We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) opened its 79th session on September 24 with a week of speeches by representatives of 134 nations (out of a total of 193 members states, with another 118 observer entities and organizations). The UN is officially a member state organization, so it was appropriate to provide a forum for national leaders to express their points of view. The problem is that the UN’s bureaucracy thinks of itself as more than a forum for international politics. It is a large institution wanting to set a global agenda as a prototype world government. Its word-salad theme for the new session is “Leaving no one behind: acting together for the advancement of peace, sustainable development and human dignity for present and future generations.” This airy agenda is meant to transcend the international politics and competing interests set out by national leaders in their angry speeches to the UNGA. In a pre-UNGA meeting called The Summit for the Future,  a Pact for the Future was drafted which, when adopted by the UNGA, “The result will be a world — and an international system — that is better prepared to manage the challenges we face now and in the future, for the sake of all humanity and for future generations.“ Like that’s going to happen!

The Pact for the Future sets out the usual aims of sustainable development and peace, but the real focus is on “transforming global governance” meaning a shift of power from sovereign nation-states to transnational entities. The core document runs 38 pages. Points 6 and 7 in the introduction say “We recognize that the multilateral system and its institutions, with the United Nations and its Charter at the centre, must be strengthened… we pledge a new beginning in multilateralism. The actions in this Pact aim to ensure that the United Nations and other key multilateral institutions can deliver a better future for people and planet.” The document lays out in a cumbersome, repetitive flood of “woke” buzz words 56 “actions” the UN wants to take. The most direct assault on national sovereignty is aimed at the Great Powers. UNGA is based on “democracy” one member state one vote, so Zimbabwe has the same vote as the United States in what is called a “policy-making body.”

The UN Security Council, however, outranks the UNGA. It was established to ensure the winners of World War II would stay at the top of the pyramid. But in a dynamic world, alliances and alignments change. Among the five Great Powers with a veto, the ambitions of the Soviet Union brought on a new Cold War, and a communist revolution backed by Moscow shifted China from a friend to an enemy of the Western UNSC members (UK, France, U.S.). Action 39 of the Pact wants to enlarge the UNSC and states “The question of the veto is a key element of Security Council reform. We will intensify efforts to reach an agreement on the future of the veto, including discussions on limiting its scope and use.” For the UN bureaucracy, democracy weakens oversight. 

The UN bureaucrats are looking for issues deemed larger than the growing conflicts stemming from traditional geopolitics. They created the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 to acquire the authority to run the global economy. They hold a massive conference at the end of each year staged as if governments were kowtowing to UN mandates. But there are no mandates. All nations reserve their sovereign right to make and implement their own policies. Meeting UN goals is not at the top of the list. Their first duty remains improving the well-being of their own people. The climate issue has sparked conflict rather than consensus, because everyone knows that “sustainable” development means slow growth at best, and even a decline in living standards if the Green radicals (who hate material advancement because it is what capitalism produces) set policy. Developing countries have progress as an imperative, but in a sense all countries are developing as all societies have unmet needs and desires.

Growth requires energy. At last year’s UN Conference of the Parties (COP28) on climate change there was agreement to “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner” but language to “phase out” fossil fuels was voted down. UN Secretary-General António Guterres claimed “To those who opposed a clear reference to a phaseout of fossil fuels in the COP28 text, I want to say that a fossil fuel phase out is inevitable whether they like it or not.”  But that would only be if the UN had real power, which it does not have and does not deserve.

In the real world, all energy sources will be needed to generate high growth, with the mix reflecting practical matters of reliability, affordability, and security more than fear of mythical climate change. The International Energy Agency predicts a 50% increase in energy use by 2050 with fossil fuels still at the core. COP28 focused more on how to adapt to any climate effects that might appear rather than tearing down energy systems upon which modern civilization is built.

The Pact document recognizes where the world is on growth. The first six actions listed are about growth including ending poverty and providing food security. Addressing climate change is Action 9 and while Action 10 talks about preserving the environment, it also includes the “sustainable use” of the environment. Action 11 then goes back to how culture and sport can contribute to sustainable development. In the Pact’s introduction, climate change is just “one” of our great challenges, but eradicating poverty is the greatest challenge.

Another area where the UN wants to undermine national authority to supposedly reduce conflict is international trade where it draws heavily on classical liberal thought. Action 5 reads “We are committed to a rules-based, non-discriminatory, open, fair, inclusive, equitable and transparent multilateral trading system, with the World Trade Organization at its core.” The purpose of the WTO is to destroy national “protection” of their economic base to create a “global” system of interdependent supply chains. This is meant to make it difficult for nations to pursue independent policies because they will not control the means of production. Non-discriminatory means governments are not to favor the work of their own people over that of foreigners. Citizenship is to mean nothing. The WTO was promoted by corporations for whom citizenship has no meaning. Others saw an open system allowing economic conquest and the transfer of jobs, technology and industrial capacity, the material basis of power, from advanced societies like the U.S. to developing rivals like China. The WTO even encourages this by promoting “export-led growth in developing countries.”

The WTO allows trade restrictions based on environmental concerns, but is working to undermine restrictions based on national security concerns even though these are explicitly set out in GATT Article XXI. China is making the push on this against U.S. policy to decouple from China on vital industries like computer chips and electric vehicles, batteries and renewable energy production. The loss of millions of factory jobs in the Rust Belt is the usual focus on why “free trade” in key industries has such high social and strategic costs. After the J.D. Vance-Tim Waltz debate during which both candidates called for bringing industry back home, Politico opined that “free trade forces… are no longer politically viable.”  

It is the loss of industrial capacity and dependence on vulnerable foreign supply chains that have the deeper economic impact on the nation as a whole. In war, factories, research labs, and logistical networks are blasted out of existence to cripple an enemy’s ability to fight. Commercial warfare does the same thing in a more covert manner when people mistakenly think the world is at peace. In the real world of international competition, the WTO is the poster child for the irrelevance of the UN system.

William R. Hawkins is a former economics professor who has worked for conservative think tanks and on the Republican staff of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. He has written widely on international economics and national security issues for both professional and popular publications including for the Army War College, the U.S. Naval Institute, and the National Defense University, among others. 

Image: UN