With the Summit of the Future only days away, the general public has not seen a final draft of the Pact for the Future agreement.

On September 13, United Nations member states completed the 4th draft of the Pact for the Future document which is expected to be signed this weekend at the Summit of the Future in New York City. With the Summit set to begin on Sunday, and “Action Days” for the Summit beginning Friday, the public is unlikely to see the final version of the document before it is signed by all 193 member states of the UN.

The Summit of the Future is taking place during the 79th session of the annual UN General Assembly. The summit has been in the making since at least 2022 after repeated calls by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to shift financial resources to rapidly complete the Agenda 2030 goals set by the UN in 2015.

The 4th edition of the Pact for the Future was placed under silence procedure on September 13 until Monday evening. During this 72 hour period, the draft is circulated to all Member States. If there are no objections during the silence procedure the draft is accepted. If the silence is “broken” with member state objections, an additional draft is released.

The UN has not publicized whether or not member states broke the silence or if the draft was accepted as the final edition. A 5th revision has not been posted as of the publishing of this article.

Despite the lack of transparency on the final draft of the Pact, noteworthy changes were made from the 3rd to the 4th revision.

Specifically, references to “Emergency Platforms” were removed for the 4th revision of the Pact for the Future. The 3rd draft of the Pact read (emphasis added):

“(a) Present for the consideration of Member States protocols for convening and operationalizing emergency platforms based on flexible approaches to respond to a range of different complex global shocks, including criteria for triggering and phasing out emergency platforms, ensuring that emergency platforms are convened for a finite period and will not be a standing institution or entity.

(b) Ensure that the convening of emergency platforms supports and complements the response of United Nations’ principal organs, relevant United Nations entities, United Nations-coordination entities and mechanisms…”

That same section now reads:

“(a) Consider approaches to strengthen the United Nations’ system’s response to complex global shocks, within existing authorities and in consultation with Member States, that supports, complements and does not duplicate the response of United Nations’ principal organs, relevant United Nations entities, United Nations- coordination entities and mechanisms, and specialized agencies mandated to respond to emergencies…”

The removal of emergency platforms is significant because it is these platforms which are supposed to be the mechanism by which the UN acts in the event of a declared emergency. The 3rd draft of the Pact claimed that the emergency platforms will only be “convened for a finite period”, and would not be a standing institution or entity with respect to national sovereignty. These statements were likely intended to sway critics of the UN who fear that these emergency platforms will be seized upon and used to grant the UN new legal powers.

Now, rather than emergency platforms, the document is focused on considering ways to “strengthen” UN “system’s response” to “complex global shocks”. This could be a temporary victory for supporters of national sovereignty and independence. However, the public will not know for sure until the final document is released.

The UN continues to claim the world is facing “global shocks”. The UN defines “complex global shocks” as events that “have severely disruptive and adverse consequences for a significant proportion of countries and the global population”. These shocks would require a “multidimensional multistakeholder, and whole of government, whole of society response.”

Under “Action 56”, the 4th draft of the Pact for the Future calls for strengthening the “international response to complex global shocks”.

TLAV has previously reported that discussion of “global shocks” and calls for an Emergency Platform are reminiscent to previous calls for the UN to declare a planetary emergency. While the language regarding Emergency Platforms has been removed, it’s important to understand the root of these discussions, and the calls for declaring a Planetary Emergency.

UN-affiliated organizations like the Climate Governance Commission (CGC) have been calling for such a declaration over the last year.

In late November 2023, just before the opening of the UN Climate Change Conference COP28, the Climate Governance Commission released a report titled Governing Our Planetary Emergency. In this report, the CGC continues their advocacy for updating our ideas on governance.

We can trace the call for a Planetary Emergency back to the infamous but obscure group, the Club of Rome. The CGC’s November 2023 report even notes that the belief in a “polycrisis” is “recognized in the work of the Club of Rome Planetary Emergency Project“. This reference to the Club of Rome reveals yet another reason the public ought to be concerned with the push for a planetary emergency and claims of crossing planetary boundaries

The Club of Rome has been calling for declaring a Planetary Emergency since at least 2019 with the publication of their “Planetary Emergency Plan”. The report would be updated in August 2020, after the beginning of COVID1984. The Club of Rome’s Emergency Plan is described as a “roadmap for governments and other stakeholders to shift our societies and economies to bring back balance between people, planet and prosperity”.

“Turbocharging” the 2030 Agenda

As with previous versions, climate change continues to be a major component of the 4th draft of the Pact for the Future. Action 12 of the draft states, “We will plan for the future and strengthen our collective efforts to turbocharge the full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by 2030 and beyond.”

The draft also calls for the UN to “significantly advance progress” towards the UN SDGs by “strengthening the role of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF)” as the “main platform” for reviewing the sustainable development agenda. The HLPF, a subdivision of both the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Economic and Social Council, is responsible for the entire organization’s policy on sustainable development.

The document also calls for inviting the HLPF to “consider in September 2027 how we will advance sustainable development by 2030 and beyond, as a priority and at the center of our work”.

This signals that the HLPF will become increasingly important in the completion of the Agenda 2030.

Remaking the International Financial Architecture

The 4th draft of the Pact continues the calls for a new international financial system to complete the transition to a “nature based economy”.

The stated goal of reforming the international financial system to fund the SDGs and Agenda 2030 mimic recent statements made by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres where he called for a “new Bretton Woods moment”, referencing the infamous 1944 international agreement that established the IMF. The Breton Woods meeting also adopted rules for governing monetary relations among independent states, including requiring each nation to guarantee convertibility of their currencies into U.S. dollars.

Under “Action 4”, we also see the mention of closing the “SDG financing gap in developing countries”. The document calls for securing an “ambitious outcome at the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in 2025” as part of the effort to complete the SDGs. The reference to the “Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development” should be seen as another step in the globalist march towards “global governance”.

Another curious line in the draft is found under “Action 7”, where we see the line, “Promote and protect human rights and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as interrelated and mutually reinforcing…”.

I could foresee future UN propaganda encouraging people to look at the Agenda 2030 and the fight against climate change as “interrelated” to human rights. The idea being that the completion of the SDGs is a “human right” based on the premise that climate change threatens all of humanity.

Debt-For-Nature Swaps

The 4th edition of the Pact for the Future also mentions a controversial financial tool known as “debt swaps” or “debt-for-nature swaps”.

Under Action 52 of the Pact it reads, “Promote greater use of debt swaps for the SDGs, including debt swaps for climate or nature, to developing countries, as appropriate.”

These “swaps” are financial agreements in which a conservation organization or government reduces, restructures, or purchases a country’s debt at a discount in exchange for investments in conservation of land. The swaps have been promoted by the World Economic Forum as recently as April 2024 in an article about debt-for-nature swaps as a method for “funding the green transition”.

Debt-for-nature swaps have been criticized for numerous reasons, including a general aversion to placing a price on nature and viewing the natural world as a financial commodity. Some view these efforts as yet another form of greenwashing. The swaps have also been perceived as foreign intervention in national sovereignty and a “return to the colonial system”.

Mae Buenaventura, senior program manager on debt and green economy at the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), told Carbon Brief that participating in a debt-swap agreement “immediately results in a loss of autonomy and sovereignty”.

“Lenders determine the terms of the swap, meaning that they can impose conditions on borrowing governments on how they should invest the freed-up funds and can work towards privileging the lender and private corporations.”

Frederic Hache, co-founder of the independent think tank of the EU Green Finance Observatory, sees swaps as a “way to gain access and control to land resources that will prove possibly precious in the future.”

A Pact for the Corporate Future?

The Pact for the Future has also been criticized as another wolf in sheep’s clothing wearing the veneer of sustainability and diversity but actually delivering more corporate control of natural resources.

Inequality.org, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies, says the Pact would“perpetuate an international investment regime” which gives corporations “excessive power to undermine public interest regulations”.

“Just take a look at how the natural resource extractive industries have used the existing investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system to undercut national sovereignty and sustainability and to foment conflict,” the organization states. “The mining sector, in particular, has used this system, enforced through almost 3,000 treaties, to sue governments in supranational tribunals, bypassing national legal systems.”

What Comes Next?

Overall, the Pact for the Future is yet another globalist document being negotiated behind closed doors with very little public input or awareness. Without a doubt, the opacity of the discussions is problematic, but we ought to ask ourselves several crucial questions about the United Nations and the drafting of the Pact for the Future.

Who granted the UN authority over our lives in the first place? Why does the UN negotiate documents on our behalf while never consulting the people? What happens if we choose to reject the UN’s edicts and carve our own path?

Most importantly, what happens next if the people of the world choose to organize for ourselves and focus our energy on what our 2030 and beyond looks like? What if we organize Our Summit for Our Future, taking our lives in our own hands and determining our own destiny?

We better start asking these questions soon, and, most importantly, seriously contemplating what we will do to remain in control of our individual lives.

TRUST THE LORD!!

MARANATHA!