The Media Co-op

Local Independent News

More independent news:
Do you want free independent news delivered weekly? sign up now
Can you support independent journalists with $5? donate today!
Not reviewed by Media Co-op editors. copyeditedfact checked [?]

Hyenas Herding Sheep

The UN Global Sustainability Goals VS The UN Global Compact

by Daniel Johnson

I'll start by saying that I fully support the work of several UN agencies, because I feel those organizations are doing good work.

I almost always support the work of UN Peacekeepers, I know individuals have done very bad things while in that uniform, and the UN doesn't always hold them to account the way they should,

but when they're doing the job they're sent to do they are doing something fundamentally positive.

Though it's true that sometimes Peacekeepers do great work despite the UN rather than because of it, Sengalese Peacekeeper Capt. Mbaye Diagne is an example.

I believed, and still do to a great degree, that the UN Global Goals can be achieved, in a positive way.

But I'm seeing many of the largest organizations dominating UN policy, centralized in a little known organization called The United Nations Global Compact, and I have doubts that these companies have any desire to see that happen.

The UN Global Compact describes itself as 'The world's largest sustainability initiative' and further describes itself as 'A call to companies to align strategies and operations with universal principles on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption, and take actions that advance societal goals.'.

They are, as they say, the businesses working with governments and UN agencies to make life better for everyone in a sustainable way.

According to their website, "Corporate sustainability starts with a company’s value system and a principled approach to doing business. This means operating in ways that, at a minimum, meet fundamental responsibilities in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption. Responsible businesses enact the same values and principles wherever they have a presence, and know that good practices in one area do not offset harm in another. By incorporating the Global Compact principles into strategies, policies and procedures, and establishing a culture of integrity, companies are not only upholding their basic responsibilities to people and planet, but also setting the stage for long-term success."

"The UN Global Compact’s Ten Principles are derived from: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption."

So, who are these companies? They would be, we should think, companies with unstained reputations, no history of mafia collusion, bribery, proxy armies to violently suppress local resistance to projects, environmental negligance, human rights violations, etc., wouldn't you suppose...?

Here are some of them, there are over a thousand, but these are the biggest and, it seems, the most influential in terms of emerging UN policies.

Top of the list is Nestle, based in Switzerland.

Where to start with Nestle, and does it end? Let's list off the worst of Nestle's (known) unethical activities, since they've been a UN Global Compact member since 2001. Child Slavery in Thailand
the infamous baby formula scandals,,

They have had an extensive history of pumping large amounts of water for bottling in areas facing serious droughts.

Sometimes with expired permits
sometimes with no permits at all.

All this while largely promoting an entirely bogus narrative about 'water scarcity' that contends earth's water is a finite resource, using statistics about agricultural and normal consumptive water usage in a way that makes it seem as though 'we are running out of water'.

Since earth's water has been used and cycled around continuously for all of earth's history, since normal human use of water does not actually destroy it like burning oil, etc., this line of reasoning is blatantly false, yet major world leaders pretend to believe it as an excuse
to let Nestle create droughts deliberately by pumping out groundwater from targetted areas at such a rate that it dries out the wells, and then call attention to the droughts as proof of the ridiculous 'running out of water' theory.

All that and so much more, much of it summarized by the Corporate Research Group

Despite Nestle's history of deceit and absolute disregard for the public well-being, UN bodies like the World Bank and IMF are always quick to take their suggestions, which often involve actions that give Nestle a lot of money from public sources. In fact, they appear to be the United Nations central source of advice on all things having to do with water and the 'water crisis' Nestle has helped to create.

We'll talk more about Nestle and how their activities relate directly to the UN's concern with 'water shortages' in a bit, after discussing some other well known names with membership in the Global Compact.

Wherever Nestle products are found, you can be sure to find products from US based Coca-Cola nearby.

Coca-Cola's history of corrupt practices is widely known, and there always seems to be more. The Atalantic did an article in 2010 that summarized the worst until that point,

More detail on these and more can be found on

Syngenta is a Swiss company whose major claim to fame is it's ownership of the infamous herbicide 'paraquat',

as well as neonicotinoid pesticides that endanger bees
Syngenta is also involved in pushing GM crops in places they are not wanted by locals, sometimes with private paramilitaries to back them up against local communities.

Monsanto,(USA)Monsanto is one of the world's most odious companies, much can be found on them, a good summary of Monsanto's worst can be found here:

Bank Of America,(USA, Mexico) has robbed countless numbers of people yet continues to get bailouts at taxpayers expense, with a virtual immunity to legal accountability.

Meryll Lynch,(Mexico)
Also a longtime member of the UN Global Contact, the name should bring echoes of the 2008 financial crisis, in which Meryll Lynch played a major role, almost leading to it's bankruptcy until it was saved with a buy-out by Bank Of America.

Royal Dutch Shell,(Netherlands)
Shell Oil has an extensive history of corruption backed by government collusion and violence. The most recent incidents involve former British M16 helping arrange bribery payments.

But there are many more going back almost 100 years, the history up to 2005 can be found on the Corporate Watch website.

Tesco, (Poland, UK) Their disregard for ethics is documented point by point by Corporate Watch.

Total Oil And Gas (France) makes the list of top 10 least ethical companies in the world due largely to the discovery that they were using slave labor in Myanmar,

They settled for $335 million to end the lawsuit in 2005,

I sppent a lot of time looking at Canadian companies involved in the Global Compact, particularily Bombardier and SNC Lavalin.

Bombardier has spent most of it's existence feeding on subsidies and government contracts, including the most recent bailout agreement that is widely criticized as having no
real benefit to Canadians.

Bombardier has been accused of corruption in many forms including bribery, price fixing and racketeering in many countries including South Africa




and in Britain


SNC Lavalin is even worse than Bombardier.

SNC Lavalin is known internationally as the company that has used the phrase 'project consultancy cost' as a code for bribe.

But even having your CEO charged with fraud, even after being exposed for bribery, can still get the biggest government contracts.

Even being the center figure in a mafia investigationcan't prevent SNC Lavalin from getting a nuclear sweetheart deal, that is, ownership of Canada's nuclear regulatory agency and Canada's entire nuclear program for the price of $15 million

Why wouldn't the UNODP and other international anti-corruption investigators respond with suspicion to that much value in public assets being sold for that low a cost to a company with known long time mafia ties?

Another Canadian company that is definitely of note is Barrick Gold.

So much can be said about Barrick Gold, and, oh look, it already has! has an extensive list of unethical behavior from this company.

I referred to Protest Barrick more or less incidentally when I wrote a different article about another vigorous supporter of the UN Sustainable Development, George Soros.

These companies, the UN Global Compact tells us, also help draft UN reports on sustainable development initiatives and responses to problems arising in the developing world, their executives names can be found on many important reports
recommending various actions.

UN reports on various subjects carry a great amount of weight. Usually they are reliable, sometimes with biases, but when it comes to water the UN seems to lose all sight of reason and reality.

A major example of this has been UN Water.

As the Nestle/UN narrative goes, the world is running out of water because we're using it all up, the way we use up oil, and that the only solution to water shortages is commodotizing it and giving control to private for-profit companies like Nestle.

It is interesting that the Nestle press release about water shortages references a report by 'UN Water'

While it's been Nestle is the ones promoting that narrative at the UN.

There were numerous statements by UN officials about how 'drought induced by climate change' played a role in creating the civil war in Syria.

It is widely known that dams based in Turkey blocking the flow of the Euphrates river is the main cause of the water shortages, should make people more suspicious. Somehow UN officials didn't take the dams upstream, blocking most of the river flow to the 'drought' effected areas into account.

Many major media outlets have covered the story from the 'climate change induced drought angle, talking about water shortages in Syria without any mention of the Turkish dams blocking the water.

Washington Post is an example:

Scientific American does the same thing:

But the existence of the dams and their impact on the region is no secret, so there is no legitimate reason for competent UN leaders or journalists to attribute the droughts mostly to climate change. September 2, 2016

Other strategically placed, 'water shortage' inducing dams are being built around the world, usually with a great deal of local resistance, violent suppression of local resistance, and UN agencies turning a blind eye.

Examples include Honduras, where the military has murdered activists resisting the dam projects

Ethiopia, where the Blue Nile river is being blocked by a dam project that will destroy local agriculture while greatly benefitting a sugar plantation for export. "This is because, besides electricity generation, Gibe III will support a vast irrigation complex, equal in size to the entire irrigated area of Kenya. In particular, the complex will supply a 245,000-hectare sugar plantation, the Kuraz Sugar Development Project, run by the Ethiopian Sugar Corporation and perhaps the country’s largest-ever agricultural scheme. As much as half of the river’s flow could end up being diverted to supply the thirsty sugar cane."

No doubt we will hear all about water shortages and 'droughts' in Ethiopia, Honduras and other countries soon that will be attributed to climate change with no mention of dams.

Water is just one aspect of the UN's 'Sustainable Development' plan for global governance, in which nearly every aspect of human life is to be placed under centralized control, qualified, quantified, reduced to questions of data to be analyzed by decision makers based in the west.

The 16 Sustainable Development goals are all very commendable and should have universal support from every human being, they really are wonderful and necessary. I can't stress this enough.

But I see these goals and wonder why the goal of water management would be largely under the advice of the world's most malicious, inhuman and corrupt water profiteer.

It makes me wonder if the goals might be more euphemistic than literal. As in, the goal to stop climate change and reduce pollution, coupled with the involvement of the worst offending oil companies. The goals to end poverty and to reduce economic inequality, coupled with the involvement of major bank executives and economic advisors who have openly stated that poverty is a good thing because it boosts motivation in the labor market, and insist that we have to maintain the same economic system that demands competition and inequality as a matter of course.

When I took the Age Of Sustainable Development course with the Jeffrey Sachs lecture videos,

I was bothered to here repeat use of the phrase 'human capital' and a stated goal, widely supported by a lot of UN experts, including Jeffrey Sachs, to have poor people of the world become a 'globally mobilized workforce' that can go where investors need them, literally as cheap labor on tap. It is apparently part of 'our urban future' where we will live in crowded highrises in megacities.

When I think of a poverty and inequality elimination plan, Jeffrey Sachs ideas sound like poverty and inequality.

When I see that one of their main goals is to end hunger and increase food security, yet their plan to accomplish this seems to involve giving companies like Monsanto, Beyer and Syngenta total control over the world's food supply, centralizing food production in mega farms growing limited variety of limited species of crops while spraying pesticides literally designed to kill everything but those specific plants. The entire marketing and growth strategy of GMO companies is based on making plants, the ultimate renewable resources, into a non-renewable, patented commodity.
Can you tell me you can't think of what might go disastrously, horribly wrong with that idea, Mr. Sachs, Mr. Bono, anyone?

I see the goal to promote health and well-being, and the goal to encourage responsible consumption and production, and I just think of the Nestle products other than water I can name off the top of my head and how I know I could never name them all, all of them unhealthy, unnecessary, overpackaged, loaded with sugar that is driving up diabetes and obesity rates while using up valuable farm land in poor countries that should be growing food, and hyper-marketed in the most insidious and manipulative ways via every aspect of western culture, especially in children's media.

It doesn't mean the goals aren't realistic or worth working towards, it just means the world may need a different UN to accomplish them.

Want more grassroots coverage?
Join the Media Co-op today.

Creative Commons license icon

About the poster

Trusted by 0 other users.
Has posted 192 times.
View Daniel Johnson's profile »

Recent Posts:

picture of Daniel Johnson

Daniel Johnson (Daniel Johnson)
Regina Sask
Member since August 2013


2752 words

Join the media co-op today
Things the Media Co-op does: Support
Things the Media Co-op does: Report
Things the Media Co-op does: Network
Things the Media Co-op does: Educate
Things the Media Co-op does: Discover
Things the Media Co-op does: Cooperate
Things the Media Co-op does: Build
Things the Media Co-op does: Amplify

User login

Subscribe to the Dominion $25/year

The Media Co-op's flagship publication features in-depth reporting, original art, and the best grassroots news from across Canada and beyond. Sign up now!