The Cost of Global Governance
'Agenda 2030 represents a form of global governance, epitomising an emergent world order where unelected bureaucrats and corporate titans supersede the democratic rights of citizens and the sovereignty of nation-states.’
In 2015, an assembly of world leaders descended upon the United Nations to embrace the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, parading 17 goals and 169 targets as the ultimate elixir for transforming our world.
Preceding this grand unveiling, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set the stage, painting the groundwork for Agenda 2030. They established a global checklist of objectives supposedly aimed at tackling the quintessential social, economic, and environmental challenges of our time.
In the preamble of "Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," the UN asserts that Agenda 2030 is a “plan of action for people, planet, and prosperity," with the additional aim of "strengthening universal peace in larger freedom."
‘We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet.’
Here we have a striking resemblance to the impassioned proclamations you might hear at a Miss America pageant, where the contestants earnestly articulate their visions for world peace.
This grand vision is the product of "over two years of intensive public consultation and engagement with civil society and other stakeholders around the world." Apparently, in the eyes of its architects, two years is deemed sufficient to concoct a plan to address the existential crises of mankind.
In the realm of 'sustainable development,' the coveted prize isn't a sash and a bouquet of flowers; it's the centralisation of power by global corporate elites. This centralization undermines the importance and authority of nations like Australia and the US to govern themselves independently, shackling them with external interference.
The UN writes:
‘We resolve, between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere; to combat inequalities within and among countries; to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies; to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and to ensure the lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources.’
The notion that poverty and hunger will miraculously vanish, inequalities will magically disappear, and peaceful, just, and inclusive societies will effortlessly materialise within a decade is a utopian fantasy, echoing the dreams of Robert Owen and Charles Fourier, the fathers of utopian socialism.
Fourier and Owen’s projects were doomed by their inherent misunderstanding of human nature. Both men, in their almost childlike naivety, failed to account for the complexities of individual ambition, the nuances of personal responsibility, and the inevitable friction arising from disparate human desires. Humans are individuals, not cogs in a collective machine.
Agenda 2030 similarly overlooks these fundamental aspects of human behavior, presuming a harmonious global implementation that ignores the inherent natural conflicts and diverse interests within any large-scale collective effort.
As Pope John Paul II remarked, “socialism views the individual merely as an element, a molecule within the social organism, whereby the welfare of the individual is entirely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism.”
"We envisage a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination; of respect for race, ethnicity and cultural diversity; and of equal opportunity permitting the full realisation of human potential and contributing to shared prosperity,” the UN claims.
Even after orchestrating the systematic obliteration of human rights during Covid-19, the rhetoric of this global body remains unchanged. It paints an idealistic picture of a world seemingly disconnected from the stark realities on the ground.
Agenda 2030: A Vehicle for Global Governance
At its core, Agenda 2030 is the mechanism for global governance. A unified executive branch where international bodies such as the United Nations, World Economic Forum (WEF), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and corporate entities like multinational corporations wield increasing influence over sovereign nations.
For years, incompetent, short-sighted, or corrupt politicians have fervently pledged their commitment to this agenda, inadvertently pushing unwitting citizens to gradually relinquish decision-making authority to unelected international bodies.
So, we persist in adopting policies that hurt our own domestic interests: trade agreements that favour multinational corporations and economic policies that prioritise global markets over local needs.
Integrating climate change measures into national policies ranks among the most senseless and detrimental global policies for the economic prosperity of citizens.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change serves as the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change. And, similar to the approach seen during the Covid-19 pandemic, "the experts" bully citizens of nation-states into adopting an ideological stance on an issue that should primarily concern scientific inquiry.
Of course, there's a significant financial incentive at play.
Global climate change policies often stem from taxation. Despite ostensibly aiming to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability, many of these policies ultimately materialise as various forms of taxation.
Carbon taxes, emissions trading schemes, and other fiscal mechanisms are introduced under the pretext of environmental protection. They function as revenue-generating tools for governments and institutions. However, these policies burden businesses and consumers with additional costs, resulting in higher prices for goods and services.
These regulations have the potential to cripple industries and stifle economic growth. By imposing additional financial burdens on businesses and consumers, they increase the cost of production and consumption. Consequently, businesses may struggle to remain competitive in the global market, leading to job losses, reduced economic activity, and overall economic stagnation.
Disregarding National Realities
The fervent pursuit of a one-size-fits-all global approach blatantly ignores the nuanced complexities of individual nations.
This oversight, glaringly evident in the case of Australia, exposes a profound hypocrisy: while ostentatiously advocating for sustainability on the world platform, the nation sustains its economy heavily through CO2 emissions from coal exports and mining royalties.
Australia is unlikely to sacrifice this crucial revenue stream. Instead, it is more probable that the burden will be shifted onto the citizens through increased taxation.
This strategy allows the nation to maintain its economic backbone while apparently complying with global sustainability agendas, revealing the pragmatic, if somewhat disingenuous, approach to national economic policy in the face of international pressures.
Australia’s political class deems coal as environmentally harmful, yet, it continues to export it to China, a country that shows no signs of slowing its construction of coal-fired power plants.
Undermining Legal Autonomy
Agenda 2030’s goals on inclusive institutions and access to justice also raise serious concerns from the perspective of common law and constitutional rights.
By advocating for reforms that may centralise decision-making processes and strengthen international bodies at the expense of national sovereignty, the agenda risks diminishing the independence and power of legal systems based on common law traditions.
Take, for instance, the erosion of autonomy and authority in legal systems steeped in common law traditions. Global regulations swooping in to overshadow or override national laws. In essence, these global regulations would reign supreme over the laws set by individual nations, consequently chipping away at the sovereignty and influence of national legal systems.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, we witnessed a scenario where global health guidelines and regulations dictated by international organisations like the World Health Organization (WHO) took precedence over and influenced national laws and policies. The widespread implementation of lockdowns, travel restrictions, and public health measures by many countries, all stemming from the recommendations and guidelines put forth by the WHO.
In some cases, these measures were enforced through emergency decrees and regulations, effectively overriding certain aspects of national laws and constitutions. Global health bodies influenced the autonomy and authority of national legal systems.
Gender as a Political Tool
Another troubling ambition of this Agenda is its pathological obsession with gender. As the UN says, “The systematic mainstreaming of a gender perspective in the implementation of the Agenda is crucial.”
The term "systematic mainstreaming" is a splendid illustration of saying very little with a great deal of flourish. And what precisely constitutes a "gender perspective"? Are we to assume that gender considerations were previously relegated to the sidelines, awaiting their grand entrance into the world through this magnificent vision?
This merely reflects a broader agenda aimed at consolidating power under centralized global governance structures. The systematic mainstreaming of a singular perspective suggests an effort to standardise policies and viewpoints across diverse cultures and nations.
Promoting a uniform approach to "gender issues" marginalises individual rights and further inhibits the free expression of thought. This drive for uniformity lies at the core of Agenda 2030, which aims to exert control over diverse nations and cultures by imposing a singular ideological framework.
A Call for Critical Evaluation
Beneath the noble facade of global cooperation lies the insidious encroachment of unaccountable international bodies into the affairs of sovereign nations.
Who does it serve? Corporations and individuals who benefit financially from the spoils of globalism. These surreptitious manoeuvres have rendered nations starkly vulnerable now.
Inch by inch, Agenda 2030 has chipped away at the bedrock of national independence, replacing constitutional safeguards with the whims of a transnational aristocracy.
The United Nations, once a forum for international cooperation, has become a vehicle for the world's elite to impose increasingly self-interested ideologies on sovereign peoples. Mega-corporations and financial behemoths, driven by insatiable greed, seize upon the sustainability pretext to reshape the global economy in their interests, heedless of the consequences for working families.
Australia, which committed to Agenda 2030 under Prime Ministers Turnbull and Morrison, has already witnessed the pernicious effects of this agenda. A wave of radical activism and political upheaval seems to dominate political life — a direct byproduct of its submission to the globalisers' decrees?
From the resurgence of far-left movements to the erosion of traditional democratic norms, Australia serves as a sobering case study in the dangers of sacrificing national sovereignty at the altar of internationalism.
As COVID-19 laid bare the impotence of institutions like the World Health Organization, the folly of Agenda 2030's governance model became ever more apparent.
From a philosophical standpoint, the increasing impact of a centralised, top-down global governance warrants far greater scrutiny than it has received to date.
Practically speaking, the track record of institutions like the UN warrants extreme skepticism about their ability to fairly arbitrate affairs between sovereign nations with divergent interests.
The failures of groups like the World Health Organization during the COVID-19 pandemic exposed their vulnerabilities to institutional inertia, lack of accountability, and undue influence from powerful nations.
A fact-based risk/benefit analysis comparing Agenda 2030's governance model to that of democratic nation-states would prove invaluable in revealing the implications and trade-offs inherent in adopting such a global framework. .
It's becoming abundantly clear that an overzealous allegiance to global bodies threatens the sovereignty of individual nations. Advocates of Agenda 2030 tout global cooperation and integration as the solution to effectively address cross-border issues. Yet, a meticulous scrutiny is imperative to discern which aspects genuinely demand broader coordination and which merely serve as a guise for unwarranted centralised control.
Transparency and the Path Forward
The crux of the matter lies in the glaring absence of democratic transparency concerning Australia's, as well as other nations', endorsement of international agreements or treaties, including those proposed by the United Nations.
Usually, the Australian government advances such agreements through executive action, allowing the Prime Minister or relevant ministers to sign and commit Australia without prior approval from citizens or Parliament. Although these agreements may undergo a process of ratification, often involving parliamentary scrutiny and approval, the extent of this process varies depending on the specific agreement and Australia's domestic laws
Citizens have a fundamental right to be informed about the international agreements and treaties to which their government commits, particularly concerning significant frameworks such as Agenda 2030.
Transparency in these matters is crucial as it ensures accountability and allows citizens to understand the implications of such commitments on national policies, resources, and sovereignty.
It may be a late realisation, but politicians who claim to support national interests have a solemn obligation to inform citizens about the process and consequences of Agenda 2030.
If they fail to do that, they reveal their true allegiance—to opaque global agendas over the democratic rights and sovereignty of the citizens they purportedly serve.
The Modern Enquirer is a reader-funded publications and relies on the generous subscription of its readers. Please consider a monthly or annual subscription by clicking below: