The United Nations Agenda 2030, Section 18 of 91 sections, begins with the following words:
We are announcing today 17 Sustainable Development Goals with 169 associated targets which are integrated and indivisible. Never before have world leaders pledged common action and endeavor across such a broad and universal policy agenda.
Putting aside the amateurish opening four words, which sound more like a press release than a serious policy statement, the drafters of the statement are actually telling the truth. There has never been such a global policy statement as this. It really is not about policy, but about an intended power-grab of unprecedented proportions.
This writer is proposing that the “common action” is to eliminate nation-state sovereignties throughout the world. The sinister nature of this purpose is deflected by the words “universal policy.” Policy would be, for example, to double the daily consumption of about half the world’s population, living on $2 a day per person, to $4 a day. That would be a policy. But this agenda has no specific policies. It is couched throughout in vapid, non-specific terms, being specific only when referring to various U.N.-sponsored conferences held before 2015, the year that Agenda 2030 was written. Not one specific economic or social policy implementation — and successful implementation — is referred to in the entire Agenda 2030 document!
The above is only scratching the surface of Agenda 2030’s attempt to obfuscate and deceive while claiming a wholesome and positive goal for the entire world. Section 33 states, “We are determined to conserve and sustainably use oceans and seas, freshwater resources, as well as forests, mountains and drylands and to protect biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife.” My question to the U.N.: How is it that oceans, rivers, lakes, forests, arable land, and wildlife have existed since the beginning of the planet Earth until the formation of the U.N., with its “vision” of a viable planet (sic)? Their language of sustainability is pure hubris. The U.N. will do a better job of maintaining, sustaining, and improving all of nature than what nature has been able to do without the U.N.’s all-caring intervention?
This writer grew up thinking that the oceans and the air belonged to everyone in the world. Then there were vast, sparsely inhabited regions of mountains, deserts, and forests within nations that were to be managed by those nations. Now the U.N. is claiming management rights over the oceans and the air, and even vast areas within countries. That in effect gives the U.N. authority over all governments regarding nature and of all of nature that is presently not under any specific government. This is communism without a takeover by the proletariat. The danger to nature warrants a new world order, and a collective authority that takes precedence over business rights, civil rights, and claims to individual rights. Nature’s needs and requirements trump the individual’s rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Behind their assumption is a dark, communist vision: capitalism with its greedy, self-interested propensities and institutional manipulations, has raped and distorted nature. The balance and life-producing principles of nature (“Mother Nature,” if one loves that idiom) have been superseded by a profiteering motive. That motive is exploiting the people of the world. Those who understand the extent and danger of this exploitation, whether they be rich or poor, young or old, brown, black, or white, must join with the visionary U.N. to correct this distortion of nature and of man’s relation to it. The U.N. thus has the idea and the wisdom to meet true human needs and sustainability.
Under the distortions of an unjust world order, the long-term as well as the short-term meeting of needs and the balance needed for nature’s survival are threatened. Profits are taking precedence over people and nature throughout planet Earth. This is the false narrative and leftist dream that is driving this so-called agenda. (In reality, it is a shift from the original U.N. agenda of world cooperation of sovereign nation-states based on the enhancement of rights — see the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights — to being the world governing power.)
In the midst of Section 31 about sustainability goals, Agenda 2030 states, “We are also determined to promote sustainable tourism, tackle water scarcity and water pollution and strengthen cooperation on desertification.” We know that there is a lot of water scarcity and desertification in the Sahara and Mohave Deserts. However, here Agenda 2030 writes about these things without naming one specific piece of geography. This is an insult to any intelligent reader, who would automatically wish to know what parts of the world they are interested in “improving.” For example, Phoenix is connected to the Sonoran Desert. Would Agenda 2030 determine that it could tell Phoenix about various civic decisions on the grounds that those decisions are promoting desertification? Many, many metropolitan centers throughout the world are located in or adjacent to desert areas. Any reasonable person would thus understand sentences like the one above as providing for U.N. control over governmental urban planning decisions wherever “desertification” might even remotely might be a legitimate claim.
And what about the surprise insertion of the term “tourism”? As we saw above, that single word is inserted in Section 31 with a long list of environmental concepts. The drafters of this document reveal with this one word that they want control over the movement of all people — large and small movements — to and from all locations. The average person might have thought sustainability might mean something about air quality or global warming. But the sudden inclusion of “tourism” shows that even the short-term movements of people may impact the “sustainability” of the planet and will need to be controlled.
As we reflect on the glittering generalities of the text of Agenda 2030, it becomes clear that the U.N.’s intention is to interfere in and take over the affairs of sovereign nation-states in the name of “meeting needs” and environmental sustainability. The lack of specificity of the document itself sends signals about the intent of the organization to secure power over humanity in the name of protecting humanity and nature.