TheDinarian
News • Business • Investing & Finance
🌐Multipolar World Order – Part 1🌐
September 24, 2022
post photo preview

Russia’s war with Ukraine is first and foremost a tragedy for the people of both countries, especially those who live—and die—in the battle zones. The priority for humanity, though apparently not for the political class, is to encourage Moscow and Kyiv to stop killing men, women and children and negotiate a peace deal.

Beyond the immediate confines of the conflict, the war is also seen by some as representative of an alleged clash between great powers and, perhaps, between civilisations. All wars are momentous, but the ramifications of Ukrainian war are already global.

Consequently, there is a perception that it is the focal point of a confrontation between two distinct models of global governance. The NATO-led alliance of the Western nations continues to push the unipolar, G7, international rules-based order (IRBO). It is opposed, some say, by the Russian and Chinese-led BRICS and the G20-based multipolar world order.

In this 3 part series we will explore these issues and consider if it is tenable to place our faith in the emerging multipolar world order.

There are very few redeeming features of the unipolar world order, that’s for sure. It is a system that overwhelmingly serves capital and few people other than a “parasite class” of stakeholder capitalist eugenicists. This has led many disaffected Westerners to invest their hopes in the promise of the multipolar world order:

Many have increasingly come to terms with the reality that today’s multipolar system led by Russia and China has premised itself upon the defense of international law and national sovereignty as outlined in the UN Charter. [. . .] Putin and Xi Jinping have [. . .] made their choice to stand for win-win cooperation over Hobbesian Zero Sum thinking. [. . .] [T]heir entire strategy is premised upon the UN Charter.

If only that were so! Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to be the case. But even if it were true, Putin and Xi Jinping basing “their entire strategy” upon the UN Charter, would be cause for concern, not relief.

For the globalist forces that see nation-states as squares on the grand chessboard and that regard leaders like Putin, Biden and Xi Jinping as accomplices, the multipolar world order is manna from heaven. They have spent more than a century trying to centralise global power. The power of individual nation-states at least presents the possibility of some decentralisation. The multipolar world order finally ends all national sovereignty and delivers true global governance.

WORLD ORDER

We need to distinguish between the ideological concept of “world order” and the reality. This will help us identify where “world order” is an artificially imposed construct.

Authoritarian power, wielded over populations, territory and resources, restricted by physical and political geography, dictates the “world order.” The present order is largely the product of hard-nosed geopolitics, but it also reflects the various attempts to impose a global order.

The struggle to manage and mitigate the consequences of geopolitics is evident in the history of international relations. For nearly 500 years nation-states have sought to co-exist as sovereign entities. Numerous systems have been devised to seize control of what would otherwise be anarchy. It is very much to the detriment of humanity that anarchy has not been allowed to flourish.

In 1648, the two bilateral treaties that formed the Peace of Westphalia concluded the 30 Years War (or Wars). Those negotiated settlements arguably established the precept of the territorial sovereignty within the borders of the nation-state.

This reduced, but did not end, the centralised authoritarian power of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE). Britannica notes:

The Peace of Westphalia recognized the full territorial sovereignty of the member states of the empire.

This isn’t entirely accurate. That so-called “full territorial sovereignty” delineated regional power within Europe and the HRE, but full sovereignty wasn’t established.

The Westphalian treaties created hundreds of principalities that were formerly controlled by the central legislature of the HRE, the Diet. These new, effectively federalised principalities still paid taxes to the emperor and, crucially, religious observance remained a matter for the empire to decide. The treaties also consolidated the regional power of the Danish, Swedish, and French states but the Empire itself remained intact and dominant.

It is more accurate to say that the Peace of Westphalia somewhat curtailed the authoritarian power of the HRE and defined the physical borders of some nation states. During the 20th century, this led to the popular interpretation of the nation-state as a bulwark against international hegemonic power, despite that never having been entirely true.

Consequently, the so-called “Westphalian model” is largely based upon a myth. It represents an idealised version of the world order, suggesting how it could operate rather than describing how it does.

If nation-states really were sovereign and if their territorial integrity were genuinely respected, then the Westphalian world order would be pure anarchy. This is the ideal upon which the UN is supposedly founded because, contrary to another ubiquitous popular myth, anarchy does not mean “chaos.” Quite the opposite.

Anarchy is exemplified by Article 2.1 of the UN Charter:

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

The word “anarchy” is an abstraction of the classical Greek “anarkhos,” meaning “rulerless.” This is derived from the privative prefix “an” (without) in conjunction with “arkhos” (leader or ruler). Literally translated, “anarchy” means “without rulers”—what the UN calls “sovereign equality.”

A Westphalian world order of sovereign nation-states, each observing the “equality” of all others while adhering to the non-aggression principle, is a system of global, political anarchy. Unfortunately, that is not the way the current UN “world order” functions, nor has there ever been any attempt to impose such an order. What a shame.

Within the League of Nations and subsequent UN system of practical “world order,”—a world order allegedly built upon the sovereignty of nations—equality exists in theory only. Through empire, colonialism, neocolonialism—that is, through economic, military, financial and monetary conquest, coupled with the debt obligations imposed upon targeted nations—global powers have always been able to dominate and control lesser ones.

National governments, if defined in purely political terms, have never been the only source of authority behind the efforts to construct world order. As revealed by Antony C. Sutton and others, private corporate power has aided national governments in shaping “world order.”

Neither Hitler’s rise to power nor the Bolshevik Revolution would have occurred as they did, if at all, without the guidance of the Wall Street financiers. The bankers’ global financial institutions and extensive international espionage networks were instrumental in shifting global political power.

These private-sector “partners” of government are the “stakeholders” we constantly hear about today. The most powerful among them are fully engaged in “the game” described by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard.

Brzezinski recognised that the continental landmass of Eurasia was the key to genuine global hegemony:

This huge, oddly shaped Eurasian chess board—extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok—provides the setting for “the game.” [. . .] [I]f the middle space rebuffs the West, becomes an assertive single entity [. . .] then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. [. . .] That mega-continent is just too large, too populous, culturally too varied, and composed of too many historically ambitious and politically energetic states to be compliant toward even the most economically successful and politically pre-eminent global power. [. . .] Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. [. . .] [I]t would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.

The “unipolar world order” favoured by the Western powers, often referred to as the “international rules-based order” or the “international rules-based system,” is another attempt to impose order. This “unipolar” model enables the US and its European partners to exploit the UN system to claim legitimacy for their games of empire. Through it, the transatlantic alliance has used its economic, military and financial power to try to establish global hegemony.

In 2016, Stewart Patrick, writing for the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a foreign policy think tank, published World Order: What, Exactly, are the Rules? He described the post-WWII “international rules-based order” (IRBO):

What sets the post-1945 Western order apart is that it was shaped overwhelmingly by a single power [a unipolarity], the United States. Operating within the broader context of strategic bipolarity, it constructed, managed, and defended the regimes of the capitalist world economy. [. . .] In the trade sphere, the hegemon presses for liberalization and maintains an open market; in the monetary sphere, it supplies a freely convertible international currency, manages exchange rates, provides liquidity, and serves as a lender of last resort; and in the financial sphere, it serves as a source of international investment and development.

The idea that the aggressive market acquisition of crony capitalism somehow represents the “open markets” of the “capitalist world economy” is risible. It is about as far removed from free market capitalism as it is possible to be. Under crony capitalism, the US dollar, as the preferred global reserve currency, is not “freely convertible.” Exchange rates are manipulated and liquidity is debt for nearly everyone except the lender. “Investment and development” by the hegemon means more profits and control for the hegemon.

The notion that a political leader, or anyone for that matter, is entirely bad or good, is puerile. The same consideration can be given to nation-states, political systems or even models of world order. The character of a human being, a nation or a system of global governance is better judged by their or its totality of actions.

Whatever we consider to be the source of “good” and “evil,” it exists in all of us at either ends of a spectrum. Some people exhibit extreme levels of psychopathy, which can lead them to commit acts that are judged to be “evil.” But even Hitler, for example, showed physical courage, devotion, compassion for some, and other qualities we might consider “good.”

Nation-states and global governance structures, though immensely complex, are formed and led by people. They are influenced by a multitude of forces. Given the added complications of chance and unforeseen events, it is unrealistic to expect any form of “order” to be either entirely good or entirely bad.

That being said, if that “order” is iniquitous and causes appreciable harm to people, then it is important to identify to whom that “order” provides advantage. Their potential individual and collective guilt should be investigated.

This does not imply that those who benefit are automatically culpable, nor that they are “bad” or “evil,” though they may be, only that they have a conflict of interests in maintaining their “order” despite the harm it causes. Equally, where systemic harm is evident, it is irrational to absolve the actions of the people who lead and benefit from that system without first ruling out their possible guilt.

Since WWII, millions of innocents have been murdered by the US, its international allies and its corporate partners, all of whom have thrown their military, economic and financial weight around the world. The Western “parasite class” has sought to assert its IRBO by any means necessary— sanctions, debt slavery or outright slavery, physical, economic or psychological warfare. The grasping desire for more power and control has exposed the very worst of human nature. Repeatedly and ad nauseam.

Of course, resistance to this kind of global tyranny is understandable. The question is: Does imposition of the multipolar model offer anything different?

OLIGARCHY

Most recently, the “unipolar world order” has been embodied by the World Economic Forum’s inappropriately named Great Reset. It is so malignant and forbidding that some consider the emerging “multipolar world order” salvation. They have even heaped praise upon the likely leaders of the new multipolar world:

It is [. . .] strength of purpose and character that has defined Putin’s two decades in power. [. . .] Russia is committed to the process of finding solutions to all people benefiting from the future, not just a few thousand holier-than-thou oligarchs. [. . .] Together [Russia and China] told the WEF to stuff the Great Reset back into the hole in which it was conceived. [. . .] Putin told Klaus Schwab and the WEF that their entire idea of the Great Reset is not only doomed to failure but runs counter to everything modern leadership should be pursuing.

Sadly, it seems this hope is also misplaced.

While Putin did much to rid Russia of the CIA-run, Western-backed oligarchs who were systematically destroying the Russian Federation during the 1990s, they have subsequently been replaced by another band of oligarchs with closer links to the current Russian government. Something we will explore in Part 3.

Yes, it is certainly true that the Russian government, led by Putin and his power bloc, has improved the incomes and life opportunities for the majority of Russians. Putin’s government has also significantly reduced chronic poverty in Russia over the last two decades.

Wealth in Russia, measured as the market value of financial and non-financial assets, has remained concentrated in the hands of the top 1% of the population. This pooling of wealth among the top percentile is itself stratified and is overwhelmingly held by the top 1% of the 1%. For example, in 2017, 56% of Russian wealth was controlled by 1% of the population. The pseudopandemic of 2020–2022 particularly benefitted Russian billionnaires—as it did the billionaires of every other developed economy.

According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2021, wealth inequality in Russia, measured using the Gini coefficient, was 87.8 in 2020. The only other major economy with a greater disparity between the wealthy and the rest of the population was Brazil. Just behind Brazil and Russia on the wealth inequality scale was the US, whose Gini coefficient stood at 85.

In terms of wealth concentration however, the situation in Russia was the worst by a considerable margin. In 2020 the top 1% owned 58.2% of Russia’s wealth. This was more than 8 percentage points higher than Brazil’s wealth concentration, and significantly worse than wealth concentration in the US, which stood at 35.2% in 2020.

Such disproportionate wealth distribution is conducive to creating and empowering oligarchs. But wealth alone doesn’t determine whether one is an oligarch. Wealth needs to be converted into political power for the term “oligarch” to be applicable. An oligarchy is defined as “a form of government in which supreme power is vested in a small exclusive class.”

Members of this dominant class are installed through a variety of mechanisms. The British establishment, and particularly its political class, is dominated by men and women who were educated at Eton, Roedean, Harrow and St. Pauls, etc. This “small exclusive class” arguably constitutes a British oligarchy. The UK’s new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, has been heralded by some because she is not a graduate of one of these select public schools.

Educational privilege aside, though, the use of the word “oligarch” in the West more commonly refers to an internationalist class of globalists whose individual wealth sets them apart and who use that wealth to influence policy decisions.

Bill Gates is a prime example of an oligarch. The former advisor to the UK Prime Minister, Dominic Cummings, said as much during his testimony to a parliamentary committee on May 2021 (go to 14:02:35). As Cummings put it, Bill Gates and “that kind of network” had directed the UK government’s response to the supposed COVID-19 pandemic.

Gates’ immense wealth has bought him direct access to political power beyond national borders. He has no public mandate in either the US or the UK. He is an oligarch—one of the more well known but far from the only one.

CFR member David Rothkopf described these people as a “Superclass” with the ability to “influence the lives of millions across borders on a regular basis.” They do this, he said, by using their globalist “networks.” Those networks, as described by Antony C. Sutton, Dominic Cummings and others, act as “the force multiplier in any kind of power structure.”

This “small exclusive class” use their wealth to control resources and thus policy. Political decisions, policy, court rulings and more are made at their behest. This point was highlighted in the joint letter sent by the Attorneys General (AGs) of 19 US states to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.

The AGs observed that BlackRock was essentially using its investment strategy to pursue a political agenda:

The Senators elected by the citizens of this country determine which international agreements have the force of law, not BlackRock.

Their letter describes the theoretical model of representative democracy. Representative democracy is not a true democracy—which decentralises political power to the individual citizen—but is rather a system designed to centralise political control and authority. Inevitably, “representative democracy” leads to the consolidation of power in the hands of the so-called “Superclass” described by Rothkopf.

There is nothing “super” about them. They are ordinary people who have acquired wealth primarily through conquest, usury, market rigging, political manipulation and slavery. “Parasite class” is a more befitting description.

Not only do global investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street use their immense resources to steer public policy, but their major shareholders include the very oligarchs who, via their contribution to various think tanks, create the global political agendas that determine policy in the first place. There is no space in this system of alleged “world order” for any genuine democratic oversight.

As we shall see in Part 3, the levers of control are exerted to achieve exactly the same effect in Russia and China. Both countries have a gaggle of oligarchs whose objectives are firmly aligned with the WEF’s Great Reset agenda. They too work with their national government “partners” to ensure that they all arrive at the “right” policy decisions.

THE UNITED NATIONS’ MODEL OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

Any bloc of nations that bids for dominance within the United Nations is seeking global hegemony. The UN enables global governance and centralises global political power and authority. In so doing, the UN empowers the international oligarchy.

As noted previously, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter declares that the UN is “based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The Charter then goes on to list the numerous ways in which nation-states are not equal. It also clarifies how they are all subservient to the UN Security Council.

Despite all the UN’s claims of lofty principles—respect for national sovereignty and for alleged human rights—Article 2 declares that no nation-state can receive any assistance from another as long as the UN Security Council is forcing that nation-state to comply with its edicts. Even non-member states must abide by the Charter, whether they like it or not, by decree of the United Nations.

The UN Charter is a paradox. Article 2.7 asserts that “nothing in the Charter” permits the UN to infringe the sovereignty of a nation-state—except when it does so through UN “enforcement measures.” The Charter states, apparently without reason, that all nation-states are “equal.” However, some nation-states are empowered by the Charter to be far more equal than others.

While the UN’s General Assembly is supposedly a decision-making forum comprised of “equal” sovereign nations, Article 11 affords the General Assembly only the power to discuss “the general principles of co-operation.” In other words, it has no power to make any significant decisions.

Article 12 dictates that the General Assembly can only resolve disputes if instructed to do so by the Security Council. The most important function of the UN, “the maintenance of international peace and security,” can only be dealt with by the Security Council. What the other members of the General Assembly think about the Security Council’s global “security” decisions is a practical irrelevance.

Article 23 lays out which nation-states form the Security Council:

The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [Russian Federation], the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council. [. . .] The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years.

The General Assembly is allowed to elect “non-permanent” members to the Security Council based upon criteria stipulated by the Security Council. Currently the “non-permanent” members are Albania, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Norway and the United Arab Emirates.

Article 24 proclaims that the Security Council has “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” and that all other nations agree that “the Security Council acts on their behalf.” The Security Council investigates and defines all alleged threats and recommends the procedures and adjustments for the supposed remedy. The Security Council dictates what further action, such as sanctions or the use of military force, shall be taken against any nation-state it considers to be a problem.

Article 27 decrees that at least 9 of the 15 member states must be in agreement for a Security Council resolution to be enforced. All of the 5 permanent members must concur, and each has the power of veto. Any Security Council member, including permanent members, shall be excluded from the vote or use of its veto if they are party to the dispute in question.

UN member states, by virtue of agreeing to the Charter, must provide armed forces at the Security Council’s request. In accordance with Article 47, military planning and operational objectives are the sole remit of the permanent Security Council members through their exclusive Military Staff Committee. If the permanent members are interested in the opinion of any other “sovereign” nation, they’ll ask it to provide one.

The inequality inherent in the Charter could not be clearer. Article 44 notes that “when the Security Council has decided to use force” its only consultative obligation to the wider UN is to discuss the use of another member state’s armed forces where the Security Council has ordered that nation to fight. For a country that is a current member of the Security Council, use of its armed forces by the Military Staff Committee is a prerequisite for Council membership.

The UN Secretary-General, identified as the “chief administrative officer” in the Charter, oversees the UN Secretariat. The Secretariat commissions, investigates and produces the reports that allegedly inform UN decision-making. The Secretariat staff members are appointed by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is “appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

Under the UN Charter, then, the Security Council is made king. This arrangement affords the governments of its permanent members—China, France, Russia, the UK and the US—considerable additional authority. There is nothing egalitarian about the UN Charter.

The suggestion that the UN Charter constitutes a “defence” of “national sovereignty” is ridiculous. The UN Charter is the embodiment of the centralisation of global power and authority.

THE UNITED NATIONS’ GLOBAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

The UN was created, in no small measure, through the efforts of the private sector Rockefeller Foundation (RF). In particular, the RF’s comprehensive financial and operational support for the Economic, Financial and Transit Department (EFTD) of the League of Nations (LoN), and its considerable influence upon the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), made the RF the key player in the transformation of the LoN into the UN.

The UN came into being as a result of public-private partnership. Since then, especially with regard to defence, financing, global health care and sustainable development, public-private partnerships have become dominant within the UN system. The UN is no longer an intergovernmental organisation, if it ever was one. It is a global collaboration between governments and a multinational infra-governmental network of private “stakeholders.”

In 1998, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the World Economic Forum’s Davos symposium that a “quiet revolution” had occurred in the UN during the 1990s:

[T]he United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a “quiet revolution”. [. . .] [W]e are in a stronger position to work with business and industry. [. . .] The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world. [. . .] We also promote private sector development and foreign direct investment. We help countries to join the international trading system and enact business-friendly legislation.

In 2005, the World Health Organisation (WHO), a specialised agency of the UN, published a report on the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in healthcare titled Connecting for Health. Speaking about how “stakeholders” could introduce ICT healthcare solutions globally, the WHO noted:

Governments can create an enabling environment, and invest in equity, access and innovation.

The 2015, Adis Ababa Action Agenda conference on “financing for development” clarified the nature of an “enabling environment.” National governments from 193 UN nation-states committed their respective populations to funding public-private partnerships for sustainable development by collectively agreeing to create “an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development;” and “to further strengthen the framework to finance sustainable development.”

In 2017, UN General Assembly Resolution 70/224 (A/Res/70/224) compelled UN member states to implement “concrete policies” that “enable” sustainable development. A/Res/70/224 added that the UN:

[. . .] reaffirms the strong political commitment to address the challenge of financing and creating an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development [—] particularly with regard to developing partnerships through the provision of greater opportunities to the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society in general.

In short, the “enabling environment” is a government, and therefore taxpayer, funding commitment to create markets for the private sector. Over the last few decades, successive Secretary-Generals have overseen the UN’s formal transition into a global public-private partnership (G3P).

Nation-states do not have sovereignty over public-private partnerships. Sustainable development formally relegates government to the role of an “enabling” partner within a global network comprised of multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations and other actors. The “other actors” are predominantly the philanthropic foundations of individual billionaires and immensely wealthy family dynasties—that is, oligarchs.

Effectively, then, the UN serves the interests of capital. Not only is it a mechanism for the centralisation of global political authority, it is committed to the development of global policy agendas that are “business-friendly.” That means Big Business-friendly. Such agendas may happen to coincide with the best interests of humanity, but where they don’t—which is largely the case—well, that’s just too bad for humanity.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

On the 4th February 2022, a little less then three weeks prior to Russia launching its “special military operation” in Ukraine, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping issued an important joint statement:

The sides [Russian Federation and Chinese People’s Republic] strongly support the development of international cooperation and exchanges [. . .], actively participating in the relevant global governance process, [. . .] to ensure sustainable global development. [. . .] The international community should actively engage in global governance[.] [. . .] The sides reaffirmed their intention to strengthen foreign policy coordination, pursue true multilateralism, strengthen cooperation on multilateral platforms, defend common interests, support the international and regional balance of power, and improve global governance. [. . .] The sides call on all States [. . .] to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role, promote more democratic international relations, and ensure peace, stability and sustainable development across the world.

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) defined “global governance” in its 2014 publication Global Governance and the Global Rules For Development in the Post 2015 Era:

Global governance encompasses the totality of institutions, policies, norms, procedures and initiatives through which States and their citizens try to bring more predictability, stability and order to their responses to transnational challenges.

Global governance centralises control over the entire sphere of international relations. It inevitably erodes a nation’s ability to set foreign policy. As a theoretical protection against global instability, this isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but in practice it neither enhances nor “protects” national sovereignty.

Domination of the global governance system by one group of powerful nation-states represents possibly the most dangerous and destabilising force of all. It allows those nations to act with impunity, regardless of any pretensions about honouring alleged “international law.”

Global governance also significantly curtails the independence of a nation-state’s domestic policy. For example, the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda 21, with the near-time Agenda 2030 serving as a waypoint, impacts nearly all national domestic policy—even setting the course for most domestic policy—in every country.

National electorates’ oversight of this “totality” of UN policies is weak to nonexistent. Global governance renders so-called “representative democracy” little more than a vacuous sound-bite.

As the UN is a global public-private partnership (UN-G3P), global governance allows the “multi-stakeholder partnership”—and therefore oligarchs—significant influence over member nation-states’ domestic and foreign policy. Set in this context, the UN-DESA report (see above) provides a frank appraisal of the true nature of UN-G3P global governance:

Current approaches to global governance and global rules have led to a greater shrinking of policy space for national Governments [. . . ]; this also impedes the reduction of inequalities within countries. [. . .] Global governance has become a domain with many different players including: multilateral organizations; [. . .] elite multilateral groupings such as the Group of Eight (G8) and the Group of Twenty (G20) [and] different coalitions relevant to specific policy subjects[.] [. . .] Also included are activities of the private sector (e.g., the Global Compact) non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and large philanthropic foundations (e.g., Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Turner Foundation) and associated global funds to address particular issues[.] [. . .] The representativeness, opportunities for participation, and transparency of many of the main actors are open to question. [. . .] NGOs [. . .] often have governance structures that are not subject to open and democratic accountability. The lack of representativeness, accountability and transparency of corporations is even more important as corporations have more power and are currently promoting multi-stakeholder governance with a leading role for the private sector. [. . .] Currently, it seems that the United Nations has not been able to provide direction in the solution of global governance problems—perhaps lacking appropriate resources or authority, or both. United Nations bodies, with the exception of the Security Council, cannot make binding decisions.

A/Res/73/254 declares that the UN Global Compact Office plays a vital role in “strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to partner strategically with the private sector.” It adds:

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development acknowledges that the implementation of sustainable development will depend on the active engagement of both the public and private sectors[.]

While the Attorneys General of 19 states might rail against BlackRock for usurping the political authority of US senators, BlackRock is simply exercising its power as valued a “public-private partner” of the US government. Such is the nature of global governance. Given that this system has been constructed over the last 80 years, it’s a bit too late for 19 state AGs to complain about it now. What have they been doing for the last eight decades?

The governmental “partners” of the UN-G3P lack “authority” because the UN was created, largely by the Rockefellers, as a public-private partnership. The intergovernmental structure is the partner of the infra-governmental network of private stakeholders. In terms of resources, the power of the private sector “partners” dwarfs that of their government counterparts.

Corporate fiefdoms are not limited by national borders. BlackRock alone currently holds $8.5 trillion of assets under management. This is nearly five times the size of the total GDP of UN Security Council permanent member Russia and more than three times the GDP of the UK.

So-called sovereign countries are not sovereign over their own central banks nor are they “sovereign” over international financial institutions like the IMF, the New Development Bank (NDB), the World Bank or the Bank for International Settlements. The notion that any nation state or intergovernmental organisation is capable of bringing the global network of private capital to heel is farcical.

At the COP26 Conference in Glasgow in 2021, King Charles III—then Prince Charles—prepared the conference to endorse the forthcoming announcement of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). He made it abundantly clear who was in charge and, in keeping with UN objectives, clarified national governments role as “enabling partners”:

The scale and scope of the threat we face call for a global systems level solution based on radically transforming our current fossil fuel based economy. [. . .] So ladies and gentleman, my plea today is for countries to come together to create the environment that enables every sector of industry to take the action required. We know this will take trillions, not billions of dollars. [. . .] [W]e need a vast military style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector, with trillions at [its] disposal far beyond global GDP, and with the greatest respect, beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders. It offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition.

Unless Putin and Xi Jinping intend to completely restructure the United Nations, including all of its institutions and specialised agencies, their objective of protecting “the United Nations-driven international architecture” appears to be nothing more than a bid to cement their status as the nominal leaders of the UN-G3P. As pointed out by UN-DESA, through the UN-G3P, that claim to political authority is extremely limited. Global corporations dominate and are currently further consolidating their global power through “multi-stakeholder governance.”

Whether unipolar or multipolar, the so-called “world order” is the system of global governance led by the private sector—the oligarchs. Nation-states, including Russia and China, have already agreed to follow global priorities determined at the global governance level. The question is not which model of the global public-private “world order” we should accept, but rather why we would ever accept any such “world order” at all.

This, then, is the context within which we can explore the alleged advantages of a “multipolar world order” led by China, Russia and increasingly India. Is it an attempt, as claimed by some, to reinvigorate the United Nations and create a more just and equitable system of global governance? Or is it merely the next phase in the construction of what many refer to as the “New World Order”?

Link

community logo
Join the TheDinarian Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like

Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Stargate: Establishing the Physical Foundations of the AI Revolution đŸ›°ïžđŸŒŽ

The Stargate initiative represents the most substantial investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure to date, as it begins to materialize on a global scale. While many perceive AI as an ethereal technology—simply accessed via applications like ChatGPT đŸ€–â€”each digital interaction is, in fact, powered by extensive physical resources: vast data centers 🏱, thousands of cutting-edge GPUs đŸ’Ÿ, sophisticated cooling systems 💧, dedicated power grids ⚡, and essential water pipelines 🚰. AI does not reside on personal devices; it is anchored on Earth and demands significant resources.

As artificial intelligence continues to advance, its infrastructure needs only intensify. Regardless of improvements in model efficiency, the explosive growth in usage—billions of queries, ongoing model training, and worldwide deployment—necessitates ever-greater computing power, land, electricity, and semiconductors. This expansion is not plateauing; it is accelerating 📈.

Stargate stands ...

00:01:55
🚹 A Senior UAE Official Has Forecasted...👀

🇩đŸ‡Ș The United Arab Emirates has taken a decisive step that the United States has been reluctant to pursue.

👉 “Within the next two years, cryptocurrency will be used more frequently than traditional currencies like the dollar or dirham, even for everyday purchases such as coffee and groceries.” 🏩☕🛒

It is worth noting which cryptocurrencies offer transaction fees that are virtually negligible. 😏

The official further stated: “Mark my words, I believe in actions, not just words.”

00:01:00
The Digital Euro đŸ‡ȘđŸ‡ș Is Ready đŸ’¶đŸŒ Via XRP &XLM

The legislative process is complete, and the Digital Euro đŸ‡ȘđŸ‡ș is ready for real time use and October 2025 is the big roll out.

Around this time Europe will also be releasing their
‱Request2pay
‱ SEPA credit transfer rulebook
‱PSD3 instant payments
‱Verification of payee
‱TIPS multi-currency phase 1

The Digital Euro will be minted on #XRPL and #Stellar

OP: MRMANXRP

00:00:27
👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? 🔜

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

👉 Here’s what you need to know:

💠 'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
💠 Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
💠 Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
💠 Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
💠 Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

👉 What this means for the future of Crypto:

1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto 👉txns done by AI agents by 2025

🚹 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading
Veritaseum Hodlers, Are You Ready For Chaos? 🚀 đŸ‘©‍🚀

What would happen if Veritaseum was "Resurrected" from the Land of Dead Cryptos? Would Clif High's prediction of Veri trading 1 to 1 with Bitcoin actually come TRUE?! We may just find out SOONER than you think!!

$Velos New Payfi Litepaper 📝

As the market evolves, so do we. Our new PayFi Litepaper reflects our commitment to adapt fast, stay ahead, and win.

Dive into our latest vision and strategy for what’s next.

https://x.com/veloprotocol/status/1917550676860887446

Reggie Middleton vs The SEC

The Motion to Vacate the SEC case against @ReggieMiddleton was filed on Friday May 30th, 2025 and contains NEW EVIDENCE clearly illustrating the alleged Fraud Upon the Court by SEC attorney Jorge Tenreiro.

It’s Reggie’s time to shine and this is going to be Epic!

Watch for a Video and further X posts breaking down this New Evidence.

https://x.com/SovereignRiz/status/1928836032964804760

post photo preview
Stellar's Ecosystem Surges Forward: Smart Contracts, Lightning Speed, and Real-World Impact in 2025

The Stellar blockchain ecosystem is experiencing remarkable momentum in 2025, with groundbreaking technical achievements and expanding real-world adoption that position it as a major player in the decentralized finance landscape. From lightning-fast transaction speeds to innovative smart contract capabilities, Stellar is demonstrating that blockchain technology can deliver both performance and practical utility.

Technical Breakthroughs Drive Performance

The Stellar Development Foundation's Q1 2025 quarterly report reveals impressive technical milestones that showcase the network's maturation. The platform now processes an astounding 5,000 transactions per second with remarkably fast 2.5-second block times, putting it among the fastest blockchain networks in operation today.

This performance leap isn't just about raw numbers—it represents Stellar's commitment to creating infrastructure that can handle real-world demand. Whether it's cross-border payments, asset tokenization, or decentralized applications, the network's enhanced capabilities provide the foundation for scalable blockchain solutions.

Smart Contracts Get Smarter with Soroban

One of the most significant developments has been the launch and continued evolution of Soroban, Stellar's smart contract platform. The introduction of Contract Copilot represents a major advancement in developer experience, enabling faster and safer smart contract development through enhanced tooling and guidance.

This focus on developer experience is crucial for ecosystem growth. By lowering barriers to entry and improving the development process, Stellar is positioning itself to attract innovative projects and talented developers who might otherwise choose competing platforms.

New Token Standards Meet Market Needs

The Stellar Development Foundation has introduced new token standards developed specifically based on feedback from developers and institutional users. This responsive approach to platform development demonstrates Stellar's commitment to building technology that meets actual market needs rather than theoretical requirements.

These standards are particularly important as institutional adoption continues to grow, with organizations requiring robust, compliant, and flexible token frameworks for their blockchain initiatives.

Global USDC Integration Expands Utility

The integration of USDC across Stellar's global network represents a significant milestone for practical cryptocurrency adoption. Stablecoins like USDC provide the price stability necessary for everyday transactions and business operations, making them crucial for blockchain platforms seeking real-world utility.

This integration is particularly impactful in emerging markets, where access to stable digital currencies can provide financial services to underbanked populations and facilitate more efficient cross-border transactions.

Industry Events Build Community Momentum

The Stellar ecosystem's growing influence is evident in its presence at major industry events. The foundation's participation as a sponsor at Consensus 2025 in Toronto and Digital Assets Week in New York demonstrates its commitment to engaging with builders, investors, and institutional leaders across the blockchain space.

These events serve as crucial networking opportunities and platforms for showcasing innovative projects within the Stellar ecosystem. Recent Meridian events have highlighted creative projects like Skyhitz and HoneyCoin, illustrating the collaborative spirit and diverse applications being built on the platform.

Real-World Impact in Emerging Markets

Perhaps most importantly, Stellar's growth isn't just about technical metrics—it's about real-world impact. The platform's focus on emerging markets addresses genuine financial inclusion challenges, providing efficient payment rails and access to digital financial services where traditional banking infrastructure may be limited.

This practical approach to blockchain implementation sets Stellar apart from projects that focus primarily on speculative trading or theoretical use cases. By solving actual problems for real users, Stellar is building sustainable demand for its technology.

Looking Ahead: Enterprise-Grade Infrastructure

Stellar positions itself as offering enterprise-grade asset tokenization alongside its DeFi capabilities and payment infrastructure. This comprehensive approach makes it attractive to institutions looking for a single platform that can handle multiple blockchain use cases.

The combination of fast transactions, low costs, smart contract capabilities, and regulatory-conscious development creates a compelling value proposition for enterprises considering blockchain adoption.

The Road Forward

As 2025 progresses, Stellar's ecosystem appears well-positioned for continued growth. The technical infrastructure improvements, developer-focused enhancements, and real-world adoption initiatives create a strong foundation for expanding use cases and user adoption.

The blockchain industry has seen many projects promise revolutionary capabilities, but Stellar's focus on delivering measurable performance improvements and practical solutions suggests a mature approach to blockchain development. With transaction speeds that rival traditional payment systems and growing institutional adoption, Stellar is demonstrating that blockchain technology can move beyond experimental phases into mainstream utility.

For developers, institutions, and users looking for blockchain solutions that prioritize both performance and practical applicability, Stellar's 2025 developments represent significant progress toward a more accessible and useful decentralized financial ecosystem.

Source: The Dinarian ⚡ Claude AI

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Or Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

Your generosity keeps this mission alive, for all! NamastĂ© 🙏 The Dinarian

Read full Article
post photo preview
Soroban Security Audit Bank: Raising the Standard for Smart Contract Security

The Stellar Development Foundation (SDF) is deeply committed to helping ensure that the highest security standards are available for projects building on the Stellar network. Last year SDF launched the Soroban Security Audit Bank, an initiative to provide projects access to auditing experts and tooling that are proven to help prevent hacks by catching potential bugs, inefficiencies, and security flaws before contracts go live. Through the Soroban Security Audit Bank, we’re empowering teams building on Soroban with comprehensive security audits from leading audit firms, enhanced readiness support, and robust tooling, significantly elevating the ecosystem’s safety and efficiency.

Since launch, the Soroban Security Audit Bank has successfully conducted over 40 essential audits, deploying over $3 million to support security of the smart contracts on Stellar. Check it out!

 

Ecosystem Success Stories: How the Soroban Audit Bank Drives Security Forward

By making automated formal verification available to developers, in addition to allocating significant budget for securing many of the top DeFi protocols built on top of Stellar, SDF has established a new security standard in the Web3 ecosystem. –Mooly Sagiv, Co-Founder of Certora
SDF has been a strong partner as we’ve worked with teams across the Stellar ecosystem. SDF’s Audit Bank initiative allows for a smooth and streamlined review process, and is a clear reflection of the Stellar ecosystem’s enhanced commitment to security. –Robert Chen, CEO of OtterSec
 

Leading projects within the Soroban ecosystem have highlighted the impact of the Audit Bank

Finding a good auditor is difficult, expensive, and high-stakes. The Audit Bank streamlines the process and supports ecosystem projects with security review at critical growth milestones. –Markus Paulson, Co-Founder of Script3
The audit firms we worked with deeply understood the full ecosystem and the underlying protocols used. Their expertise and the tools from the Audit Bank strengthened our security and supported user and investor trust. –Esteban Iglesias Manríquez, Co-Founder of Palta.Labs

What's New in 2025: Enhanced Audit Support for Soroban Builders

Teams building financial protocols, high-dependency data services, high-traction dApps funded by the Stellar Community Fund are able to request an audit and will typically be matched with a reputable audit firm within two weeks. We recently restructured the program for this year to enhance audit efficiency and incentivize accountability, and rapid and complete vulnerability remediation:

  • Complimentary Initial Audit: Projects will need to contribute 5% of the audit cost upfront, but this co-payment amount is eligible for a full refund, provided that critical, high, and medium vulnerabilities identified are swiftly remediated within 20 business days of receiving the initial audit report (learn more).
  • Incentivized Security at Key Traction Milestones: Complimentary, extensive follow-up audits are available as projects achieve critical traction milestones (e.g., $10M and $100M TVL). These audits include deeper assessments such as formal verification or competitive audits, significantly boosting project security at pivotal stages.
  • Advanced Security Tooling: Projects can enhance their security self-serve through complimentary or discounted access to specialized tooling, which provide vulnerability detection and formal verification capabilities (see full list of available tooling). These tools are encouraged to capture ‘easy-to-spot’ issues prior to audit as well as a final check post-audit to increase the effectiveness and thoroughness of audits.
  • Enhanced Audit Readiness Support: Projects receive structured preparation support, including the implementation of best practices and security standards based on the STRIDE threat modeling framework. This ensures project teams are thoroughly prepared, optimizing audit efficiency and minimizing delays.

Get Started Today

If you're already funded through the Stellar Community Fund, meet the criteria and ready to secure your smart contracts, check your email for an invitation to submit an audit request–if you haven’t received one, contact [email protected].

If you haven't built on Stellar yet, we encourage you to start your journey with the Stellar Community Fund to become eligible for future security audits and ecosystem support. For any broader questions on the program, contact [email protected].

Also, we’re organizing an exciting series of workshops–join us for the kick-off on Soroban Security Best Practices on Friday, May 30, 2025 at 2 PM ET on @StellarOrg. Together, we're shaping a secure and resilient future for smart contracts on Stellar.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Or Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

Your generosity keeps this mission alive, for all! NamastĂ© 🙏 The Dinarian

Read full Article
post photo preview
Santander mulls stablecoin, crypto offering

Bloomberg reported that Banco Santander is mulling introducing euro and dollar stablecoins, or potentially making a third party coin available to clients, citing sources. This move aligns with broader crypto ambitions, as its digital bank, Openbank, has reportedly applied for a European cryptocurrency license under the Mica Regulations and may enable retail access to digital assets.

Systemically important banks embrace stablecoins?

Major banks are now moving from observers to participants in this expanding market. Should Santander confirm plans to launch a stablecoin, it will be the fourth global systemically important bank (G-SIB) to do so. Societe Generale’s FORGE subsidiary launched the EURCV euro coin in 2023. Deutsche Bank is a partner in ALLUnity, another stablecoin initiative with plans to launch this year, subject to regulatory approval. And Standard Chartered is part of a joint venture in Hong Kong that intends to introduce a stablecoin.

Santander’s involvement could extend beyond an individual initiative. The bank is a shareholder in The Clearing House, where the Wall Street Journal reported that US banks are exploring the potential to create a joint stablecoin. If a US initiative took that route it could involve nine more G-SIBs including Bank of America, Barclays, BMO, BNY Mellon, Citi, HSBC, JP Morgan, TD Bank and Wells Fargo.

Apart from these initiatives, our research shows that more than 20 other banks have been involved in stablecoin projects.

Until recently stablecoins were mainly used to settle cryptocurrency transactions and by residents in countries with volatile domestic currencies. During the last year stablecoin infrastructure has been expanding, especially for mainstream cross border payments. Plus, President Trump issued an executive order prioritizing stablecoins. One of the administration’s motivations is this increases demand for US Treasuries, lowering the interest rate the government pays on the Treasury bills.

Santander as an early digital assets mover

Santander’s stablecoin consideration builds on years of blockchain experience. The bank was an early Ripple investor and previously used Ripple’s permissioned network for payments (not XRP), while also embracing permissionless blockchain activities including issuing a digital bond on Ethereum in 2019. This dual approach led to collaborations with other major players – alongside Societe Generale FORGE and Goldman Sachs, Santander participated in the European Investment Bank’s first digital bond, also on Ethereum. Currently, the bank’s most significant digital money initiative involves Fnality, the wholesale blockchain-based settlement network, where Santander ranks among 20 institutional backers and is part of the early adopter group alongside Lloyds Bank and UBS.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Or Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

Your generosity keeps this mission alive, for all! NamastĂ© 🙏 The Dinarian

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals