Yesterday, attendees at the opening of the two-day of the United Nations (“UN”) Summit of the Future adopted the Pact for the Future (“Pact”) by consensus.  

“Without serious and independent assessments of the outrageous covid response, and without recognition of the UN’s technical, advisory, and moral failures, any agenda forward should be assumed intended to serve the same authoritarian, and for the UN’s partners, very profitable aims,” Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh and Dr. David Bell write.

The Pact’s fate at the UN summit was in question until the last moment. According to ABC News, There was so much suspense that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had three prepared speeches, one for approval, one for rejection, and one if things weren’t clear, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.

“No one is happy with this pact,” said Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergey Vershinin.

Seven countries voted against adopting the Pact: Russia, Nicaragua, Iran, Sudan, Belarus, North Korea and Syria.  Additionally, 15 countries abstained from voting, including China, Cuba, Iraq, Laos, Malaysia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Before the UN’s announcement yesterday, the Brownstone Institute published an article authored by Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh and Dr. David Bell.  It is the fifth and final in a series of articles reviewing the plans of the UN and its agencies designing and implementing the agenda of the Summit of the Future.  You can find the articles in the series by following the hyperlinks below:

• Part I: The UN Smothers The Peoples With Compassion
• Part II: The UN’s Green Agenda Will Spark Famine
• Part III: The UN Invites Its Friends To Dinner
• Part IV: Three New Pacts To Be Approved At The UN Summit
• Part V: The UN Machinery Against Human Rights

In the latest article, Part V, the authors analyse the UN machinery against human rights, arguing that it has become detached from its original purpose of serving “The People” and instead prioritises its own interests and agendas. The authors highlight the UN’s plans for the Summit of the Future, which may be adopted by political leaders who have yet to face inquiries for committing crimes against humanity.

The following is a summary of Part V in Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh and Dr. David Bell’s series about the plans of those implementing the agenda of the Summit of the Future.

The UN’s human rights machinery, comprising Treaty Bodies, Charter-based mechanisms, and International Labour Organisation (“ILO”) supervisory bodies, is meant to promote and protect human rights. However, this machinery has become ineffective in addressing the rights of marginalised populations, the authors argued.

The numerous UN gatherings, with the help of corporate media, are beautifully scripted, staged and acted –  “Only ‘We The Peoples’ are not there,” the authors said.

Once built on the premise of improving human lives, rights, and livelihoods, the system has become a cause unto itself, repeating the same empty messages and hypocritical promises over and over again, and always expanding. There are always compelling reasons to spend the money of others.

The UN Machinery against Human Rights, Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh and Dr. David Bell, Brownstone Institute, 22 September 2024

Dr. Van Dinh and Dr. Bell point out that despite the UN Charter’s preamble emphasising “We The Peoples,” the organisation has increasingly centralised authority, limiting individual rights.

The UN’s founding principles, as reaffirmed in the 2005 World Summit, emphasised the commitment to “actively protecting and promoting all human rights” and to mainstreaming human rights throughout the UN system. However, the current UN machinery appears to have strayed from these ideals.  It has become out of touch with the people it should serve.

They highlight Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”), which allows for restricting freedoms for “morality, public order and the general welfare,” contrasting this with the US Bill of Rights’ protection of individual liberties to stop a tyrannical government from overriding the will of the people.  “The UDHR specifically states that the UN, in its increasing determination to centralise authority within itself, can [override the will of the people],” Dr. Van Dinh and Dr. Bell said.

The two authors say that the UN has become detached from its human rights mandate, which has significant implications for the future of human rights protection.  They accuse the UN machinery of ignoring the enormous harms inflicted on fundamental rights and freedoms of billions of voiceless individuals. And criticise the UN’s response to the covid-19 pandemic, particularly statements made by Secretary-General António Guterres and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (“OHCHR”).

During the covid era, the UN failed to uphold basic human rights by endorsing restrictive measures like lockdowns and vaccine mandates without adequately considering their impact on individual freedoms.

“‘We The Peoples’ have learned a hard lesson: Our lives and rights were not the reason for the UN, but subject to it and its wealthy and powerful partners,” the two authors said.

Following Guterres’ example, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (“OHCHR”) did not defend the fundamental right to refuse vaccines, as one would assume its mandate demanded.

In a video message on 8 December 2021 addressed to the Human Rights Council, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet said that access to education and public spaces conditional on vaccination status “may be acceptable.” This contradicts principles enshrined in the UDHR and the Nuremberg Code.

Although Bachelet recognised that forced injections were not acceptable (“in no circumstances should people be forcibly administered a vaccine”), she was perfectly happy to restrict what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR, including that of education and participation in society. It was extremely strange that she did not define what was forced vaccination. Vast numbers of people on earth took the vaccines because they were threatened with losing jobs or losing the right to see family members, attend schools, reopen their businesses, or even to receive medical treatment. Surely must this amount to forced injections within any reasonable assessment of human need?

Bachelet further stated that appropriate fines could be part of the legal consequences for refuseniks. Her flawed arguments were probably based on the so-called “greater good” approach of covid-19, widely associated in the past with fascist and other totalitarian regimes.

The Nuremberg Code and UDHR of non-binding nature, however codifying the highest ethical and moral values of our societies, were developed after World War II to protect individuals at the mercy of authorities who, very often, have the monopoly of violence, control and punishment, while telling their populations to sacrifice for the community’s “greater good.”

The UN Machinery against Human Rights, Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh and Dr. David Bell, Brownstone Institute, 22 September 2024

The enormous harms on fundamental rights and freedoms of the voiceless billions have been fast buried, while the UN machinery continues its business as usual.

The UN’s future agenda seeks to expand its mandate and funding into areas like artificial intelligence and future generations, without acknowledging its failures during the pandemic.  The UN should investigate crimes against future generations, such as national debt, poverty and lack of education.

Without serious and independent assessments of the outrageous covid response, and without recognition of the UN’s technical, advisory, and moral failures, any agenda forward should be assumed intended to serve the same authoritarian, and for the UN’s partners, very profitable aims.

[Pact for the Future, Declaration for Future Generations, and Global Digital Compact] likely will be adopted by the same political leaders who are yet to face inquiries for committing crimes against humanity on their own populations. To employ their logic, the crimes against the rights of future generations (national debts, poverty, and no education imposed) shall be also investigated.

The UN Machinery against Human Rights, Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh and Dr. David Bell, Brownstone Institute, 22 September 2024

The UN machinery, Dr. Van Dinh and Dr. Bell concluded, has become a self-serving system, working closely with those having the same targets. It doesn’t care if “We The Peoples” ignore its Summit, oppose or embrace it. We are not supposed to be part of the process – just its subjects as it forges a world in the image of those we once thought we had defeated.