Sustainable Slavery with Iain Davis

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.