Listening to Unlimited
Hangout on your host Whitney
Webb. This past week in the US
we saw the return of the Clinton
Global Initiative the Mike
Bloomberg back UN Climate Action
Race to Zero resilience forum in
the Prince William sponsored
Earth shot prize Innovation
Summit. All of these events
focus considerable attention on
solutions to climate change and
can be seen as part of the
preparations for cop 27. The
UN's upcoming climate confab set
to be held in Egypt this
November. Central to these
conferences and the discussions
there is the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. The
core of that agenda are 17
Sustainable Development Goals or
SDGs. While the SDGs are often
brought up in the context of
climate change, examination of
the goals make it clear that
climate is a relatively small
focus of this agenda, and is
only expressly addressed by just
one of the 17 goals. The goal is
touch every aspect of our lives
from the macro to the micro,
from the distant to the
intimate, and there promises
more about transforming our
lives unnecessarily making them
more quote unquote sustainable.
Another thing that becomes
quickly apparent when examining
the SDGs is that their most
ardent supporters are those who
ostensibly have the largest
carbon footprints in the world,
and who also represent the most
predatory institutions and
private finance in the corporate
world. Do these figures now care
deeply about the state of our
planet? Or is their professed
concern a cover for business as
usual? With me today to discuss
this and more as Ian Davis Ian
is no stranger to this podcast
and he is also the co author of
the unlimited hangout
sustainable slavery series,
which he is where he and I are
examining the deeper realities
behind agenda 2030 and its 17
SDGs. Ian is a regular
contributor to UK column as well
as unlimited hangout and he is
regularly republished by off
Guardian, The Corbett Report and
many other outlets you can
follow and support his work at
iaindavis.com. That's
iaindavis.com. Thanks for
joining me today Iain. How are
you? I'm very well. Thank you,
Whitney. Thanks very much for
having me. Absolutely. My
pleasure. And who else would I
have? Since we're writing a
series on this very topic
together? It makes the most
logical sense. Good point. Good
point. Right. So as I mentioned
earlier, our series on this is
called Sustainable slavery. We
currently have two installments
out. One is called sustainable
debt slavery. And the most
recent one is a Ian's piece on
UHC. 2030, the United Nations
Global Public Private
Partnership for Health Care,
which is focused around
sustainable development goal
three, and I'll be having an
upcoming one. On the SDG. I
think it's number 11. or No, I,
I haven't written down
somewhere. I think it's, oh, let
me find it. It's 14, sorry.
There's 17 of them. So I've got
first dibs on seven. Okay, all
right, well, we'll work that out
when we're not recording a
podcast on it. But anyway, we
have two installments up. Now we
have more upcoming in the
future, obviously. And there is
a lot to cover here. Since
there's 17 of these things. So
climate starting, you know,
really from this past week, and
through the next coming months
in the lead up to cop 27, we can
expect a lot of bombardment
about the necessity and urgency
with which the world must
implement the Sustainable
Development Goals. As I
mentioned in the intro, these
goals are basically about
transforming all aspects of our
lives. And they sound like very
nice things, if you just read
the, you know, one sentence or,
you know, phrase descriptor for
each of them, you know, things
like no poverty, Zero Hunger,
good health, and well being.
These are all things that people
can get behind. But the thing
is, when you actually, for
example, go to the UN website,
they will, you know, have
graphics of each goal and you
mouse over it, it tells you a
little more about what the goals
are. So you know, sustainable
development, goal three, which
you wrote about recently in you
mouse over, it says, ensure
healthy lives and promote
wellbeing for all at all ages.
And below it it says 13 targets
18 events, 35 publications and
978 actions. And so basically,
you know, we're having these,
you know, phrases that everyone
can get behind that really are
written so that no one can, you
know, really oppose the idea
that they're promoting. But
there's specific actions going
on behind those phrases that a
lot of people are not looking
at, ostensibly because it sounds
nice, so why would you oppose
it? And in the case of SDG,
three, which we'll talk about in
a little bit, the organization
that's really lurking behind
that is
called UHC 2030. And it really
doesn't have very much to do
with promoting wellbeing for all
at all ages unless the all
you're talking about there is
all massive multinational
pharmaceutical corporations. But
you know, we'll get to that in a
little bit. But more or less,
that's essentially how these
SDGs operate when you start to
look behind them. So the first
installment of our series
sustainable debt slavery, I
guess, then we were basically
focusing focusing there on
sustainable development goals.
17, which is basically they call
it partnerships for the goals.
And if you, you know, mouseover,
and read the slightly longer
descriptor, it says, strengthen
the means of implementation, and
revitalize the Global
Partnership for Sustainable
Development. And of course, as
we know, in this article, that
global partnership is a global
public private partnership. So
this is definitely something
right out of the playbook of
stakeholder capitalism. And it
has a lot of implications for
monetary policy, and our friends
at GE fans, the Glasgow
financial alliance for net zero,
so I've kind of gone off a bit
here. So it's probably best I
hand it over to you and to
basically explain what SDG 17 is
about what is going What is this
global public private
partnership really mean here?
And why does it matter? Yeah,
thanks for me. Yeah, I mean, I
agree with you. You're quite
right, right. I mean, the
opening sort of part of or
perhaps one of the key parts to
understand SDG 17.
Is that it's, it's it says that
the the focus of it is to
enhance, and this is a quote, so
enhance the Global Partnership
for Sustainable Development
complemented by multi
stakeholder partnerships. So the
idea of the multi stakeholder
partnership is key to and I
think it's important to
understand SDG 17, because it
more or less sets out the
framework for how the other 16
Sustainable Development Goals
SDGs
will be implemented. So they're
all implemented using or based
upon that same that notion of
the multi stakeholder
partnership. But therefore, it's
important to understand what the
multi stakeholder partnership
is, or the the multi stakeholder
partnership goes back to, as you
said, the idea of the first one,
not first, but first
popularized, certainly in first
push by Klaus Schwab, the head
of the World Economic Forum, way
back in the way back in the
1970s, but also in his book,
which I think it was published
much later, I think, in the 90s.
Yeah, so. So he I mean, he
enunciate it fully in his book
stakeholder capitalism.
And he, the idea of the
stakeholder on the face of it
again, as much as the same with
the SDGs is UN Sustainable
development is that when you
read the headline,
and that's something that I
would encourage people to
consider when they look at SDGs.
Because if you go to the UN's
website, and look at their their
primary pages for the
sustainable development, I think
it's important to remember that
what you are being shown there
is the headline, you're not
being it's unless you dig deeper
into them, you're not going to
understand what they're about,
because that's tantamount to
reading the headline of an
article and not reading the
content.
Or,
you know, it's it's it, you
nearly really need to understand
this stuff to know where it's
heading. And as I said, this
idea of stakeholder capitalism
is at the center of it. So
initially, it was presented by
Chris Schwab and others as the
idea of a more responsible form
of corporate governance and
governance within the
corporation that is, so the idea
is that corporations could quote
add value by being more
responsible partners in society.
And you know, there was there
was a kind of an admission to a
certain extent within that, you
know, corporate activity is very
influential, and even some kind
of risk acceptance of, you know,
a minimum amount of culpability
for some of the damages that
corporations of course with
their business activities over
the years. So, on the face of
it, it sounded quite cowardly.
But the but the problem is, is
what they are suggesting is the
core set that the center of
stakeholder can
journalism, which is that they
are proposing that this is
again, coming from Klaus Schwab,
that the world would be a better
place if multinational
corporations are the, quote,
Trustees of society. Well, what
does that mean? Well, a trustee
is got a very specific meaning
in law as a specific meaning. So
it's a person appointed. And
this is the legal definition
from Black's Law Dictionary, a
person appointed or required by
law to execute a trust, one in
whom and a state interest or
power is vested.
So they are, I think, the key
thing to bear in mind from the
corporate perspective is that
they are suggesting that they
should be trustees of society.
Now, that means that they are
suggesting that they should be
entrusted by us, and have should
have power vested in them by us
to exercise control, and act in
our best interests. So basically
be the stewards of everything.
Yeah, to be the stewards
stewards. Now, now, if that is
part of sustainable development,
which is a global plan for
transformation, and they are the
key markets, stakeholders in the
quote, unquote, multi
stakeholder partnership, what
they're claiming, is that they
should be re responsible
custodians of this
transformation. Well, as we all
know, the transformation
sustainable development is
global. So what they are saying
is that they should be the key
custodians of the earth. So that
is, that's mental.
Yeah, that's the whole podcast,
everyone.
I mean, you probably couldn't
get there. Because I mean, who
in their right mind would
support that? You know, it's
totally mental, especially when
you consider you know, that a
lot of this is ostensibly around
public private partnerships. And
so you're having, you know, if
you talk about, like corporate
capture of the public sector,
you're basically having the
private running everything and
being like, yes, now and trust
us to be stewards of your global
estate and the global commons
and all of this stuff. You know,
the people that have, as I
mentioned earlier, you know, a
lot of the people that are the
public faces of this are people
like Bill Gates, who build them.
We're not predatory monopoly at
Microsoft, are people like Larry
Fink of Blackrock? You know, a
predatory asset manager and
stuff like that. I mean, it's
just mental, the idea that these
guys would be responsible
stewards of anything, to be
honest. Yeah. And I think
that's, that's a key thing, too,
for people to try. And sort of,
you know, why would any of us
given the way that that, you
know, most people, I think, who
believe in what sustainability
sustainable development is
supposed to be? probably
consider, and we see it all the
time with the protests, consider
that quote, unquote, big
polluters, like the, like,
companies like BP and
Exxon Mobil, and Petro China,
and companies like that.
consider them to be the world's
big polluters. Well, these are
the companies who through this
network of something that we
could call the global public
private partnership are the ones
who are assuming stewardship of
the planet for sustainable
development. So with Sobey, so
people need to be to make that
connection. They need to
understand that the companies
that they're protesting against
if you happen to be involved in
those kinds of protests, are the
companies who are ramming
sustainable development programs
globally. So you're protesting
for them? Yeah. So a lot of the
stuff you have here, you know,
you have un backed entities that
are supporting things like
carbon markets, and carbon
trading, and carbon allowances
and all of this stuff. And it's
even been reported in mainstream
media outlets like the Guardian,
the intercept, that oil
companies
overwhelmingly support those
policies, they like them. Why do
they like them? You know, I just
I'm kind of puzzled why people
on the left haven't really dug
or haven't really seemed very
interested in digging any deeper
into this because you hear all
the time. Or at least we're you
know, a lot of people think that
the left is ostensibly supposed
to be more concerned about
holding corporations to account
and predatory behavior by
corporations in regulating
corporations and all of this
stuff, but this is basically
handing corporations including
the ones that a lot of them
recognize as being the quote
unquote bad guys. It's handing
them the keys to the castle
essentially. Yeah, I mean, it's
it's
It's pretty crazy stuff. Really.
I mean, I think one of the
problems is and I think another
another important thing is to
bear in mind is,
personally, I don't accept the
the idea that you know that
carbon dioxide is a great
pollution pollutant, that
anthropogenic global warming is
a thing. That's personally my
view. But I understand the vast
majority of people would
disagree with that. It doesn't
matter, it doesn't make any
difference, even if you even if
you think that, that you know,
there isn't that we are faced
with a climate emergency and
that there is some need to do
something about it in terms of
in terms of,
you know, to save the planet,
and to save, obviously, life on
Earth and so forth. This isn't
the solution. Sustainable
development is not the solution.
The Sustainable Development has
got nothing to do with reducing
carbon dioxide. Yeah, it's
sustainable development is about
creating carbon markets in a
great to a great extent creating
carbon markets to enable the
same group global corporations
that have always the big
polluters, quote, unquote, big
polluters, to change their
business model so that they can
carry on being global corporate
leaders, as multi stakeholder
partners, but with a new
business model based upon carbon
trading, which means not that
they will reduce their carbon
output, but they will offset it
or trade it, therefore making
more money. Yeah, so basically,
like you said, it doesn't really
matter how you feel about
climate change, whether you
believe the, you know, about a
climate emergency, or you don't,
it's really irrelevant when
looking at the sustainable
development goals as its pitch.
Because I think one of the
reasons to which you sort of
alluded to this, I think a lot
of people like the conceive of
sustainable development the term
differently than the way the UN
and the people implementing the
SDGs. Think about what
sustainable development means.
And we can get into that in a
little bit. Because in the first
installment of our series, we
note that considerably when it
especially when it comes to
economics, and the idea of
sustainable debt and things of
that nature. But you know, it's
even more than just making
carbon markets, you could say
that sustainable development
goals in general, as as written
and as they're being
implemented, are about
specifically making new markets,
period. It's not just I mean,
obviously, making a new carbon
market is a key part of it. But
you're having at the same time,
basically the transformation of
everything, including the
natural world natural resources
into financial commodities, and
basically allowing those to
become a new market and a new
asset class and all of this
stuff, with the ultimate goal of
keeping the casino going and
allowing the same predatory
behavior by these actors to grow
and expand in a way that they
are very excited about. When I
wrote about natural asset
corporations.
Last year, the group that
developed that called the
intrinsic intrinsic exchange
group, they're backed by the
Rockefeller Foundation, they're
basically gloating over the
opportunity and how this new
asset class will allow them to
extend exude the existing amount
of assets in the economy by like
trillions and trillions and
trillions of dollars. And when
they say the opportunity, it's
very clear, they say it's that
that they see as the opportunity
not an opportunity to, I don't
know, protect those natural
resources, like they ostensibly
claim that's not the opportunity
to them, the opportunity to them
is to open a new casino for
specifically in the developing
world. It's all about emerging
markets and moving capital flow
to emerging markets. And, you
know, all sorts of financial
games are going on here. And
that's not sustainable
development. Like most people
think of it most people, I
think, if you were to ask them
what sustainable development is,
they'd say things like, okay,
returning to small scale,
subsistence organic farming,
putting a solar panel on your
roof, recycling, all types of
stuff like that. And that's not
really, you know, maybe some of
those things pop up in, you
know, in some degree in these
sustainable development goals.
But that's not the focus of this
agenda 2030 for sustainable
development by any means at all.
And if you're looking at
governments, like in the US,
where you have the Biden
administration, talking about
the need to implement these
goals relatively often, there's
been numerous cases and, you
know, my colleague, Jeremy
Loffredo, has been covering one
story on this, but there's many
stories like this across the
country where organic farms are
being actually shut down or
threatened with fines. Um, you
know, for basically not meeting
certain goals that are sort of
tied into the same agenda, but
they're, you know, farming
organically in this part.
The killer case that Jeremy is
covering, it's like an Amish
family. You know, they're not
using chemicals or any of that
stuff. And it's, it's getting
nasty pretty quickly. And,
you know, this is something
that's going on why there's very
big concerns about food security
globally. And it's not just that
one case, right? So, you know,
there's a lot going on, behind
what these people are calling
sustainable development. And
there's a, like a huge rift, I
would say, between how people
conceive of sustainable
development and what that means
and what these people are saying
it means. Yeah, no, absolutely.
I mean, if we were actually
going to tackle let's let's just
put aside the, you know,
whatever you might think about
anthropogenic global warming,
and just think about what we
would do if we were facing a
real climate catastrophe? Well,
obviously, the first thing that
you would start thinking about
is localizing energy supplies
localizing food supplies,
localizing you know, mitigations
against environmental damage,
that kind of thing that makes
sense if, because if the problem
is that as a species, we are
running wild around the planet
and causing untold devastation,
we're doing that through our
mass industrial activity. So the
obviously the, the logical thing
to do if we were going to tackle
the climate emergency is to
localize those things and
perhaps reduce our carbon
footprints by by living, you
know, more sustainable lives in
the general in the, you know, in
the, the the normally accepted
meaning of the word of
sustainable ie being self
sufficient. I mean, that that
would be that would reduce our
carbon footprints that would
that would actually tackle the
climate emergency. But as you
quite rightly said with me, then
that this is almost the total
opposite of that.
It's, it's about global
globalization. And more
importantly, I would suggest it
is about introducing global
financial governance into pretty
much every corner of our lives.
So global financial governance
will be the the driving impetus
for decision making and
policymaking right down to the
local level.
Because because the the idea
that these people are
presenting, you know, like you
said, like Bloomberg, and Carney
and Fink and people like that,
is that this is so crucial that
they are saying that the climate
emergency is so dire, that
therefore, the oft quoted,
euphemism, isn't it is globe,
global problems require global
solutions. So therefore,
economic development needs to be
sustainable. So they want to
introduce the idea of
sustainability into financial
and economic development, which
means transforming the
international monetary and
financial system in order to
reflect that claimed necessity.
But what why what they're
actually doing? If you can, you
could, because you can flip the
switch on that and look at it
from the other end of that
equation is cascading global
financial governance, downtick
everywhere, across the entire
planet into everything we do
into growing our food, you know,
the way that we, you know, the
transport that we use, the
energy that we consume our
consumption in general,
everywhere. And so, under the
guise of claiming necessity for
fighting the alleged climate
disaster, what they're actually
creating is a global control
system that will enable them to
shape every aspect of our lives.
And that that is a big part of
it. And you, you know, and I
think there are a lot of figures
that have been bandied about and
I know that you know, some
people the the I II, I can't
remember the name of now that
that first when they were
talking about launching natural
asset companies spoke about a
potential global market of four
quadrillion dollars. Yeah,
that's intrinsic exchange group.
Yeah. Yeah, I G, the intrinsic
intrinsic exchange group talks
about a potential global market
for quadrillion dollars. And I
think sometimes they make these
claims as they did with GE fans
that that when you look at the
numbers, you kind of wonder
whether those things actually
add up. But nonetheless, they
are ambitious. This I don't
think they care if they add up.
They're just ambitious and they
want everyone to buy into it. So
if they put out these big
numbers, people are going to buy
into it, whether the investors
are going to buy into it. But
the point is, as you quite
rightly said, the carbon trading
market at the moment is
projected to be at about 100 and
own only only $120 trillion
globally. So
Okay, so that's just small
potatoes compared to the rest of
it. If if we're, if we are, if
we are going to believe what
they claim, but the whole thing,
and I think, you know, it's
another thing to consider is
it's all based on claims and
projections. It's all it's all
claimed on. It's all based on
jam tomorrow, and not just not
just the financial projections
that they are, that they're
split, you know, putting out all
over the world to try and entice
investors, investors to believe
in it.
Also, in terms of the claimed,
disasters that we're going to
face, which is the, you know,
the basis of their their claim
necessity, is that is that, you
know, these disasters are going
to that are likely to befall us
unless we accept, basically,
global financial governance.
Yeah, so one of the things going
on here, before we get into the
financial stuff, is this. The
idea? And we saw this sort of
with COVID-19, too. Yeah, the
idea we have to act now. It's so
urgent, we don't have time to
think about it. But here are
these solutions, let's implement
them immediately. Or disaster
awaits us, basically. And we're
seeing that sort of also, not
just in COVID-19, but the the
preparations for the quote,
unquote, next pandemic, whenever
that is to be followed the
world. So, you know, in doing
that, you're basically using
fear to get people to get onto a
pre designed agenda that goes
back, well, nominally to 2015,
but obviously, agenda 2030. And
all of that, you know, is its
roots are in 1992, and arguably,
even before that.
So you know, there's a lot more
going on than just,
you know, oh, there's this
climate emergency, and we have
to solve it immediately. They
act like there's this sort of
grassroots involvement. That's
the civil society component that
you might want to explain, even
for people that haven't read
your article on that, where they
sort of say they're bringing in
they that this agenda isn't just
corporations and governments,
they brought in the little
people through civil society
partnerships and stuff like
that, but that itself is also
pretty illusory. Yeah, so So
Communitarianism is an idea that
was that is a kind of amalgam of
two of stakeholder capitalism,
that the thing that we've just
discussed and communitarianism
as envisaged by people like
amortizer Etzioni, who, who put
forward this, this idea that the
individuals are develop their
identity, really, as a
consequence of their, of their,
of the community that they're
in. So we are, as he put it, the
product of our community. So,
therefore, the community, what's
good for the community is good
for the individual. So the idea
of Communitarianism is that of
putting these two things
together into something called
civil society, where
representatives of the community
negotiate in effect with
representatives of the public
and the private sector, so they
would be negotiating with
representatives from the local
government or the government.
And the private sector would be
the stakeholders, the private
stakeholders that are the
stakeholder capitalists. So
these three groups come
together. And this is supposed
to enable within civil society,
what we might use to call
democratic representation.
Whereas rather than an
individual rather than
individuals voting or being
directly involved in discussions
with with these public and the
private sector, we would be
represented by the community,
whoever that group might be. So
we might be talking about NGOs,
or we might be talking about
nongovernmental organizations,
or we might be talking about
local community groups or
whatever. So but the eye mat
comes, obviously, what comes
with that is a whole set of
questions based on assumptions
about who the community is, who
do they represent? How do
individuals raise their voices
within the community if the
community is going to present
them, what is a community and so
forth. But nonetheless, the idea
is, is that the problem with the
civil society equation is that
of those three groups, the
public, the private, and the
community. The public sector has
got all the authority and all
the power, they can compel
people to act. The private
sector has got all the resources
and all the money at its
disposal. And the third party in
that group, the community has
got no power and no resources.
So basically, it's and and even
more so as through stakeholder
capitalism, the public and the
private sector actually partners
so they are
The group that is facing the
community, who are who, through
their partnership arrangement
have got all the authority and
all the resources. So the
community has got no chance,
basically. So the idea that
civil society and that is the
model of civil society. So the
idea that civil society can
represent our interests, which
is the way that it is envisaged
to work within sustainable
development, and the United
Nations Sustainable Development
Goals, is nonsense, really, it
basically, it's just a way of
Disenfranchising the population.
And also,
you have to say, completely
overriding any idea of
representative democracy.
Yeah, so I mean, if you look
into any SDG, really, you're
gonna find the civil society, I
would really just call it a
buzzword, because in practice,
like you just pointed out, it's
pretty meaningless. On it's
really the public private
partnership running the show and
civil society sort of tossed in
there's, you know, a token
representation of the quote,
unquote, community, and that's
kind of when these people are
throwing it around the very
nebulous term. And they can
define it any number of ways.
And it could just end up being
and an NGO that claims to
represent a particular group,
but as you know, funded by the
same billionaires, you know,
behind a lot of this stuff, you
know, it's pretty, or their
foundations quote unquote,
philanthropic foundations, it's
definitely a complicated
ruse going on, I guess, I would
say. So returning to is the
Sustainable Development Goals
17, which is what this this
first piece sustainable debt
slavery is about. So there's a
very specific reason we talk
about debt slavery here. And
that has to do with some of the,
the wording within sustainable,
or SDG 17. That refers to
basically, how the multi
stakeholder partnerships that
you just explained em, are going
to create global what they call
macro economic stability, and
that this is a prerequisite for
the implementation really, of
all the SDGs. So you pointed out
in the article, in the part you
contributed that the meaning of
macro economic stability has
essentially been transformed by
the UN and its specialized
agencies. So can you get into
that a little bit? Yeah, I mean,
they've literally transformed
it. I mean, the UN say
themselves, that macro economic
stability doesn't mean what it
used to mean. So it's, it's it's
literally been transformed. But
the idea of macro economic
stability, is that it? It, it,
what it used to mean, is that
you would have, you'd have good
growth, you would have full
employment or maximum
employment, and that you would
have the kind of stable economic
conditions.
But as we were discussing
earlier, in order for
sustainable development to work,
because the climate disaster is
so dangerous, apparently,
no, there's no point in having
any kind of growth unless it
also incorporates what they are
calling fiscal space for.
for sustainable development. So
so no development is actually
sustainable, unless it has got
this fiscal space in it to
enable commitments to
Sustainable Development Goals,
which is circular reasoning,
it's a bit of a catch 22
situation, but that is how they
are redefining global finances,
basically. Yeah. So like you
pointed out in the article, I
mean, this is basically
completely dissociating, how
most people think of macro
economic stability from actual
economic activity. And so when
we talk about how the SDGs are
basically in the UN says that
about transforming our world,
and they're transforming all of
these definitions, including
sustainable development, and
macroeconomic stability, to
justify that transformation, I
mean, this shouldn't really be
ringing alarm bells in people's
heads, regardless of what you
think about, you know, climate
change and all of that stuff. I
mean, because this is really
something that's a lot more far
reaching. And the people
ultimately involved in designing
a lot of this are predatory
bankers, and we'll get into that
in a second. So, you know, like,
like you basically just pointed
out, macroeconomic stability is
basically having now includes
countries having the wall,
there's terms they use for it, I
guess, it's like fiscal balance,
I think is the term that you
noted that they have to
incorporate this space in their,
in their finances for the
implementation of the SDGs.
Otherwise, it's not macro. They
don't have macro economic
stability anymore.
Right. Yeah, I mean, I think one
of the things that stands out
with with when you start looking
at
the way that the UN have gone
about this and the way that we
might call that the UN Global
Public Private Partnership,
because it's got this multi
stakeholder model right at the
heart of it,
is that often their own research
and their own reports, which
question a lot of this a lot of
this stuff, they seem to have
pushed that to one side. So in
terms of macro economic
stability, with this notion of
fiscal space being introduced
into it,
the UN Department of Economic
and Social Affairs have
struggled to define what that
means. What What does fiscal
space mean? So they the closest
that they can that they can
define it is, and this is this,
is there a definition that says,
quote, the difference between a
country's current debt level,
and its estimated sustainable
debt level. Now, bearing in mind
that sustainable means that it
can, that there's sufficient
space to pay for this new global
economic economic activity, this
lists new sustainable
development. So that's what
sustainable means. It doesn't
mean what we used to think it
meant, which was, you know,
sustainable levels of growth,
employment and economic
activity, it now means this
addition of
additional additional
expenditure to pay for
sustainable development. But the
problem is, if you think about
that, what they're saying is the
difference between a country's
current debt level and its
estimated sustainable debt
level. Well, how do you know,
what the estimated sustainable
debt level is? Because it's
arbitrary, it's arbitrary, it's
arbitrary, you've got no idea
because you don't know what what
what growth that you're going to
have in the future, another war
could come along. And we could
go into recession. Nobody knows.
It's, it's a total stab in the
dark. So this, again, what this
stuff seems to boil down to
really is wishful thinking. But
also, it's, it's almost like
divorcing real economic activity
from this new model, based on
projections and sort of
arbitrary arbitrary guesswork,
you know, this, this is purely
and simply to enable the whole
thing to proceed forward so that
these, you know, the the
financialization of nature can
take place, and carbon markets
can take place. So it's a
commitment. Right, it's a
commitment. And so basically,
what you're having there is that
what what they basically admit
here, that the world that the
World Bank admitted is that debt
is a critical form of financing
for the sustainable development
goals. And that's a direct quote
from them. So like we've been
talking about, basically, the
idea of having a sustainable
economy, sustainable economic
growth, as these people define
it includes having the amount of
capital freed up to implement
the SDGs. As you know, the UN is
defining them or, you know, the
private public private
partnerships that are behind the
SDGs that are basically
designing how these goals are
being implemented. And if the UN
a lot of countries don't have
that money, and the UN and these
entities know that. And so, it
basically, they're required
through their commitment to
agenda 2030 to take on a
considerable amount of debt in
order to implement these goals.
And by doing so that's basically
deemed sustainable economic
growth. Right. Yeah. Yeah. I
mean, it's crazy stuff, which is
just madness, because basically,
you know, you're having the same
debt imperialism that has
characterized the post world war
two era ever since these
entities like the IMF, and these
other, you know, global
financial institutions and in
development bank's, you know,
since they've really been on the
scene, you know, they've
basically been wielded by the
United States, in their, in
their allies, even admitted by
the US military, as I point out
in the article as financial
weapons to force particularly
countries in the developing
world to adopt policies they
otherwise wanted to wanted to
adopt. And this includes, you
know, in the past what we saw,
you know, the IMF is probably
the best known example, and
places like Argentina, in places
like Greece, you know, all over
the world, really, that they
have to implement austerity,
they have to privatize their
public assets, they have to and
they have to, you know,
basically almost always sell it
up to multinational foreign
multinational corporations, or
they, you know, or things of
that nature.
that are obviously not in their
national interest to do. And so
basically what you're seeing
here is the call to do the same.
But dress it up as something
different, you know, and it's
basically being framed as
something that's a policies that
are coming from the left, when
it's really been, you know, the
left that in the past has
criticized the use of these
institutions, and also people on
the right. I mean, it's not
necessarily a left right thing.
But more often than not, you
know, at least in my experience
living in Latin America, no one
really likes the IMF down here.
But it tends to be the people
that are most vocal about it are
people on the left more often
than not. So it's just
interesting, again, that, you
know, the role of debt slavery
is very major when it comes to
the SDGs. And particularly
disturbing about all of this is
the the plans of G fans, which
we've mentioned a couple of
times, which is the Glasgow
financial alliance for net zero.
This was launched by John Kerry
and Janet Yellen, both US
officials, as well as Mark
Carney, who is the former chair
of the Bank of England and Bank
of Canada. I believe he's also I
forget what Wall Street bank
he's from. Originally, it might
be Goldman Sachs, but I'm not
100% on that. And he
used to I think he's also Yeah,
the UK Prime Minister's finance
advisor for the cop 26
conference last year, he'll
probably play that role again,
at COP 27. It certainly wouldn't
surprise me that basically, you
have the US and UK Governments
behind GE fans. And so those are
the governments, as I mentioned
earlier, that have historically
wielded, you know, the IMF and
the World Bank and the the
multilateral development bank's
as as financial weapons. And
this has openly again, admitted
in US military documents, yeah,
as a weapon of unconventional
warfare. And so it's, you know,
the new iteration of those
governments is basically looking
to reimagine the World Bank. And
the IMF for this particular
purpose, ostensibly for net zero
and g fans is co chaired not
just by Mark Carney, but by Mike
Bloomberg, you know, the former
New York, New York, New York,
formerly Salomon Brothers, I
believe, and, you know, a
banking billionaire, basically,
in media billionaire. So these
are the people that are in the,
you know, in the race to net
zero. And if no, I wrote about
them last year, and you
basically, I quoted Boris
Johnson, who was then UK Prime
Minister, he described G fans
as, quote, uniting the world's
banks and financial institutions
behind the global transition to
net zero. And then you had John
Kerry say, quote, the largest
financial players in the world
recognize energy transition
represents a vast commercial
opportunity. So if you take
those two comments together, G
fans unites the world's most
powerful banks and financial
institutions behind what it sees
first and foremost as a vast
commercial opportunity, the
exploitation of which it is
marketing as a planetary
imperative. And you know, that's
pretty much how this whole thing
is operating at the end of the
day. But gee fans, I guess it
wasn't, yeah, November of last
year in time for cop 26. And I'm
sure they'll have a new Progress
Report by this November. But in
there, they basically
pitch the idea of changing the
World Bank and the IMF changing
their charters, to basically
merge them with private
financial institutions,
specifically, the financial
institutions that compose g
fans. And so GE fans, you know,
it's led by Mark Carney and, and
Mike Bloomberg, but it's
actually a lot more than that.
So it's, and you've mentioned
this in some of your interviews
about this, and I believe, too,
that it's composed of several
sub alliances, I guess. So G
fans includes, for example, the
net zero asset owner Alliance,
the net zero banking Alliance,
and the net zero asset managers
initiative. And all of these
come together. And if you look
at the people who dominate GE,
France's executive board, aside
from the co chairs, right, you
have Larry Fink of Blackrock,
Citigroup, Bank of America,
Santander Bank, HSBC, CEO of the
London Stock Exchange group and
chair of the Investment
Committee of the David
Rockefeller Fund. So, you know,
these are really the the people
planning you know, this out,
they're part of this race to net
zero stuff. They're also you
know, what we mentioned earlier,
the whole financially
financialization of nature in
the natural asset corporations,
you have a lot of linkages there
as well. But what's particularly
concerning is that these
institutions I've just named
that compose g fans are
promoting the idea backed by the
US
and ostensibly, because the GE
fans is un supported, that
they're the institutions it
represents essentially merged
with
the World Bank, the multilateral
development bank's that are
around the World Bank and the
IMF. And that's madness. I don't
have any other word for that.
Yeah. Yes. You know, there was
you mentioned earlier, you've
got the most undoubtedly the
most predatory capitalist
organizations on the planet.
directly involved with,
through G fans, through through
basically rolling out debt
obligations to developing
nations and, and developed
nations as well. But, but it is
particularly hard upon
developing nations, because one
thing is for sure, for
developing nations sustainable
development doesn't mean
development. You know,
developing nations have been,
you know, the, if anything, the
promise of modern technology
enables development for
theoretically, it could enable
development on a much larger
scale, because it reduces the
cost of that development
significantly. So countries
across the global south could be
looking forward to a brighter
economic future because, and a
brighter, a brighter future in
in every sense, because they
could enjoy the fruits of what
the transition that we went
through in the in the northern
hemisphere and in the West food
through in the industrial
revolution, they could, they
could effectively achieve that
with, with, possibly with less
resources needed in order to
achieve a similar level of
development, which would be
fantastic. But of course, the
whole point of it seems, of
sustainable development is to
stop their development. So they
don't, they don't get to enjoy
the development that the rest of
the world has enjoyed. Because
we're now we're faced with this
dire climate crisis, and they're
gonna, you know, they, all of us
can no longer afford to, to plow
ahead with normal economic
activity, as we have been doing
over the last 200 years. And
that comes particularly at the
expense of developing nations,
you aren't going to get the same
opportunities. And this has been
done by, as you quite rightly
said, some of the most predatory
financial institutions on Earth.
So I mean, why just, it just
makes absolutely no sense. So
again, it's this urgency,
marketing, don't think about it,
we just have to do it. And you
see that with a lot of the the
most elevated of the climate
activists, you know, obviously,
everyone knows about Greta
Thunberg. But there's other
examples too. And they're just
saying, take action, now do this
now. implement solutions now.
But they don't necessarily say
you know, what those solutions
are point per point. And if
you're going to, you know,
outsource responsibility for
developing solutions to the UN,
the UN is handed to the bankers,
that's what they've done. And
so, you know, isn't really
sustainable development, to
basically get let bankers be in
charge of transforming the state
of the world. It's, that's
madness. But apparently, people
are content to not look any
deeper and, like the marketing
very much, and so they'll just
leave it at that. But it's, um,
it's definitely very distressing
for those of us that are paying
attention to this type of stuff.
Because you know, if you're
against US Empire, or the Anglo
American Empire, whatever you
want to call it, and against
their use of debt imperialism in
the post world war two era to
basically entrap the developing
world in debt slavery, why would
giving those financial weapons
to the fucking bankers be any
better? Excuse my language, but
it's just, it's just so insane.
I don't know how to get through
to people like
literally the worst people to
give anything to, and they're
basically about to get away with
this. I mean, I caught 26. I
noted in my article on it that
Larry Fink of Blackrock
Blackrock owns practically
everything at this point. And
black, BlackRock and Vanguard
are poised according to recent
reports, to basically own
everything by 2028. Yeah. And
he's saying we have to reimagine
the charter of the World Bank
and the IMF, and this past week
at the Clinton Global
Initiative, which unfortunately,
is now happening again, after a
several year absence. Wasn't
that nice, but now it's back.
And Larry Fink. Again, repeated
the stuff about we need to
reimagine the Charters of the
World Bank and the IMF. If we
want to get serious about
climate change and everyone in
the Clinton Global Initiative,
or Clinton Global Initiative, it
should probably be called, you
know, we're, we're, you know,
thunderous applause for
was with Larry Fink statement.
Yeah. And I mean, I think that
you also very important thing
that you said that it is, as you
rightly said, it's the it's the
left that are predominantly
throwing their weight behind
this because you know, it
appeals obviously to the to. And
it's a really clever trick you
think when you think about it
what they've pulled, because
they have managed to put
rampant, rampant crony
capitalism
at the heart of what sounds
like, you know, a social or
socially progressive agenda. So
that's clever stuff. So they
managed to pick they have
managed to pitch exactly that
the hardest form of predatory
capitalism, they've managed to
pitch that as a socially
responsible way forward, which
is so genius. Yeah, well, it's
even, it's even worse than you
think. So a lot of the pilot
programs for a lot of this
predatory stuff in the emerging
world, it's happening in Latin
America, to a greater degree
than it's even happening in
Africa. And so what you're
seeing are the so called Return
of the pink tide, as it's
sometimes called to Latin
America. At the same time,
you're having these quote
unquote, they're described,
they're described in the media
as socialist leaders coming to
power in Latin America. And it's
being widely praised by by
leftists in the English speaking
world.
You know, but I want to call
someone like you know,
Argentina's current government
with Cristina Kirchner left
leftist, especially if you look
at, you know, how that family
has operated, you know, over the
past several decades, you know,
it's not relief. And then you
have someone like Gabrielle
boric, coming to power in Chile,
you have Gustavo Petro coming to
power in Colombia. Colombia, is
a very tightly controlled
country, specifically by the
Anglo American Empire. That's
why they've been forced to have
right wing governments nonstop
for a very long time. It's very
important in the narco trade,
very important to intelligence
agencies and national security
states
of the US Empire, they, you
know, this guy's, in my opinion,
has been allowed to come to
power for particular reason. And
it's no coincidence that he pops
up and is basically like, you
know, I mean, he's going to all
these climate functions. As I
noted on Twitter the other day,
Mike Bloomberg was really
singing his praises after this
most recent UN Climate Summit
that Petro was participating in.
And if these are really, you
know, upstart democratic
socialists in the model of
Salvador Allende, and these
other people that were deposed,
unchoose CIA back who's around
South America, and decades past,
if they're really, you know, the
successors, to those types of
people, historically, people
like Mike Bloomberg would have
been like, you know, get rid of
this guy. They wouldn't be like
applauding them, you know what I
mean? So I think, especially now
that we're on the eve of
Brazil's election, you know,
you're probably most likely
going to have Lula replaced
Bolsonaro Bolson. Bolsonaro is
very not liked by this
particular group we're talking
about.
And, you know, it's, it's very
likely that this pink tide, you
know, they're going to be
framing it is, you know,
basically, I see it is what
they're doing with bork, and
Chile, you know, they're
marketing it as hopium, sort of
like Obama was in the US hope
and changes here. But then they
don't really deliver on
anything, and Boris disapproval
rate is very high. The new
constitution that was going to
be approved was overwhelmingly
rejected by people in Chile. But
if you look at who drafted that
constitution, it's a lot of the
same groups that are involved
with the SDGs. And it was
likened to a big extent to
basically, you know, a
constitution for implementing
agenda 2030. You know, sure,
there's problems with the
existing constitution that was
drafted during the Pinochet era,
but that doesn't necessarily
mean that the one that was being
voted on this time was the best
one. And you know, people like
Gustavo Petro and Columbia, when
that was rejected. He was like,
Pinochet has arisen again. And
it wasn't a referendum on is the
Pinochet era constitution. Good.
It was a referendum on is this
current constitution good. And
it was directly partnered with
the UN. And a lot of these
actors and, you know,
billionaire funded NGOs were
involved in drafting key parts
of it, and it wasn't popular
with most Chileans, and you
know, the referendum was on that
constitution, not the existing
constitution. Right. So it's not
really fair, in my opinion of
Petro to say it's the
resurrection of Pinochet,
because you're basically you
know, if 62% of Chileans voted
against it, people that voted
for Borik voted against this
constitution. Yeah. And there's
the I Want It definitely I
definitely would not call those
people Pinochet supporters. So
um, you know, it's definitely
complicated what's going on in
Latin America right now. And I
think it's very important to
point out that natural asset
corporations this has been the
pilot for
grants for these are all in
Latin America, the pilot
programs for the stuff I'm going
to be writing about with SDG, 14
and the blue economy in the
oceans. That's, that's being
partnered and central piloted in
Central America. And a lot of
the focus is here, it's also
going in India as well, there's
there's some ones that are
specifically packed, backed by
Mike Bloomberg. But there's a
lot of interest in getting Latin
America on board. And I would
argue that's because of the
mineral wealth of Latin America,
which they need to power a lot
of this net zero stuff. And, of
course, the the mining is very
predatory that is needed to,
you know, that is needed to
implement a lot of these goals.
You know, the lithium, for
example, there's a lithium
triangle, that's Chile, Bolivia.
And I guess, to a lesser extent,
Argentina,
it's, you know, that's obviously
front and center and a lot of
the stuff going on here. But
it's, it's it's very extensive.
What's happening here, the
mining, you know, I live in the
Andes, and I've lived here for a
long time, it was predatory when
I first came here. And it's
getting, it's getting worse, and
it's expanding a lot. And I
think a lot of that has to do,
you know, with the fact that
people are sort of the people
that would normally be
protesting to protect the
environment here think that
Boris is going to change
everything. And they're sort of
asleep at the wheel, not
realizing that what's what's
going on here. And they think,
Oh, the SDG sustainable
development, all of that sounds
nice. And they're not digging
deeper into it like a lot of
other people and other
countries. I mean, it's not
really exclusive to Chile at
all, in that sense, like we've
been talking about.
But it seems like you know, they
want the developing world on
board and in debt slavery for
the stuff and they're just going
to ransack it for resources.
That's, that's my view. I'll
think you won't pick that spot
on. I think that's what it's
about it when he got to where
we're talking about earlier
about Mark Carney and about his
his many hats. I mean, he's also
the UN Special Envoy for Climate
Change, which is, which is
pretty crazy. And, and Mike
Bloomberg is the UN Secretary
General, Special Envoy for
Climate ambition and solutions.
So I'm ambitious ambition,
that's the
question and solutions. That is,
so when you think about it, who
is the UN Secretary General, for
Special Envoy for Climate
ambition and solutions? Well, of
course, it's Mike Bloomberg. I
mean, it's, you know, I mean, an
interesting I got a, I had a
look at that Larry Fink, that
Larry Fink quote, and what he
said, and he said, If you don't
mind, he says, If we quote, this
is his quote, if we're going to
change the world, so there we
go, we're going to change the
world. There's not just there's
just not enough money that is
going into the emerging market
into the emerging world, we must
change the Charters of the IMF
and the World Bank, if we're
going to get there, there. And
here we go. There's huge pools
of capital, but the capital is
not equipped.
So that's what we're talking
about earlier, when we're
talking about this idea of
fiscal space.
What they want to do what they
want to create, and something
else that we spoke about in the
article and something that is
everywhere in the UN Sustainable
developments.
spiel, is this idea about
government's providing the
enabling environment, which
relates to this idea of fiscal
space. So the enabling
environment will legislate
sustainable development into
policy in government, so all
over the world, so governments
will be legislatively committed
to it. And that will create the
environment, the regulator in
fight environment that will
ensure the creation of this
fiscal space, which I think is
calling here, capital that is
not equipped bully, that the
whole point of what they're
doing is to equip fat capital,
so that they can well basically
create a slush fund for their
market acquisition programs. And
that's that is essentially what
they're what they're at. That's
what they're playing at. But
interestingly, he said, it's up
to the equity owners, basically,
the G 20, that they have to have
a desire for doing this. So
we're talking again, that
relates to something that people
have said that is hope, a
hopeful change in the future is
this idea of the multipolar
world order, will somehow you
know, steal away the power of
people like Mike Bloomberg, and
then Carney and the people that
are behind him like the
Rockefellers and, and, you know,
the Rothschilds and people like
that, that the multipolar world
is going to steal that away.
Well, it isn't. Because what
Fink was saying the the about
the change of the IMF. It was
also in a brief statement.
From November 2021, well, they
said more or less said exactly
the same thing. Nice. They
stated the priorities for reform
were innovative. And this is
another, quote, innovative and
ink and inclusive solutions,
including digital and
technological tools to promote
sustainable development. And
they further said that the 2030
sustainable development agenda
is a comprehensive, indivisible,
far reaching and people centered
set of universal transformative
targets. And that it is
essential that the world move
forward with this UN agenda 2030
for sustainable development to
quote, improve the system of
global governance. Well, they're
talking about reform, reforming
the IMF and the World Bank, in
order to be able to achieve
exactly what Fink was talking
about that Clinton Soiree.
So that's that, that I think the
idea that that the whole, when
the when they talk about when
people like Bloomberg talks
about transforming transforming
the whole world, they really, I
think people need to get their
heads around this as well. They
mean, the whole world, they mean
everything. They mean that the
entire global
economy, economic
transformation, everything's
going up for sale, everything we
everything, y'all own nothing,
and you will be happy. Yeah, I
mean, that's the I mean, a lot
of people focus on that free
specifically, but I think people
also need to realize that
literally, everything's gonna be
up for sale. Yeah. Or you're
gonna be charged for literally
everything, basically. Yeah.
Yeah. I mean, they made it they
made? I mean, I think, you know,
you're quite right. There's, I
mean, I personally, I think
there's probably too much focus
as well, on the World Economic
Forum. I don't consider them to
be particularly I agree, leading
anything. They're just I mean, I
kind of see them as the sales
team. Really? Yeah, well, or,
you know, they're the they
develop some policies, but
they're not the only ones. You
know, there's other think tanks
in that in that category in that
tear that they occupy. But I
think the over focus on Klaus
Schwab and the World Economic
Forum, allows people that would
otherwise see problems with this
agenda from really looking into
it, because they sort of see it
as Oh, look, these people think
that these guys out in the open
are plotting control of the
world, and there's no way that's
possible. Or they say, Klaus
Schwab is the guy behind all of
this. I mean, you know, there's
obviously truth to the concerns,
I think about the World Economic
Forum and Schwab, obviously,
there are concerns there. But
you know, is this the guy, the
guy behind, you know, the
curtain, you know, of Wizard of
Oz style type stuff? You know, I
mean, I don't think that's a
fair analogy. And I think I
know, people personally, who
would normally be all over this
stuff that are really turned off
by these claims, or claims that
it's, um, you know, a global
communist plot between the West
and the chai comps, and, you
know, sort of the, the talking
points of, you know, some
circles on the right,
particularly, and, like, I don't
know what you want to call it.
So conspiracy land is some
people like to call it but I,
you know, it's more complicated
than that, obviously. And, yeah,
I mean, China's on board with
this stuff. I mean, you just
talked about that with the
multipolarity stuff. But
reducing it down to that level,
when it's actually a lot more
complex turns people away? Yeah.
No, I think you I think you're
probably right. And I think
that's why it's important to
challenge this stuff. Because I
think we need to see the broader
picture in terms of the way that
that this is a global initiative
intended for global, you know,
delivering on a global scale,
and it doesn't really matter
where you are. I mean,
obviously, it matters to you as
an individual a live because
you're going to be affected from
but buy it locally. I mean, we
can say that already with, for
example, Net Zero policy,
or any wherever you live,
wherever you live. Now, if you
go to your local authority
website, and put in sustainable
development plan, they'll have
one they'll have, they'll have
like, it might not be
specifically called Sustainable
Development Plan, but it will be
something along those lines,
it'll be, you know, our
sustainable initiative or
sustainable whatever. So we're
more or less wherever you live
in the world. So this this
notion of, of introducing global
financial governance into into
every is already at the
community level. It's all
written as you know, as you were
saying earlier, it's already
it's already happening, it is
happening now. So people need to
grasp that because the the the
driving agenda behind it is not
set at the local level. We
We are not part of deciding
about the way that these you
know, the the impetus behind
these policies. It's not us
that's controlling it. It is
people like, you know, Mike
Bloomberg and Mark Carney, not
necessarily them, it's the
people behind them as well. But
I mean,
it's not being controlled by
it's not even being controlled.
I would argue it's not even
being controlled by national
governments. And I would include
even I would include, to certain
extent, China and Russia and the
US and you know, the powerful
developed nations, I would, I
would suggest that it's not
being led by them, either. This
is about collaboration between a
global capitalist network. Yeah,
that's transnational and
national allegiance, and their
allegiance is to protecting the
peace, the giant piece of the
pie, they have an expanding app
and keeping it forever. I think
that's a no. Yeah, I mean, if
you look at the what what's
happened currently with, you
know, what we could see looking,
you know, the, the US, for
example, I mean, debt to GDP
ratio in the US is 100, and plus
137%.
So that, I mean, we've already
seen people like Jerome Powell
already has already said that,
you know, the US economy is
unsustainable. I mean, these
kinds of comments are
unheard of. So they're already
admitting basically, that the
the economic model, as far as it
has gone has, you know, forgive
me for saying, so has reached
the limits of growth.
So, so they are they know that
they know that it's reached it.
But I mean, I also would suggest
that it's, they've always known
that it's not, you know, the
idea that well, yeah, just
create money out of nothing and
just continually pile up
neverending levels of debt. And
that that is that you can do
that organized crime
intelligence agencies to just
loot the economy over and over
and over again. I mean,
obviously, that's not.
So that's not, that's not gonna
work. But I mean, that also
shows that you're not planning
for it to work either in the
long run, that you know that at
some point, you're going to have
to develop some new model that's
going to enable you, as you
said, to maintain your power,
and to and to continue,
you know, playing at the casino
table. And that's exactly, and
that's a big part of what this
is, it's to enable the game to
continue so that they can retain
their control and authority.
Yeah, I agree with that, for
sure. So moving on, then from
the first installment of the
series to the second
installment, which you which we
published just a couple of days
ago, and that was all UN. This
is on UHC. 2030. This is about
SDG. Three, ostensibly about
health care. So UHC 2030 is
called the 2030 agenda for
universal health coverage. But
it's not SDG three itself, it's
the public private partnership
behind SDG. Three. So why don't
you walk us through your article
a little bit and tell us about
UHC? 2030 what it really is, and
the case study, you did have it
with Uganda.
Yeah, so UHC 2030, as you quite
rightly said, is the UN kind of
mechanism for delivering SDG
three, which is SDI, the point
of SDG is to deliver what
they're calling universal health
care coverage, or universal
health coverage. So the so
again, on the front of the
packet, it says, you know, this
will enable countries all over
the world to improve standards
of health care, you know,
they're looking to improve
longevity, they're looking to
reduce health inequality, all
things which are, which most
people would agree are actually
quite important targets that we
should we should be thinking
about doing that kind of thing.
But what it also says that so as
UHC 2020 30 is going to be the
mechanism by which this is going
to be able to achieved which is,
quote, a global platform and
space for multi stakeholders to
connect, work together and
influence national and
international commitments. So
we've got this idea of this
multi stakeholder partnership,
influencing national and
international commitments. So
again, it's the centralized
centralized control headed by a
network of undoubtedly, what we
that we could call crony
capitalists or predatory
capitalists who are going to
influence health care markets,
in countries across the world.
That is the nuts and bolts of
it. So what we might you know, I
mean, I've used the phrase the
phrase global public private
partnership, but but this organ
causation. The UN itself issued
a report where it noted that
that in order for global public
private partnerships to work,
there were a number of things
that needed to be put in place
to enable them to work because
experience has shown and all the
research has shown up until this
the launch of in 2016, SDGs. All
all the evidence showed that
they were more expensive, that
the private stakeholders didn't
shoulder the risk to the level
that they said they would
shoulder the risk, that that
risk in terms of both financial
liability and so forth. And in
terms of, you know, the actual
risk of causing harm,
unusually, usually fell on the
shoulders of the of the nation
that was that was running the
project and, and the population
so that the public the private
part, the private sector part,
we're not shouldering the risk
as claimed in the model.
And also that these they turned
out to be less efficient, and
inexpensive. And what the what
the UN report suggested was
that, you know, they might be
kind of suited to some sort of
limited infrastructure projects,
but they weren't in their
current form suitable for
particularly sustainable society
sustainable development, as as
they saw it, and healthcare
projects, because you're
introducing
forces into the healthcare
market, which which cause
immense conflicts of financial
interest. And that is called
commercial interest. So that
isn't necessarily useful, as the
UN itself acknowledged, that
isn't necessarily useful in
health care, health care, you
know, healthcare does have to
have some kind of, you know,
social, broader social benefit.
Profit is not the bottom line.
But if you introduce it, you
know, these these private
corporations into it, then
profit does invariably cut
become the bottom line, as they
reported in their own report.
So, but the UN has decided to
ignore that completely. So this
its own recommendations is
ignoring that. And it is plowing
ahead with this global
partnership that is going to
deliver health care, it says
universal health coverage. But
in order to do that, once again,
it has said that countries will
have to spend more, either
they'll either have to spend 15%
of their
of their income or 5% of their
GDP, whichever is higher.
On health care, well, for
developed nations, that's okay,
that's doable, because most
countries around the world that
developed nations are already
spending more than 5% of GDP on
health care. But it's a
completely different situation
in most developing countries.
You know, Sri Lanka, Yemen,
Syria, Egypt and Iraq, and the
many other nations are not at
that level. So how are they
going to pay for this? Because
they're either going to have to,
to create the fiscal space to
enable them to pay for the UHC.
2030. Sustainable?
Yeah, how are they going to pay
for it? They've either got to
slash spending elsewhere, or
which I can't afford or go into
debt, just as the World Bank
said. So in Uganda
during so this is the thing. I
mean, I thought I would choose a
country to look at just just a
thought I'll start looking at
some some countries in the EU
that have been subjected to this
UHC. 2030 and just see what see
what's going on. And I picked
Uganda Uganda was the first
country that I picked a look at.
So and then what I found in
Uganda was appalling what had
happened and this is specially
relating to the COVID 19
pandemic because UHC 2030, and
the World Bank,
the stakeholders in that
partnership, convinced Uganda to
invest heavily in COVID measures
Gor COVID countermeasures, when
Ugandan didn't, Uganda didn't
have a pandemic, not by any
stretch of the imagination.
Could you say that Uganda had a
pandemic? They didn't have a
health emergency, right, a
COVID-19 health emergency. I
think the total was 74 deaths
per million in Uganda, compared
to nearly 3200 in the US. So
it's not even in the same
ballpark. It's it's just that
and in Uganda as well, malaria
regularly kills
At least four times more people
than that.
But what the what UHC 2030
partners did was they convinced
you ganda to restructure their
debt in order to pay for COVID
countermeasures. And that
ultimately resulted in projects
like their anti malaria projects
and their and other aspects of
their health service and their
their health capacity being
ripped apart. Basically.
I think we're defunded or
defunded. Yeah. And what what
happened was that Uganda of
actually didn't have had a
pretty good it was a mixed
healthcare economy, but it was
in in terms of developing
nations, it was pretty good. It
was it was a, you know, not not
a bad healthcare system that
they had. But the the effect of
this on on Uganda was just
terrible. Not only did their
debt spike from 22% to 41% of
GDP in a single year. So I mean,
it's that's nearly doubled.
Yeah.
They ended up happy to pay 9%.
So bearing in mind that you hc
2030, saying they've got to
spend 5% of GDP on on health
care? Well, because of that
spike in debt, they ended up
spending 9% of Ugandan GDP just
on servicing the debt, so paying
that basically the minimum
repayment on the debt.
And the report, there was a
report that was released from
the Center for Global
Development that looked at what
actually happened in Uganda as a
result of the quote, unquote,
COVID measures. So I'll just
this is a quote taken from that
report. So it was the
deterioration in essential
health services, reduced case
findings for HIV AIDS and
malaria. Patients with chronic
conditions who continuously
relied on drugs for their
survival were unable to get
their refills, while others
could not afford medication due
to the lack of income. Patients
who had been newly diagnosed
with cancer were not able to
initiate into treatment. A
majority of patients with these
conditions faced an increased
risk of complications or death,
due to the inability to access
health care, these delayed
initiations and interruptions of
treatment cycles resulted in
increased stress, anxiety,
disease progression, recurrence
and premature death.
So that that is what what the
that is what sustainable
development goal three, the
pursuit of sustainable
development, goal three
delivered to Uganda in 2020 20
to 2022. Yeah, so basically, you
have to do what the Alliance
says, even if it is not in
divorce from the reality of the
country we're talking about.
Right. So like with Uganda, you
pointed out malaria, causing
significantly more deaths and
COVID that in the country, and
they basically have to under the
pressure of this alliance,
ostensibly under the auspices of
SDG. Three, ignore their malaria
programs in favor of treating or
measures targeting a disease
that kills significantly less
people. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I
don't. I mean, it was the global
economic impact as well have in
doubling their debt to do that.
Yeah, dump. So obviously not
good. At the end of the day, in
that saying it putting it pretty
lightly. So another interesting
thing you pointed out in the
article, as it relates to Uganda
is the role of AstraZeneca
AstraZeneca is one of the
private sector members of UHC.
2030, along with AstraZeneca. We
have GlaxoSmithKline. We have
Johnson and Johnson. We have
Medtronic labs. We have Merck,
we have Novartis Novo Nordisk,
we have Pfizer,
Royal Philips, Sanofi, Sumitomo
chemical company in Japan, which
is alleged to have actually been
the cause of the birth defects
in Brazil that were later
attributed to the Zika virus.
And oddly, the Zika virus was
claimed to produce these these
congenital birth defects, but
those were only observed in this
particular area in Brazil that
used Sumitomo larvicide. And the
Zika virus was all over other
places as well. And again, those
birth defects were only observed
in this Brazilian era. Sumitomo,
by the way is has some sort of
strategic alliance with
Monsanto, if I'm not mistaken.
Well, Bayer Monsanto now. So
yeah, these are the kinds of
companies that are,
you know, the private sector
component of UHC 2030. And as
the AstraZeneca has case study
here, that you
I'm discussing your article I
found pretty stunning. Actually,
I didn't even realize how much
they've gotten away with, in
Uganda this case, and I'm sure
it's not exclusive to them
either.
No, yeah. I mean, I think that's
the thing. I mean, as I said, I
just picked one country. And
this was the first one I looked
at. And I mean, pretty, you
know, I think it is safe to
assume I mean, I also looked at
Garner, as well, but obviously,
it's just one article. So
yeah, what they did in two, in
Uganda. First, it's very
difficult to ascertain what the
actual unit cost of the COVID
vaccines are, for
what the cost of developing
means. Yeah, the developed the
development cost is because it
was paid for basically by public
funds in Britain, and through,
you know, voluntary
contributions, a lot of that
came from charitable
contributions, again, from from
various members of the public
and other people as well. But
also the mean, there's the
private funding element that
you've written about as well in
terms of Oxford AstraZeneca, you
know, the development and their
private equity arm and private
development arm.
But nonetheless, they managed to
whittle the or we say, Whittle,
but they managed to produce a
vaccine for sale to the European
Union. This is the the
AstraZeneca jab, I
hesitate to call it a vaccine,
but the act the estrogenic, a
jab, a unit cost of $2 at to the
European Union.
They then sold it to Uganda, $7
per unit.
So that's a 300% markup on the
price that they were charging to
the European Union. Now, as it
turned out, it didn't. The
reason that the AstraZeneca jab
was, was preferable in developed
a lot of developing countries
was because of the
transportation and storage
costs, because it doesn't have
to be hyper called, like the
mRNA jets. So it's, you know,
easier to store and transport.
So it was the kind of go to go
to jab, not that they needed
that jab. I mean, I think that's
the point. They didn't need the
jab. They didn't have a
pandemic, but, but they were
kind of cajoled through. And you
know, I haven't looked into the
kind of potential corruption
issues, but I would imagine
there are some there.
You know, that they were cajoled
through their debt obligations
into taking these COVID
measures, and were then ripped
off, but it would seem in terms
of paying for things like
vaccines, which AstraZeneca
appears to have basically
profits here from Uganda's debt
obligations. Now.
A very kind of interesting thing
about it is that they agreed a
deal with UNICEF supported a
deal with the partnership. But
but with GAVI. So AstraZeneca
had this deal with GAVI to to
export and the Kovax, Alliance
and Cepi, to export their
vaccines to developing nations.
But UNICEF had already warned
that an over overcommitment,
this this intense focus on COVID
met on COVID measures would be
extremely deleterious to
developing nations because a
they didn't particularly have a
need in terms of in terms of
COVID not been pressing priority
for them. But also, the effect
of that would have on their
economy would lead in UNICEF's
estimation to six 6.7 million
children facing famine and
nutritional problems as a result
of economic breakdown, breakdown
of supply chains, food
insecurity, water insecurity,
and so forth as a result of the
global policy response to
COVID-19. But then UNICEF,
supported
by basically AstraZeneca to in
this deal with the global
vaccine, Alliance Gavi, to sell
vaccines on that, on the basis
of the deal that I've just, I've
just outlined to developing
nations, they there was 100 of a
$1.3 billion deal to do that. So
having said that these countries
have knowingly so the UN knows
that these that, that doing this
is going to cause harm to
developing nations and to the
populations, the people that
live there, but then supports a
deal with AstraZeneca which,
which exploits that precise
thing that they have said is
going to be harmful?
Yeah, doesn't make a lot of
sense, does it? Well, it does.
If you know this is about
protecting their their private
sector stakeholders and their
interests more than the other
interests, they're supposed to
be all that they claim to be
supporting, you know, but if
this is the type of universal
health coverage that they're
promising to countries, um, you
know, there is obvious cause for
concern. And that's putting it
lightly looking at how UHC 2030
has been implementing. And the
whole idea, you know, what the
UN here that they're obviously
ignoring their own advice on
this stuff is really unsettling.
And it's also worth pointing
out, you know, you mentioned
Dhabi a couple times, and that's
like a Bill Gates back thing.
But it's basically, you know,
they basically said on their
website, their mission isn't
about promoting public health or
global public health, it's about
the health of vaccine markets.
That's what they say. So they
care more about the health of
vaccine markets. And you can see
this with the the case, you
know, that you just mentioned,
they care more about making the
market for the vaccine and
maintaining the health of that
market than necessarily the
country they're, you know,
selling or promoting that
particular vaccine in. Yeah. I
mean, I think one of the
comments that are made in the
article is that, you know,
presumably selling superfluous
drugs to a country that that,
you know, like Uganda that
doesn't need them is what GAVI
would call a healthy market.
Yeah. But this is all about
markets, right? The SDGs is all
about making new markets and
maintaining markets. And it's
not it's the act like it's all
about building up the public and
all this stuff. And it's really
just, I don't know,
lipstick on a pig, I guess.
We'd say, in the south where I'm
from.
Been a while since I've used
that since I, you know, pretty
much speaks Spanish all day when
I'm not doing work. So.
But I mean, that's, that's
basically what it is. So, um,
well, in I think we've we've dug
in pretty well to, you know, the
first couple of SDGs that we've
covered, which is SDG, 17, SDG.
Three with more in the works.
So, with that being said, Where
can people find and support your
work? Yeah, I write my blog,
which is Ian davis.com. And
spelt with an ISIS i n
davis.com.
I, fortunately, are right for
your good self. And
occasionally, and I also write
for the UK column.
And a lot of my work is kind of
shared with off guardian and Lew
Rockwell and people like that.
And yeah, so if you want to find
my work and come to e davis.com,
in the first instance, great,
and for people listening, that
are interested in following our
series on unlimited Hangout, I
would encourage you to sign up
for the newsletter, unlimited
hangout.com/newsletter to get
updates about everything
unlimited hangout produces,
including this series and other
things, and also updates about
my book with a volume one of
which is already out. And people
have been receiving very
exciting. So any updates on on
the series in the book, and
anything else you can find
there, including this podcast.
As always, this podcast is made
possible by the amazing
subscribers that support it and
unlimited hangout in general. So
thank you to everyone that does
that. And you get early access,
of course, for this podcast. But
it always becomes publicly
available a few days later. So
you know, at that point, please
share as widely as possible,
especially if these stories
and issues we're addressing
matter to you because as I said
to Ian, when we started this
series, not a lot of people,
unfortunately, really digging
into the nuts and bolts of the
SDGs. And this is something that
has trillions at this point of
dollars behind it some of the
most powerful people in the
world, the most powerful
financial interests in the
world. going full speed ahead on
having this being implemented on
a global scale. It's high time
that more people start paying
attention to this. So this is
our effort to do just that. So
with that being said, thanks a
lot em for joining me today and
thank you to everyone listening.
Catch you on the next episode.