Kofi Annan
Boutros Boutros-Ghali was the sixth Secretary General of the United Nations1. His tenure started in 1992, but already in 1996, the United States under Clinton/Gore (yes, them again) decided they wanted him out, allegedly because of fears of economic mismanagement, and general levels of bureaucracy.
A claim, somewhat at odds with reality.
His replacement came in the form of Kofi Annan, primarily credited for reforming the United Nations bureaucracy, and launching the UN Global Compact2. Well, that, along with the par-for-the-course corruption, this instance being an Oil-for-Food program, launched by - you guessed it - the Clinton/Gore admininstration3.
And as a side note - do realise that none other but Mark Malloch-Brown - the current president of Soros’s Open Society Foundation4 - is listed as his deputy.
However, take a closer look, and it becomes quite clear that things are not quite what they appear. Reviewing the budgets5, though - sure - they do increase in nominal terms during Boutros-Boutros Ghali, this pales in comparison to that observed under his successor, Kofi Annan - especially when considering real (post-inflation) terms; Annan trails by miles as is clearly observable in the below graph. Consequently, American objections appear suspicious - regardless of stated reasons.
What Kofi Annan is primarily remembered for is reforming the United Nations. However, before we venture onto that point, it’s quite important to understand upon who he relied6, beyond Malloch-Brown -
‘Working as a top adviser to Annan from 1997 to 2005, Strong was the author of Annan’s first big round of U.N. reforms, which broadly shifted power away from the member states and toward his boss in the Secretariat‘
The first round of reform concentrated power with the secretariat. There’s that ‘good governance’ for you, with added ‘transparency’, ‘inclusion’ and ‘participation’.
‘These changes included adding the post of a deputy secretary-general to help manage the expanding turf of the Secretariat. Annan first gave that job to a Canadian, Louise Frechette, who ultimately drew criticism for mismanaging Oil-for-Food and left the U.N. early last year to join a Canadian institute that included Strong on its board of governors.’
…yes, Annan definitely appears somewhat like a Clinton appointee.
’Annan replaced Frechette with one of Strong’s former colleagues from a stint dating back to the mid-1990s at the World Bank, Mark Malloch Brown, who — with Strong as one of his special advisers — had then served under Annan from 1999-2005 as head of the U.N. Development Program‘
When one crook is outed, s/he is simply replaced with a different crook. Definitely very much in line with the Clinton way of doing business.
‘Styling himself as a guru of global governance, Strong also helped to launch a major campaign for the U.N. to entwine its murky and graft-prone bureaucracy with big business, via so-called public-private partnerships. Strong introduced this process in his 1997 reform proposal as the bland notion of “consultation between the United Nations and the business community.”‘
… and that’s very much Maurice Strong’s way of doing business - through outright lies and deceit.
Either way, this is not about Maurice Strong, but rather, Kofi Annan. And it was in his capacity as Secretary-General of the United Nations that he in January, 1998 delivered a speech of note, titled ‘UNITE POWER OF MARKETS WITH AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL VALUES‘7 - especially as said was delivered in no other place but Davos. Yes, at that years’ World Economic Forum. Yes, of which Maurice Strong was a director at the time -
‘Business has a compelling interest in the success of this work. Creating wealth, which is your expertise, and promoting human security in the broadest sense, the United Nations main concern, are mutually reinforcing goals‘
To put it mildly, let’s just say that Annan is more than hinting that the United Nations is open for business. But this is a - relatively - early document, so you’d expect it to be somewhat hesitant; downplayed, even.
‘Leaders of government and business continue to have choices. So let us choose to unite the power of markets with the authority of universal ideals. Let us choose to reconcile the creative forces of private entrepreneurship with the needs of the disadvantaged and the requirements of future generations‘
In other words - there’s more work to do. Consequently, he returned to Davos in the following year; ‘SECRETARY-GENERAL PROPOSES GLOBAL COMPACT ON HUMAN RIGHTS, LABOUR, ENVIRONMENT, IN ADDRESS TO WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM IN DAVOS‘ (1999)8 -
‘On my previous visits, I told you of my hopes for a creative partnership between the United Nations and the private sector… This year, I want to challenge you to join me in taking our relationship to a still higher level. I propose that you, the business leaders gathered in Davos, and we, the United Nations, initiate a global compact of shared values and principles, which will give a human face to the global market‘
… increased cooperation, and…
‘Our challenge today is to devise a similar compact on the global scale, to underpin the new global economy… embrace, support and enact a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, and environmental practices‘.
… a call for a global compact.
Incidentally, there was another document relating to this WEF-UN Global Compact collaboration. Unfortunately, the United Nations has marked it ‘strictly confidential’, and thus we do not know much beyond its title ‘Strategic Planning Unit - Global Compact launch following the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland, January 1999‘, and its date (1999-02-16 - 1999-05-03)9.
It does appear that Annan did not attend the WEF in 2020. However, on June 26, the UN Global Compact saw its official launch10 -
‘On July 26, Annan is convening a high-level event at the United Nations, which brings together leaders from global business, the international labor movement and civil society organizations. They will put into practice the Global Compact that Annan announced at Davos, Switzerland, in January 1999, …‘
The UN Global Compact11 itself is a voluntary initiative launched to encourage businesses worldwide to adopt sustainable and socially responsible policies. It aligns companies' strategies and operations with ten universally accepted principles in four key areas: human rights, labor standards, environmental protection, and anti-corruption. And that website was launched in early 2000 - right around the time of Davos, in fact.
The 10 principles have a unifying theme12. They are all, ultimately, ethics-centric.
But while the Global Compact itself has received lots of attention, what has largely escaped scrutiny is ‘A/54/700/Add.1‘13 -
‘The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit for the consideration of the members of the General Assembly the comments of the Administrative Committee on Coordination on the report of the Joint Inspection Unit entitled “Private sector involvement and cooperation with the United Nations system” (JIU/REP/99/6).‘
Ie, there’s a prior report - to which we will return in a minute.
‘It was included in the work programme of JIU for 1999 because of the emerging new relationship of the United Nations system with the private sector… at its first regular session in April 1999, ACC emphasized that the system needed to build multidimensional partnerships with the private sector to assist developing countries in capitalizing on the opportunities arising from globalization while minimizing the risks‘
What is of particular interest here is that, publicly, this was at an exploratory stage. And from recommendation 2 we learn -
‘Common approaches continue to be fostered, including through system-wide training efforts supported by the United Nations Staff College in its collaborative programme with the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum‘
Oh will you look at that - the UN Staff College had already collaborated with the Prince of Wales Leaders Forum on a related training program, meaning it was already underway.
‘JIU/REP/99/6’14 referred above goes by the somewhat more catchy title ‘Private Sector Involvement and Cooperation with the United Nations‘ -
‘The relationship with the private sector, therefore, is not new. However, a fundamental shift in the way that the United Nations approaches the private sector, and perhaps in the way that the private sector sees the United Nations, has occurred in recent years‘
… as we saw above…
‘In his report on reforming the United Nations, issued in July 1997, a few months after his assumption of the post, the Secretary-General emphasized the importance which he attached to the issue and pledged that arrangements would be made with leading business organizations to facilitate the dialogue between representatives of business and the United Nations.‘
… but Annan had hardly assumed his seat before starting to carry out the bidding of the foundation class.
‘The Prince of Wales Business Forum, in whose Board some 50 Chief Executive Officers or senior executives from leading international companies participate, is another example of an organization promoting “socially responsible business practices” to help achieve sustainable development, and which has been keen to forge strategic alliances with international agencies for this purpose‘
I read a lot. But I’d never even heard of this forum before reading these document.
‘The new interest taken by the private sector in the activities of the United Nations has also been spectacularly illustrated in recent times by donations of unprecedented amounts from Foundations directly linked to business leaders.‘
Gee, you don’t say.
‘The United Nations Foundation and its counterpart in the United Nations Secretariat, the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP) have created an innovative model for harnessing private donations in service of multilateral development and humanitarian assistance.‘
… and that’d be Ted Turner’s enterprise, as enabled through Maurice Strong.
‘The Inspectors believe it necessary to recall the view often expressed that significant and helpful as fund-raising may be, it is not the primary objective of the partnership being developed between the United Nations and the private sector‘
Well, that might be your perspective, but clearly, that’s not shared by the business community.
‘A number of important statements have been delivered by top United Nations officials explicitly denying that the United Nations was simply “after the private sector’s money”. A recent address by the Executive Director of UNICEF was particularly clear in this regard as she cautioned against adopting a “limited and patronizing view” of what the private sector can bring to a relationship with the United Nations‘
I don’t know if these inspectors are idiots or complicit. Because - amusing as it is - this of course is completely wrong. This wasn’t created to enable the public to go after private money, but rather the express opposive. UNICEF, however… I’m pretty sure that’s simply blatant corruption - more on them later.
The report then goes on to outline a number of examples of private enterprise, gradually seeping into the United Nations structure - in what best can be interpreted as a targeted effort at corruption.
‘Efforts are also needed to bridge the differences between NGOs and the business community and convince the former that the United Nations does not view its cooperation with the various components of civil society as a zero-sum game’
No, of course not, because those NGOs are in fact funded by those very same business interests, and/or foundations.
’… the growing contacts between the United Nations system and the private sector are part of a larger effort to bring in all components of civil society into the work of the Organization, and in particular into those programmes focusing on development.‘
That wouldn’t happen to be because that’s where the money is, now would it?
‘It should also be pointed out that NGOs may also be helpful to the United Nations in assessing the value of cooperation with certain corporations.‘
Imagine that - NGOs (funded by foundations), recommending cooperation with corporations (commonly founded by said foundations). Nah, that’d never happen!
‘WHO informed the authors of the report that a private pharmaceutical company had seconded a staff member to the agency’s Tobacco Free Initiative.‘
It appears almost unimaginable that this wasn’t motivated by profit, knowing what we do about big pharma in general.
‘Nowhere in the United Nations system, however, has the process been developed to the extent that it has been in the World Bank, which has a well-established Staff Exchange Program‘
… explains a lot, doesn’t it? Large enterprise swap staff with the World Bank for a period of up to 2 years (!!!!!!!!!), and magically, those corporations increase profitability… on the back of the taxpayer. It’s insane levels of corruption, and this document is… pretty telling in that regard.
‘In some instances, corporations have financed research and training programmes set up by United Nations entities, such as the United Nations University (UNU).‘
And the corporations have even gone to the extent of corrupting university courses.
And I don’t actually know what’s worse. The fact that this document is from 1999, that it just carries on and on listing examples of gross, obvious corruption, or that the scale of fraud per initiative just keep worsening.
‘The outcome of the Partners for Development Summit held by UNCTAD in 1998… During the four-day meeting, 18 partnership “understandings” were finalized between the UNCTAD Secretariat and private and public organizations.‘
In other words, their ‘business partners’ flock in to capitalise on taxpayer largesse.
‘… organized by the ILO in cooperation with the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, led to the adoption by participants of some 20 projects. These projects include collaboration in areas as diverse as water development, human rights, lowcost housing, health promotion or management training. The Inspectors have been informed, however, that none of these agreements have yet been translated into concrete actions, which leads them to remark, in a cautionary note, that actually implementing joint projects with the private sector may be much more complex than contemplated at the design stage.‘
The alternative explanation here, of course, is that these are ‘sleeper’ arrangements. Ie agreements, suddenly worth small fortunes a decade or two down the road, or carried out through dubious ‘educational’ practise.
‘During the preparatory phase of this report, one of the main reasons cited by United Nations organizations for increasing their contacts with the private sector is the urgent need to channel private investments towards a number of areas crucial to development or towards countries which have not so far benefitted from the enormous flows of private capital and the boom in global private finance which has resulted from fundamental changes in financial markets and institutions. Many believe that the United Nations can play the role of an “honest broker” between, on one side the corporate sector and the international financial community and, on the other side the poor‘
… wait, that sounds a bit like…
‘UNDP has been particularly active and engaged in such initiatives at the micro level. Among the best-known is the “Money Matters Initiative”, a public-private sector partnership of leading private investors, which conducts research on financial innovation to enhance the use of private capital for development…‘
… early stage blended finance initiatives, to be quite honest.
‘In 1995, UNCTAD organized, with UNDP and UNIDO, an International Conference on privatization in Uzbekistan designed to familiarize the international business community with Uzbekistan’s privatization programme and to provide investors with information on Uzbekistan’s specific investment opportunities… some 2000 international business executives and representatives of business organizations such as the ICC, leading to the signature of some 18 business “understandings”.‘
2,000 business executives flocking to Uzbekistan, hoping to partake in a firesale in other words. And a bit further down the page -
‘Bringing the private sector into policy formulation‘
‘Increasingly, the involvement of the private sector into United Nations activities occurs not only at the operational level but also “upstream at the policy level... More recently, the private sector has also become a fully-fledged participant in the international decision-making process in technical or scientific fields‘
… it’s a quasi-technocratic takeover, with intent to steal every penny. That genuinely is what this all sounds like to me. I am somewhat surprised that the world hasn’t entirely collapsed, quite frankly, because this report is over two decades old.
‘The Earth Summit marked a turning point in this regard. Business and Industry were identified in Agenda 21 as one the “Major Groups” whose participation should be sought by the United Nations in setting strategies and policies for sustainable development… experimented with new forms of participation such as the MultiStakeholder Dialogue Segments during its sessions, which have allowed the Major Groups, business among them, to contribute to some extent to the decisions taken by the Commission.‘
And we’re back in Rio 1992 and Maurice Strong yet again. That conference marked nothing short of the start of the corporate takeover.
And though I could carry on, this quite simply is too depressing to continue.
Annan’s programme for ‘renewing’ the United Stated was released in July, 1997 - mere months after he became Secretary General15. And that’s where the next article will pick up from.
Because that plan was in essence the practical application of a notorious 1995 document. And both of those reports had a common contributor.
Maurice Strong.
The most interesting statement to me was: to reconcile .... private entrepreneurship with the needs ......... and requirements of future generations‘. As in forever!
What you describe so well is a cage being constructed into which we are to be put and reconciled with and, ironically, paid for by us. Exit the U.N. and its offspring. or else.