UN's 'Common Agenda Policy Brief 6 - Reforms To International Financial Architecture' and What It Means

UN's "Common Agenda Policy Brief 6 – Reforms to the International Financial Architecture”

The United Nations released a Report in May this year titled, “Our Common Agenda Policy Brief 6 – Reforms to the International Financial Architecture”.  It outlines how the pathway to authoritarian, non-democratic, centralised global governance is paved with the words: ‘climate change crisis’, pandemic preparedness, and ‘Sustainable Development Agenda’.

The very first sentence in the introductory “Chapeau” contains a major assertion that is self-serving. It would be challenged by independent observers if such independent observation had ever been allowed to review the document prior to publication. The sentence reads, “The challenges that we are facing can be addressed only through stronger international cooperation”.

It’s easy to follow? The word “only” is the problem. It suggests the exclusion of local solutions. 

Thus, the rest of the document is destined to refer only to globalist solutions. 

The next sentence attempts to hide the intention of the document by referring to, “multi-lateral solutions”.  However, note the reference to, “strengthening global governance” at the very core. Again, local solutions are excluded from the outset. Global governance is the goal – the one and only goal of the document. [AP readers will know about, “Weasel Words.”]

“The Summit of the Future, to be held in 2024, is an opportunity to agree on multi-lateral solutions for a better tomorrow, strengthening global governance for both present and future generations (General Assembly resolution 76/307).

The author of the “Chapeau” introduction – the UN Secretary General – seems sublimely ignorant of the fact that the term “global governance” is offensive to many millions, if not billions, of people on planet Earth. 

After all, he is an unelected official, appointed and answerable to no one in particular. He does not represent any electorate.  He assumes authority over people who have not played any part in granting him such authority. This lack of real democratic process is a major problem for the United Nations and its many satellite, ‘Non- Governmental Organisations’.

However there is worse to come, much worse. The next biggest problem that BOOM has with the document as a whole is the constant references to ‘climate change’, ‘climate crisis’, and the word ‘sustainable”. This assumes that ‘climate change’ is somehow a financial problem. After all, the document is (supposedly) about reform of the global financial architecture.

Here is a typical sentence illustrating BOOM’s point – Quote: “…. international financial architecture (is) entirely unfit for purpose in a world characterized by unrelenting climate change, increasing systemic risks, extreme inequality, entrenched gender bias, ………..”

And it goes on, “The existing architecture has been unable to support the mobilization of stable and long-term financing at scale for investments needed to combat the climate crisis and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals for the 8 billion people in the world today …….. Dramatic under investment in global public goods, including pandemic preparedness and climate action”.

BOOM must ask – what the hell has climate to do with reform of the International Financial Architecture?  Is this a Report on climate, or gender bias, or pandemic preparedness, or sustainability, or is it a Report on Finance?

Then there is the tendency for over-reach. “We must craft a new set of rules and institutions that support convergence for the twenty-first century and enable all countries to achieve sustainable, inclusive and just transformations.”  Who (exactly) is “we”?  What is “convergence” for the twenty-first century? What “new institutions” will support it? And what is a “just” transformation?

The international financial architecture should be structured to proactively support the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and the realization of human rights.

What is meant by “proactive support”? And why is “the realisation of human rights” a separate matter from “sustainable development goals”?

Then that troublesome word “only” appears again, assuming a centralised (global) authority to act. And reference to global governance appears yet again. “The only way to facilitate such a structure is through ambitious reform, starting with more inclusive, representative and, ultimately, more effective global economic governance.”

The words “inclusive” and “representative” appear as if the author felt that they should somehow be thrown into the word salad, presumably to give the appearance of democracy when the whole thrust of the document is the opposite of it.

The author (or authors — who do not reveal their names) grandly set out the “action orientated” recommendations for reforming the international financial architecture and tax architecture in six areas (somehow the reform of tax architecture has suddenly appeared).

1. Global economic governance (yet another reference to Global Governance)
2. Debt relief and the cost of sovereign borrowing (who can disagree with debt relief?)
3. International Public Finance
4. The Global Financial Safety Net
5. Policy and regulatory frameworks and
6. Global tax architecture for equitable and inclusive sustainable development.

There’s that word “Global” again mixed up with the words “inclusive, equitable and sustainable”.  Did an 8th grader write this document with the assistance of ChatGPT, the so-called artificial “intelligence”? BOOM wonders.

More...