In a recent article, Dr. Jacob Nordangård highlighted a 2019 letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres from over 400 civil society organisations which condemned the World Economic Forum-United Nations (“WEF-UN”) partnership.
As Dr. Nordangård pointed out, all is not as it seems.
The open letter called for Guterres to terminate the then-recently signed United Nations-World Economic Forum strategic partnership agreement. However, the letter was concerned that the partnership posed a threat to the UN’s reputation.
“We are very concerned that this WEF-UN partnership agreement will de-legitimise the United Nations and provide transnational corporations preferential and deferential access to the UN System,” it said.
“This public-private partnership will permanently associate the UN with transnational corporations, some of whose core essential activities have caused or worsened the social and environmental crises that the planet faces,” the open letter stated.
In June 2019, WEF signed a strategic partnership with the UN to execute the UN’s agenda. WEF committed itself to financing Agenda 2030 and working with areas like climate change, health, digital cooperation, gender and education.
For years, Dr. Nordangård has been trying to alert the world to this nefarious partnership and as such, he is qualified to review the contents of the letter and who the organisers of it were. The following is Dr. Nordangård’s assessment.
A reader of my latest Substack article, ‘G20, BRICS, WEF and the “building of a just world and a sustainable planet”’, notified me of an open letter, from September 2019, where over 400 civil society organisations and 40 international networks condemned the 2019 groundbreaking partnership between World Economic Forum and United Nations (which I became aware of in 2020 and have been trying to alert the world to in my books, articles, interviews, and lectures).
This agreement between the UN and WEF formalises a disturbing corporate capture of the UN. It moves the world dangerously towards a privatised and undemocratic global governance.
Only six months later, this partnership would rear its ugly head. Transnational Institute (“TI”) wrote in its strategic plan for 2021-25 that:
The covid-19 global pandemic has been used as a pretext for the implementation and normalisation of digital identification systems and tracker applications and to further entrench the notion that we pose a threat to each other.
It was very sound criticism that can only be applauded. But TI hasn’t understood the whole picture. The Institute’s mission is to “strengthen international social movements with rigorous research, reliable information, sound analysis and constructive proposals that advance progressive, democratic policy change and common solutions to global problems.”1
This means, among other things, that they are totally committed to the catastrophic climate change narrative.
Decades of greenhouse gas emissions and destructive environmental practices have driven ecosystems to a breaking point, and threaten to trigger catastrophic global heating. The pace of this is alarming, making climate the top threat for young people everywhere.2
I would also add that “common solutions to global problems” is often problematic since we live in a very diverse world. It is not easy to apply the same one-size-fits-all solutions to all nations.
As I uncovered in my book ‘Rockefeller: Controlling the game’; Climate Change is a problem that has been defined and promoted since the fifties by the same forces that gave us the digital identification systems, as well as WEF. These players are also firm believers in global solutions to global problems, and they know how to rig the game.
As exemplified by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s ‘Sustainable Development Review 2005-2010’:
The RBF has supported “allied voices for climate action” that include businesses, investors, evangelicals, farmers, sportsmen, labour, military leaders, national security hawks, veterans, youth, and governors and mayors. Each of these constituencies has an important role to play.3
And how independent is the Transnational Institute? In their Annual Report for 2020 it is stated that they receive 50% of their income from the Dutch Government, 19% from other governments, and 14% from the European Union. They also receive funding from philanthropic foundations like Asia Foundation, European Cultural Foundation, the George Soros founded Foundation for the Promotion of Open Societies and drumroll, The Rockefeller Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
This gives the impression of a controlled opposition that speaks up against the rise of a global corporatocracy but doesn’t really challenge their power. You can’t win if you believe the fairy tales your enemy has created, while receiving money out of their pockets.
WEF will, in the meantime, do everything to further a transition of the UN-system that suits their purpose. As WEFs President Börge Brende said to UN Secretary General António Guterres in Davos this week:
We are also very much looking forward to your Summit of the Future in September and you can count on us, also for our full support.
They don’t care about open letters that questions their authority.
- 1 http://www.tni.org/en/mission
- 2 http://www.tni.org/files/2024-01/TNI%20strategic%20plan-2021-2025.pdf
- 3 http://www.rbf.org/sites/default/files/sustainabledevelopmentprogramreview.pdf
About the Author
Jacob Nordangård has a PhD in Technology and Social Change, and is a Swedish independent researcher and author who has studied and written about the complexity of world politics, world governance, and problem and solution creation.