Why would anyone trust the United Nations’ regime?

The United Nations (UN) recently published Our Common Agenda. In the summary introduction, UN Secretary General António Guterres claimed that “we are at an inflection point”, where the pronoun “we” referred to the alleged choices that “humanity faces.” Quite clearly, "our," in the context of “our common agenda,” implies that we—humanity—all share the same agenda, which we don't. The possessive adjective "our," used by the UN to denote all of humanity, is used deceptively. 

The agenda is the one pursued by the UN and its global "partners." What "we"—the people—think about it, as long as we can be convinced to support it, is irrelevant as far as the UN partnership is concerned.

In the summary, António Guterres wrote:

Increasingly, people are turning their backs on the values of trust and solidarity in one another.

We only need to look to at the public response to the devastation wrought by the wildfires on Maui—in the Hawaiian Islands—to know Guterres' claim isn't true. In the worst affected town of Lāhainā, the people rallied to support each other.

They housed their dispossessed friends and neighbours and established food distribution hubs. Local fishing and pleasure cruise businesses coordinated to maintain the essential supply routs from the main island of Hawaii to the impacted Maui residents. All of this was achieved in the conspicuous absence of any meaningful response from US government in the immediate aftermath.

This is just one example of people demonstrating community "trust and solidarity." It is quite normal for people to help others following natural disasters. Guterres himself acknowledged that the pseudopandemic saw a "wave of solidarity" as people across Europe volunteered to assist others wherever they could.

Thus, how Guterres can seriously contend, just a few years later, that "people are turning their backs" on each other is inexplicable. Does he have amnesia, or is their something else behind his seemingly baseless rhetoric?

The subterfuge becomes clear when we read more of Our Common Agenda:

[. . .] now is the time to renew the social contract between Governments and their people and within societies, so as to rebuild trust [. . .]. This common agenda is our [the UN's] road map to recapture this positive spirit and begin rebuilding our [the UN's] world and mending the trust in one another [our trust in government and the UN] we [the UN] need so desperately.

The "trust" Guterres seeks has nothing to do with the trust we invest in each other. The UN desperately needs us to trust it.

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of “trust” is:

Firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something … Acceptance of the truth of a statement without evidence or investigation.

The UN wants us to believe whatever it tells us without reason. This is essential for the UN because it is ambitious, malevolent and utterly "untrustworthy."

It can only achieve its nefarious goals while we accept its claimed authority. We've just observed, in Guterres’ prepared summary, the UN's propensity to use deceptive language, to spread disinformation and mislead the public.


Bogus authority

In 2013, a UN Task Team was designated to specify the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. It wrote:

[. . .] global partnership can promote a more effective, coherent, representative and accountable global governance regime, which should ultimately translate into better national and regional governance [. . .]. A global governance regime, under the auspices of the UN, will have to ensure that the global commons will be preserved for future generations.

[. . .] In a more interdependent world, a more coherent, transparent and representative global governance regime will be critical to achieve sustainable development in all its dimensions.

You get the point, I'm sure. The UN considers itself the lead organisation in a "global governance regime".

The "regime" operates as a global public-private partnership (G3P) which, in turn, promotes the "more effective, coherent, representative and accountable global governance regime." The G3P formulates policy agendas, at the global governance level. These are commonly designed by well funded global think-tanks working in "partnership" with global financial institutions.

Once the policy agenda or trajectory is set, it is then the role of our governments to "translate" the agenda into "better national and regional governance". This ultimately means translating global agendas into government policies, regulations and legislation.

Every time you elect your government, you are choosing your national representative of the G3P "global governance regime". Government is merely a regime partner. It does not set policy agendas but rather "translates" them into national policy on behalf of the G3P. Governments serve the G3P regime’s interests, not ours.

We can see how this system operates through the lens of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). The CGI is deeply embedded within the G3P regime.

Derek Yacht, who worked with former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland—she led the Brundtland Commission that defined alleged "sustainable development"—and the Rockefeller Foundation, which heavily backs the Clinton Foundation, wrote a fawning article about the Clintons and the CGI in 2016.

Claiming that the CGI “helped change the way that companies everywhere think about social responsibility”, Yacht stated that it was the Rockefeller Foundation that endorsed him to promote the CGI. He claimed that the Clintons had revolutionised corporate responsibility and that "doing well by doing good" had become "the accepted norm for business."

Yacht positively enthused:

[. . .] many of the United Nations Global Compact’s (UNGC) member companies are also CGI members. From the start, the CGI Annual Meeting was held during the week of the United Nations General Assembly [. . .]. CGI companies brought their experiences into the U.N. system at a time of unprecedented support for new forms of private-public partnerships to complement the role of government [. . .] . This could allow for CGI’s commitments to reach the scale needed to have true global impact.

Following the conclusion of Bill Clinton’s stint as US president, who among us chose to put the Clintons in a position to have a "true global impact"? None of us have aver agreed that a global public-private partnership (G3P) should have any kind of governance "role". What is this?

In 1935, in The Doctrine of Fascism, the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini wrote:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian.


The Fascist State [. . .] makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State.

To be clear: a fascist state manifests as a national public-private partnership.

As we are about to discuss, "doing well by not doing any good at all" more accurately describes Clinton-inspired corporate "social responsibility." The CGI's close "partnership" with the UN is an exemplar worth bearing in mind.



Sadly, perhaps the clearest way we can come to appreciate the horrendous impact the regime has on humanity is by looking at its approach to the so-called protection of the most vulnerable people on Earth. Most notably, and perhaps most regrettably, children. The UN G3P regime is despicable.

The 1999 Secretary General Bulletin (ST/SGB/1999/13) stipulates that:

in case[s] of violations of international humanitarian law, members of the military personnel of a United Nations force [peacekeepers] are subject to prosecution in their national courts.

The bulletin also claims that, by regime mandate, "attacks on civilians [. . .] are prohibited." Specifically, Sec. 7.2 supposedly prohibits "rape; enforced prostitution; any form of sexual assault." Sec. 7.4 adds that children "shall be protected against any form of indecent assault."

UN peacekeeping operations are mandated by the regime's Security Council. Their activities come under a complex but well-defined command structure, laid out in the regime's peacekeeping “Principles and Guidelines”.

The Guidelines state that peacekeeping forces are "not under United Nations command" but somehow are "assigned under United Nations operational control". As the UN has no forces of its own, this limits UN “control” to setting operational tasks. 

The regime adds that the Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG), working with or acting as the Head of Mission (HOM), exercise "authority over the United Nations peacekeeping operation." Although, this only extends to arranging operations, logistical control and so on. 

The regime adds:

The SRSG/HOM is responsible for coordinating the activities of the entire United Nations system in the field. [. . .] There must be zero tolerance for any kind of sexual exploitation and abuse, and other forms of serious misconduct. Cases of misconduct must be dealt with firmly and fairly, to avoid undermining the legitimacy and moral authority of the mission.

This so-called field "responsibility" does not extend to taking any responsibility for the crimes committed by its own peacekeeping forces. The claim of "zero tolerance for any kind of sexual exploitation and abuse" is utterly meaningless.

Consequently, when allegations of abuse do emerge or are proven, the legacy media can claim, with some apparently engineered justification, that the UN is relatively powerless. UN Dispatch makes this point clear

[. . .] the ability of the United Nations to deter these crimes through the threat of punishment is rather limited. [. . .] ]UN official[s] [have] no ability to criminally prosecute blue helmets. Rather, that responsibility lies solely with the governments of troop contributing countries. [. . .] This means that the most the United Nations can do is repatriate the accused–demand they return home to face prosecution. 

Consequently, the 1999 Secretary General Bulletin (ST/SGB/1999/13) and the peacekeeping “Principles”, with all their promises of a mandates to “prohibit” abuse and sexual violence against the most vulnerable, are—to this extent—worthless documents. While the UN claims the power to issue mandates, and while its Security Council wields immense authority over the deployment of forces, it has simultaneously established a command and control framework that effectively exculpates it from taking any responsibility for the conduct of the personnel over whom it claims “operational control”.



The UN regime has taken additional measures, seemingly distancing itself further from any legal liability. The regime signs memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with participating States that contribute peacekeeping resources—often troops. These MoUs invariably provide the troop-contributing country (TCC) with immunity from prosecution for its personnel. For TCCs that don’t wish their troops to be prosecuted in foreign jurisdictions, this is understandable, perhaps. 

Yet the regime extends that immunity to itself. It places both itself and the “peacekeepers” it deploys above the "international law" it claims the authority to impose.

In 2002, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) received an 84-page report from a team of researchers led by Christine Lipohar, Save The Children's child safeguarding Deputy Director for Africa. The report uncovered evidence of systematic child sexual abuses, both by peacekeepers and the regime's selected "charities" and its non-governmental organisations (NGO) "partners", in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Lipohar's team interviewed 1,500 people, identifying 67 possible perpetrators.

The Lipohar report noted:

Agency workers from local and international NGOs as well as UN agencies are among the prime sexual exploiters of refugee children. [. . .] There was compelling evidence of a chronic and entrenched pattern of this type of abuse in refugee camps in Guinea and Liberia in particular.

The report also identified 40 aid agencies and NGOs—including some of the world's most prominent—involved in the apparent cover-up of the rape and sexual exploitation of children. The UNHCR, the World Food Programme, Save The Children itself, Médecins Sans Frontières, Care International, the International Rescue Committee (IRC), the International Federation of Red Cross Societies and the Norwegian Refugee Council were all named.

The regime refused to publish the Lipohar report. An apparent regime cover-up ensued. Consequently, some of the report findings were leaked, presumably by concerned UN representatives, to journals such as The Lancet.

As limited public awareness grew, the regime asked its internal investigation body, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), to write a more suitable report. This was subsequently presented to the UN General Assembly—A/57/465—in October 2002.

Based on the OIOS findings, the General Assembly heard:

Of the 12 cases from the consultants’ report [Lipohar's report] which the Team fully investigated, none was substantiated [. . .]. The Investigation Team [OIOS] identified and fully investigated 43 cases of possible sexual exploitation. Of these, 10 cases were substantiated by the evidence. [. . .] Although the stories reported by the consultants could not be verified, the problem of sexual exploitation of refugees is real.

Perhaps it is not surprising that that the OIOS couldn't "substantiate" any of the twelve Lipohar reported cases it supposedly "investigated". The OIOS held meetings to “discuss” its report with "stakeholders in the United Nations system and with the concerned NGOs" prior to publication. Not many organisations harbouring paedophiles are happy to admit it.

In A/57/465, the regime stated that it was "determined to act firmly and quickly." It added that it would improve systems, launch timely investigations, enforce discipline and "strengthen mechanisms for protecting those who depend on international aid". Since then, it has implemented, in total, none of these measures.

As soon as the OIOS report was published, the regime's High Commissioner for Refugees Ruud Lubbers—the former Dutch prime minister—cherry-picked some of its comments and told legacy media that the Lipohar report lacked "concrete evidence", that abuse was "very scarce" and that systematic abuse was “not a reality”. He did not mention that "the problem of sexual exploitation of refugees is real."

The best we can say about Lubbers' statements is that he may have been "misinformed". Between 1991 and 1993, a series of allegations were raised against UN peacekeepers which included reports of them raping children in Cambodian brothels. The then UN SRSG/HOM in Cambodia, Yasushi Akashi, responded to the reports of child rape by saying “boys will be boys” .

Prior to the 2001 Lipohar report and the 2002 OIOS "findings", in 1996 the the UN General Assembly was issued another study report on the impact of conflict on children which noted:

In 6 out of 12 country studies on sexual exploitation of children in situations of armed conflict prepared for the present report, the arrival of peacekeeping troops has been associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution. [. . .] Senior officers often have turned a blind eye to the sexual crimes of those under their command.

There is, of course, no such thing as "child prostitution." Children are either enslaved and raped by paedophiles, who pay a fee to the child's slaver to commit their crime, or the child or their families are bribed and coerced with offers of "aid."

Lubbers resigned in 2005 amid sexual misconduct allegations. He expressed his anger that his "loyalty" to the regime had not been properly rewarded.

By 2006, the legacy media were reporting more widely on the so-called "sex for food scandal." In reality, sex was a common currency of exchange in the regime’s refugee camps for everything from food to medicine, batteries, school equipment and tarpaulins. As originally noted in the Lipohar report, a Liberian teenager said "these NGO workers are clever, they use the ration as bait to get you to have sex with them." 

A refugee in Guinea told Lipahor's investigators:

If you see a young girl walking away with tarpaulin on her head you know how she got it.

This labelling by the legacy media of the widespread rape of the most vulnerable children as the "sex for food scandal" appeared to be another form of damage limitation. As pointed out by Amanda Taub, writing for Vox in 2015:

If peacekeepers [. . .] rape children, the media should go ahead and call that a "child rape scandal," not a "sex-for-food scandal." [. . .] After all, there are no "peacekeeper" or "food" exceptions to the moral and legal rule that children cannot consent. Adults having sex with children is rape.



In May 2009, the regime made the former US President Bill Clinton, and joint head of the CGI, its Special Envoy to Haiti. Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere and packed with vulnerable children. 

The same year, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) held a regime fundraiser aimed at highlighting issues facing vulnerable, refugee women and girls. The alleged "issues of concern" included "sexual violence."

The CGI claims that it "brings together established and emerging global leaders." According to Alan Dershowitz, the former attorney for convicted paedophile and suspected child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, a 2007 letter to prosecutors revealed that Epstein was "part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative." Whether Epstein was an "established" or an "emerging" global leader at the time is debatable.

In testimony given during the trial of Epstein’s close friend and business partner, the convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, Lawrence Paul Visoski Jr., the pilot of Epstein’s infamous “Lolita Express”—the private jet that shuttled Epstein’s clients and associates to and from his child sexual abuse and exploitation parties—testified in court that Bill Clinton was a frequent flyer

Following the horrific Haitian earthquake in 2010, Laura Silsby (now Laura Gayler) was arrested by Haitian authorities and charged with with child abduction and criminal conspiracy. She was trying to traffick 33 Haitian children across the border, into the Dominican Republic. Silsby was supposedly a director of the so-called New Life Children's Refuge.

It seems this was Silsby's second attempt after she was discovered leading a probable operation to traffick 40 Haitian children just three days earlier. On that occasion her team was simply turned back at the border by Haitian officials.

The New Life Children's Refuge, supposedly led by Silsby, mentioned in the Clinton Email Archives, clearly communicated Silsby's plan to then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and later seemingly requested funding for the operation. This alone doesn't necessarily imply that the Clintons were complicit; the weight of evidence, however, does. They certainly took a very keen interests in Silsby's case for some reason.

The regime appointed Bill Clinton as its international coordinator for Haitian relief efforts during the first week of February 2010. He immediately set about intervening on the alleged conspirators behalf. On 7 February 2010, the Times reported:

A diplomatic deal over the 10 American missionaries jailed in Haiti on child abduction charges may lead to the release this week of all except the group's leader, Laura Silsby.

On 9 February, Hillary Clinton discussed the "options" with US government legal advisers to repatriate the alleged missionaries and avoid further investigation. Pressure from the Clinton's seemingly worked, with nine of the ten defendants released from Haitian remand cells on 19 February—leaving only Silsby behind.

The Haitian authorities obviously wanted to get some sort of justice but were seemingly forced to reduce the charges against Silsby to “arranging illegal travel”. By the time proceedings had moved to sentencing, Silsby had served just 3 months and, though convicted of arranging illegal travel—essentially trafficking children, was released following time served.

There is little doubt that Silsby lied about the so-called “rescue mission”. When she was arrested she told the Haitian authorities that the children were destined for a refuge that her "New Life" organisation was allegedly building in the Dominican Republic. However, US State Department e-mails revealed that the Dominican authorities had not received any planning applications from Silsby or “New Life”.

Remarkably, Silsby's initial lawyer and the selected spokesman, representing the “missionaries” from his base in the Dominican Republic, Jorge Puello, was himself wanted in the US, El Salvador and Costa Rica in connection with an international adult and child trafficking ring. Another of the "missionaries" defence team was kicked off the case after trying to bribe Haitian officials.

Unusually, Puello—real name Jorge Torres—was in the habit of presenting to court in the company of four body guards, which alerted the judge's suspicions. When Puello was eventually convicted in the US in 2011, again on greatly reduced charges, he was reported to have been "posing" as a lawyer in Haiti. He received a two-year sentence in addition to 20 months’ time served. 

While there is no evidence linking Silsby's efforts directly to Puello's trafficking operation, the official narrative presents us with an extraordinary, almost unbelievable set of coincidences. 

The US State Department, the UN and the Clintons intimately involved themselves in a child trafficking case in Haiti. Yet no one spotted that one of the lawyers working the case was not only an impostor but was also wanted internationally on child trafficking charges himself. They only reacted after the Haitian and Dominican Republic authorities alerted them. Why they appointed a wanted child trafficker, who wasn’t even a lawyer, as legal representation for suspected child traffickers remains a mystery. 

When this evidence subsequently came to light, the Daily Beast published an article alleging that all the evidence was part of an elaborate, politically motivated "conspiracy theory" to discredit the Clintons. The Daily beast is a holding of IAC inc. Chelsea Clinton, the current Vice Chair of the Clinton Foundation, sat on the IAC inc. board of directors at the time. Another remarkable coincidence.

Silsby misled the Haitian authorities and all the evidence leads to the reasonable conclusion that Silsby, who reportedly had significant financial problems, attempted to traffick 73 children out of Haiti in the space of a few days. She appears to have communicated this plan to the Clintons in advance who responded immediately, with all the legal force they could muster, to protect Silsby and the other "missionaries" when they were caught.

The Clintons have influential positions in media organisations that tried to bury the evidence. The Clintons also run a global initiative, allegedly focused upon tackling child sexual exploitation—giving it access to hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable children—that was evidently formed with the support of a notorious paedophile pimp. Bill Clinton was apparently one of the pimps most frequent clients. The Clintons are prominent proponents of the "global governance regime".

In the same year that the Clintons were embroiled in a child trafficking case in Haiti (2010), the regional office for Europe of the World Health Organisation (WHO), a regime specialist agency, and the German Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA) published the Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe. Updated in 2016, the standards formed the regime's “framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists.” The "framework" promotes paedophilia.

According to this regime, infants aged 0 to 4 should be taught about “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body” and guided towards “early childhood masturbation.” By the age of 9, regime compliant "educators" should have given children the knowledge they need to “take responsibility in relation to safe and pleasant sexual experiences for oneself and others.” The regime hopes that this will enable prepubescent children to “make a conscious decision to have sexual experiences or not.” 

In 2015 Anders Kompass, director of field operations for the UN human rights office (OHCHR), leaked a UN internal report—marked "confidential" by the regime—titled Sexual Abuse on Children by International Armed Forces. It catalogued the "rape and sodomy of starving and homeless young boys by French peacekeeping troops [. . .] at a centre for internally displaced people in Bangui, capital of the Central African Republic."

Kompass leaked the report because he was angry about the regime's total indifference to the rape and torture of children. In response, the UN suspended him and did absolutely nothing about the ongoing abuse. A year later, following yet another internal investigation by the OIOS, Kompass was exonerated.

The customary OIOS report, which couldn't deny the evidence already exposed by Kompass, showed that the regimes primary goal was to manage its reputation and to maintain public "trust," not end the abuse or protect the abused:

[. . .] information about the Allegations was passed from desk to desk, inbox to inbox, across multiple UN offices, with no one willing to take responsibility to address the serious human rights violations [child rape]. [. . .] When the French government [. . .] requested the cooperation of UN staff these requests were met with resistance [. . .]. The welfare of the victims and the accountability of the perpetrators appeared to be an afterthought, if considered at all.

It is beyond dispute that the "welfare of the victims" wasn't even on the regime's radar. What mattered to the regime was rebuilding “trust":

If the UN and the TCCs are to rebuild the trust of victims, local civilian populations, and the international community, deliberate, effective, and immediate action is required. The first step is to acknowledge that sexual violence perpetrated by peacekeeping troops is not merely a disciplinary matter, but also a serious human rights violation and may amount to a crime.

"May" amount to a crime? On what planet does "sexual violence" not constitute a crime?

Six children gave witness testimony and each of them reported widespread abuse. They physically identified the perpetrators and provided witness accounts of many other children suffering at the hands of the regime's "peacekeepers".

The OIOS report noted:

[. . .] the UN and its local partners failed to meet their obligation to protect the child victims. Not only were there unconscionable delays in providing the children with basic medical care, psychological support, shelter, food, or protection, but no steps were taken to locate the additional child victims who were described [. . .]. The only person who protected the children was the head of the local M’Poko NGO who originally brought the Allegations to the attention of the UN, who was himself a displaced person with few resources.

The report concluded that this was all a terrible mistake, that lessons needed to be learned and changes made. The primary problem was supposedly a "bureaucratic cycle in which responsibility is fragmented and accountability is passed from one agency to another".

Quite what a "bureaucratic cycle" has to do with not bothering to care for any of the abused children or investigate the whereabouts of any of the other child victims, instead leaving it all to poorly resourced local people who were themselves vulnerable to exploitation, is hard to say. It is equally tricky to fathom how actively resisting the efforts of French investigators can be attributed to a "bureaucratic" error.

Clearly, despite being "cleared of all charges", Kompass had a gutful. He resigned anyway, just a few months later.

He told reporters that he was disgusted by "the complete impunity for those who have been found to have, in various degrees, abused their authority." After another pointless cover up—some people call them government "inquiries"—none of the French peacekeeping paedophiles were charged. This is the G3P regime's "zero tolerance" approach in action.

In a 2017 exposé and subsequent follow-up, an Associated Press (AP) investigation revealed that the regime's so-called "peacekeepers" had been involved in numerous cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation in Sri Lanka, Haiti and elsewhere. According to AP, the regime was "in a bind" because it had no "jurisdiction over peacekeepers."

In reality, the regime had maintained its MoUs of guaranteed immunity. It ensured that its peacekeepers, NGOs, local charity "partners" and most particularly itself, had little fear from any meaningful investigation or censure. No matter what crimes its representatives committed.

A 2016 Canadian government report, whose own peacekeeper had been embroiled in sexual misconduct scandals, claimed that difficulties in "establishing enduring, system-wide structures" made it problematic to hold "peacekeepers to account." Although an "enduring, system-wide structure" of impunity was very easily established.

When, in 2017, investigating documentary journalists from Al Jazeera’s Fault Lines spoke to Haitian women, who continued to allege sexual abuse by regime representatives in Haiti, they found:

Women in Haiti feel that the decades of UN impunity show there is no point in reporting this abuse because they will not get justice.



So much for the UN's 2002 promise "to act firmly and quickly." Still, much of this bypassed the wider general public as it wasn't deemed particularly newsworthy by the legacy media.

That changed in 2018.

In February that year, news broke that the global NGO Oxfam—a trusted UN partner—had not only "covered up" credible sexual abuse allegations against its workers in Haiti in 2010—the year that Silsby was caught and the WHO advocated paedophilia in schools—but had then transferred the accused workers to other countries to continue their “work” with other vulnerable refugee populations. In addition, the man at the centre of the allegations, Roland van Hauwermeiren, was appointed as Oxfam country director to Haiti despite having outstanding allegations of sexual misconduct lodged against him during his previous Oxfam posting in Chad.

In fact, such allegations had followed van Hauwermeiren around the world since 2004. Roland van Hauwermeiren admitted that he exchanged “baby milk and nappies” with the family of a "young Haitian woman" in order to have “sexual contact” with her. Other Oxfam "aid workers," some in senior positions in Haiti, had for years been accused of being sexual predators and were using Oxfam's premises for the purpose. Oxfam knew about this.

Still insisting on calling this the ongoing "sex for food scandal", the legacy media highlighted that the UN regime had been aware of all of this activity since 2002. In truth, it had known about it since the early 1990s, if not before. 

The UN had suppressed the full details contained in the Lipahor report for the best part of two decades, thereby covering up sexual crimes against children and vulnerable adults. It had done absolutely nothing to tackle the obvious widespread and apparently systematic sexual abuse infesting its global "aid" operations.

In 2017, Foreign Affairs magazine, noting regime facilitated abuse in Cambodia, the DRC, the CAR, Haiti, Liberia, Burundi, Gabon, Uganda and Somalia, wrote:

Over the years, one UN secretary general after another has responded with outrage. The Security Council and member states have also proverbially pounded the table in anger. Yet too often that ire is directed at the whistleblowers rather than the perpetrators. [. . .] The world’s most powerful states cannot continue to hide behind tired arguments about their commitment to so-called zero tolerance of sexual exploitation and abuse if they do little to penalize violators or even fund investigations properly. [. . .] Antonio Guterres [. . .] the new UN secretary general [. . .], issued a report and a game plan to address victims’ needs as a first priority.

Nothing has changed. In 2020, the UN "promised" that it would do something about the allegations made against its WHO, UNICEF and various "partner" organisation representatives in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It noted:

51 women, alleged that they had been sexually exploited or abused overall by mostly foreign men, identifying themselves as aid workers [. . .] between 2018 and June this year. [. . .] WHO leadership and staff, said they were “outraged” by the reports [. . .]. Other organizations reportedly named by the accusers, include the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UN migration agency (IOM), Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam, World Vision, the medical charity ALIMA, and Congo’s health ministry.

As expected, nothing happened. No charges were brought against anyone; no abuse sufferers were protected. The same old story, time and time again.

In 2023, the regime had the gall to report the "sickening" levels of sexual violence in the DRC. The regime does not accept any responsibility for the conduct of its representatives and has taken no practical steps to stop them abusing the most vulnerable. Instead, child rape and other heinous crimes are all seemingly beyond the regime’s control:

“Deeply vulnerable children and women, seeking refuge at camps are instead finding themselves facing more abuse and pain,” said UNICEF’s Representative in DRC, Grant Leaity. “The surge in sexual violence against children is horrifying, with reports of some as young as three years old having been sexually exploited. This wake-up call should shock, sicken, and jolt us all into action.” [. . .] UNICEF has stepped up its activities to prevent and respond, the agency said.

The nauseating hypocrisy of the regime is almost as "sickening" as the depravity of its predatory “peacekeepers” and “aid workers”. The regime won't "jolt" into action. It will continue to cover-up, shift the blame, obfuscate and and weasel out of its responsibilities, using it preposterous arguments and lamentable, if dangerous, self-attribution of immunity.

Internal armed conflict or not, the best thing that could happen for the women and children of the DRC is to get the regime and its "agencies", such as UNICEF and the WHO, out of their country as quickly as possible.

The UN regime has been repeatedly exposed failing to protect children and the most vulnerable adults form abuses perpetrated by its own peacekeepers and partnering NGOs. It has actively covered up child abuse and hidden itself behind the impunity it claims the authority to hold. It "partners" with philanthropic organisation which, the evidence strongly suggests, are facilitators of child trafficking. It advocates paedophilia and exposes children to as much risk as possible, in as many schools as it can.

How is it possible that any organisation can sustain such a vile threat to vulnerable adults and children for so long without raising suspicions? There is evidently something deeply wrong with it, at its core. It is not unthinkable to consider the regime a clear and present threat to vulnerable people everywhere, especially children. 

Why would any of us want such a fetid network of public-private partnerships to govern anyone, let alone allow it to claim the authority to be the "global governance regime"?

Trust it!? You must be joking.


Image: The author's scheme of the Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P)