "tracks" - "sustainable development” and "peacebuilding". The first "track" was formed around the Institute of UN Conferences on Environment and Sustainable Development, which originated from the second conference in Rio de Janeiro (1992).
The "track" structure includes about ten UN framework conventions, of which the UNFCCC - the Framework Convention on Climate Change - is of particular importance. At the conference level, state sovereignty over natural resources is still recognised. However, the UNFCCC, contrary to these documents, contains a provision on the priority of global interests over the interests of national states in this issue.
REFERENCE:
The first environmental conference was held in Stockholm in 1972, and such conferences were not held again until the collapse of the USSR.
Since 2000, there has been a second "track" gathered around the World Development Goals Summits. The first "Millennium Development Goals" (MDGs) adopted at the same time in 2015, in parallel with the signing of the Paris Agreement, were re-formed into the "Sustainable Development Goals" (SDGs). The second edition of the Goals is a detailed list of measures to globalise population problems and unify the economic and social policies of states in accordance with constantly tightening environmental standards.
In fact, ecology as a form of security is being replaced by "environmentalism" - an aggressive, offensive ideology that dominates and permeates the entire complex of security problems from the standpoint of prioritising global and transnational interests within the framework of the so-called "green transition” promoted.
At the same time, the UN institute of "peace-building" operations, which aim at external intervention in internal conflicts, is expanding. It was most active in the 1990s due to the creation of the Partnership for Peace (PFP) program within NATO, as well as the participation of the NATO-EU link in a number of major peacekeeping operations, including the autonomous province of Kosovo, where KFOR forces operated.
However, recently the introduction of "peace-building" has been hindered by the serious activation of China, which provides the main peacekeeping contingents to the UN and is not ready to follow in the wake of Western policy.
Both "tracks" are closely interrelated and complement each other, performing the function of putting pressure on sovereign states in favour of transferring sovereignty to supranational institutions represented by specialised UN agencies and programs, which are considered prototypes of global ministries. This is most clearly seen in the case of the WHO, as well as the IAEA.
The collective Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) restricts sovereignty in the field of nuclear technology; preparations are being made for signing the Global Pandemic Agreement, which in the same way transfers state sovereignty in the field of public health to the WHO [11]. The global monopolisation of almost all major spheres of socio-economic and political life is on the current agenda.
Thus, the modern UN acts as an instrument of globalisation in the interests of the West, and in promoting this agenda it is limited only by the veto power of the non-Western permanent members of the UN Security Council – Russia and China.
Returning to the aforementioned report "A safer world...", we note that the reform of the Security Council in it was limited to the time frame of 2020, but it was Moscow and Beijing that prevented this, including with the help of the SCO. Realising the impossibility of implementing this provision of the report in these conditions, the United States, while maintaining its strategy, changed its tactics (more on this below).
REFERENCE:
The final documents of the SCO summits of the last decade have consistently included a point about the inadmissibility of haste in the issues of UN reform and the need for careful, balanced actions in this area. With its entry into the SCO, the previous requirements for inclusion in the UN Security Council as a permanent member were actually removed by India.
In other words, as the cornerstone of the modern world order, the UN is becoming less and less responsible for its role as a global arbiter, becoming an instrument of Western policy aimed at undermining the international positions of its opponents. This trend, which calls into question the future of the UN, is still limited and controlled by the right of veto, so Russia and China continue to insist on maintaining the role of the UN as the "core" of the world political system.
However, various manoeuvres continue around the organisation, aimed at canceling or emasculating the right of veto in one way or another. In connection with the military operation in Ukraine, the United States is unilaterally canceling the visas of employees of the Russian permanent mission to the UN, hoping to block its work. The issue of excluding Russia from the UN Security Council and the organisation as a whole is raised.
To this end, the Western side uses undisguised pressure on the UN members, who form the so-called pro-American "aggressively obedient majority", to achieve the necessary results of voting in the General Assembly.
This was clearly confirmed by the results of its discussion of the situation in Ukraine, as well as the issue of suspending Russia's membership in the Human Rights Council (HRC). Although the General Assembly resolutions are purely advisory in nature, with their help the United States and the West are trying to isolate our country within the international community.
There is no doubt that if the US manages to provoke a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait, similar actions will be taken by Washington and its satellites against China.
SOURCES AND LITERATURE:
[1] https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/7509955.html?ysclid=l228ppmes3
[2] https://topwar.ru/194701-borrel-jeta-vojna-dolzhna-byt-vyigrana-na-pole-boja.html
[3] https://rusonline.org/world/polsha-zayavila-o-svoey-gotovnosti-k-voyne-s-rossiey
[5] https://ria.ru/20220405/sovbez-1781959751.html
[6] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf
[7] https://lenta.ru/news/2022/03/13/kishida_sovbez/?ysclid=l2291fe4zs
[8] Anthology of World political thought, in 5 volumes // Edited by G.Y. Semigin / M., 1997. T. V. S. 335-336.
[9] ibid. p. 337-338.
[10] ibid. p. 339-340.
[11] https://ss69100.livejournal.com/5824213.html?ysclid=l2298bd97