Holy threat to national sovereignty, Batman! The United Nations appears to believe that it should be in charge of global responses to various emergencies that impact multiple countries – and, if the reports are correct, our very own President Joe Biden agrees.
The U.N. is gearing up to position itself as the decider of how the international community responds to various calamities that might occur. This means it could even have the power to override America’s national sovereignty and dictate how our government functions in these moments.
This has been a long time coming. It appears that our own government might be willing to sign on to such an agreement. The United Nations is planning to adopt a Pact for the Future during its “Summit of the Future” in September 2024, which includes a proposal for a new “emergency platform.”
This platform would grant the UN significant powers to respond to global shocks like pandemics, and the UN would have authority over public and private sectors worldwide. The Biden administration has expressed support for this proposal, potentially giving the UN unprecedented control and endangering American sovereignty:
In September 2024, less than two months before the next U.S. presidential election, the United Nations will host a landmark “Summit of the Future,” where member nations will adopt a Pact for the Future. The agreement will solidify numerous policy reforms offered by the U.N. over the past two years as part of its sweeping Our Common Agenda platform.
Although there are numerous radical proposals included in the agenda, perhaps none are more important than the U.N. plan for a new “emergency platform,” a stunning proposal to give the U.N. significant powers in the event of future “global shocks,” such as another worldwide pandemic.
According to a message from United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, these “global shocks” would require the Emergency Platform to “actively promote and drive an international response that places the principles of equity and solidarity at the centre of its work.” The U.N. would also “ensure that those most vulnerable to a complex, global shock, and those with least capacity to cope with its impacts, receive the necessary support from those with the means to do so.”
This would ostensibly involve consolidating the efforts of various “stakeholders” across the globe, which would include governments, “international financial institutions,” “regional bodies,” “civil society,’ and others to address the issue.
This development is reminiscent of another story I wrote earlier this year regarding the possibility that the Biden administration would allow the World Health Organization (WHO) to dictate how the United States responds when there is a pandemic similar to the COVID-19 outbreak. Allowing the U.N. or any other international entity to wield such power poses a severe threat to our national sovereignty, individual freedoms, and democratic governance.
Granting the U.N. an emergency platform with broad powers undermines the principle of national sovereignty. It effectively transfers decision-making authority from elected representatives accountable to their citizens to an unelected global body. Countries should retain the right to determine their own policies and responses to crises rather than ceding control to an international organization that will not always act in their best interests.
One of the main concerns surrounding the UN’s emergency platform is the lack of accountability and transparency that accompanies it. With such extensive authority, the UN would not be subject to the checks and balances inherent in democratic systems. The decision-making process and allocation of resources would be opaque, making it difficult for citizens to hold the organization accountable for its actions. This undermines the fundamental principles of open governance and citizen participation. What is to stop the U.N. from trying to expand its power further, especially if our leaders are on board with the idea?
While the UN’s proposal emphasizes the need for a response to global shocks, the lack of clear criteria for triggering the emergency platform raises concerns about mission creep. By leaving the definition of “global shock” open-ended, the UN effectively grants itself the power to determine when and how to intervene in the affairs of sovereign nations. This opens the door for potential abuse of power and interference in domestic affairs under the guise of addressing crises.
The UN’s emergency platform could have far-reaching implications for individual freedoms. The proposed agenda suggests that the UN would bring together various stakeholders, including governments, private sector actors, and international financial institutions. This concentration of power could limit the freedom of individuals and businesses to make decisions according to their own interests and values.
This pact raises concerns about the potential for top-down, one-size-fits-all approaches that may not consider the diverse needs and circumstances of different countries and communities. It would essentially create an international ruling class endowed with the power to force its will on the world. America’s ruling class is already tyrannical enough without having a global apparatus with which to infringe on our rights.
Centralizing power in the hands of an unelected international body erodes the principles of democratic governance. National governments, elected by their citizens, are far better positioned to represent and respond to the unique needs of their populations. Allowing the UN to dictate policies and responses to global shocks undermines the democratic process and can lead to a disconnect between citizens and decision-makers.
These are the types of stories that fly under the radar as the nation is fascinated by Hunter Biden’s (alleged) booger sugar in the White House. Yet, these are far more important. If the reports are accurate, our federal government just might be selling us out to the forces of globalism. This should worry everyone, regardless of political affiliation.
