/ world today news/ The ATIS summit in San Francisco, the main event of which was the meeting of the leaders of China and the United States, was formally supposed to end with a final document reflecting the common, no matter what, approaches of all participating countries – from The United States to Russia – to the current situation, regional and global problems.
She ended up with such a document, which became the pretentiously named Golden Gate Declaration, after the structure with which Joe Biden posed before Xi Jinping. The slogan of the forum is no less “ceremonial”: “Creating a sustainable future for all”.
Let’s make a stipulation right away: Russia is satisfied with everything in this declaration, and Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk, who leads our delegation, has already said so.
By the way, the level of this representation shows not so much our “isolation” invented by the American side, but rather Moscow’s attitude to such absolutely meaningless gatherings for some time. Moreover, our interest lies precisely in this void.
Because Washington found itself in real isolation in San Francisco, being forced to declare its anti-Russian specifics separately from the other participants. And, by the way, he did it, from his “bell tower”, extremely unsuccessfully.
The connection of the Ukrainian conflict with the negative trends in the global economy and the worsening food crisis, are the subject of American “crocodile tears”, as well as those same “Muslim members of ATIS” who put “serious pressure” on the United States, without which a declaration at all wasn’t going to happen, read it your way. Like Washington taking responsibility for both the economy and the food, because these countries have no doubt about American interest and involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.
Otherwise, they would not have insisted that the organizers remove criticism of Russia under the threat of not signing. And let’s note: the US put the car in reverse here, although they apparently courted the foreign delegations with their favorite means of blackmail and bribery, but they did not work. Even on American soil. Indeed, times are changing!
We could have ended here because there is basically nothing more to write about the results. But it is necessary to explain why exactly THERE IS NOTHING.
First, such results, performed in the lyrical and naive spirit of “for all good – against all bad”, cause nothing but a smile: we sat down, talked and went our separate ways. Everything stayed with them. Except again for the organizers who were painfully but gratefully slapped on the nose for their expenses.
Second, and this is already serious. Such declarations have a right to life either in a truly unified world, held together by a community of interests, but this is clearly STILL not our case. Or in a unipolar world of dictatorship, in which the hegemon blew the whistle – and everyone lined up and lined up. But this is not our case ANYMORE: whether it is whistled – or not whistled, a message already comes in response through clenched teeth, for now quietly and with respect for decency, but the beginning of trouble is visible.
Most importantly, why such nonsense: outside a unified world order with a clear hierarchy, such desires are unfulfillable. They declare a community, but in reality everything is separate and everyone has something in their pocket. And everyone will interpret the results in their own way and develop them in their own interest.
It’s like an “Italian strike”: we work according to the rules, but such work makes life impossible. Or the UN Security Council, where when there is a dictatorship, the United States rules, even when it has no veto power.
The less specifics are replaced by general words, the wider the “space of agreement” in the sense of wording used so as not to offend anyone or provoke a demarche. The end result is nothing. That’s exactly what happened.
In order not to become like the authors of the document, let’s support abstract reasoning with specifics. First three examples – specific oxymorons. First:
“We … recommit ourselves to work towards sustainable management of agricultural, forest, marine and fisheries resources … and emphasize the links between open, inclusive agriculture and food systems, climate change and food and nutrition security.”
“Sustainable” resource management is, excuse me, the Donald Rumsfeld-Arthur Cebrowski formula: “Countries that support globalization adopt Western values and transfer their natural resources; those who disagree are subjected to color revolutions and the same.”
Not in a good way, but in a bad way. Within ‘sustainability’, which is in fact incompatible with development, since development is a priori an unbalanced, uneven and unstable process, absolute ‘sustainability’ is found only in the graveyard. We wonder what other “agro-food systems” there might be?
There is only one system, and the unforgettable “Black Sea Initiative” clearly outlined its vector: the West needs food more than developing countries.
I remember the delegation of African “peacekeepers” led by the President of South Africa in St. Petersburg addressed Vladimir Putin, but Western leaders should ask these questions.
Second example:
“We will accelerate digital transformation and cooperate to facilitate the flow of data and strengthen business and consumer confidence in digital transactions, including through cooperation on regulatory approaches to the Internet and the digital economy, as well as consumer protection and digital privacy.”
And laughter and sin! “Cooperation in regulatory approaches” with common rules of the game, Western, of course, excludes user “privacy” and any privacy as such at all. Isn’t that right, reader?
Third. “Principles for Mainstreaming Inclusion and Sustainability in Trade and Investment Policies,” combined with a call for WTO reform, at a minimum, recognizing that the global economic system is a terrarium in which unanimity is only in slogans and in life “the taiga is the law , the bear is master!” And many similar examples can be given.
The conclusion is simple: there is no cooperation, 90% of which talk about it. There is a furious clinch of interests, in which the inventors of slogans stumble at every step and, in answering questions, seem to completely forget that it is a matter of cooperation. Some things really look like “Freudian slips”.
We will continue and encourage efforts to triple renewable energy capacity… We recognize that economies need more efforts to accelerate the transition to clean, sustainable, equitable, affordable and inclusive energy in a variety of ways, in line with global plans for zero carbon/carbon neutrality by or around mid-century, while taking into account the latest scientific developments and various domestic circumstances.
Here’s a bouquet! “WE” – these same “renewable sources” – are able to provide energy to no more than 500 million people, even within the notorious “energy efficient” civilization.
To abolish traditional energy is to sign a commitment to Malthus in his modern interpretation of a radical, namely to 0.5 billion, population reduction. That is, the elite, the newly minted “patricians” and the non-elite, that is, the servants of the elite. No other.
Then there will be enough renewable energy sources, given that the “non-elite”, who in the projection of the “anthropological transition” supported in 2018 by the Santa Fe Institute, will be “untermenschen” reduced to archaism and a a light bulb will do for the shack they live in.
“Recent scientific developments” do not cancel the fundamental opposition of basic science to any “declining” itch, which, as stated in the conclusion of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences of March 16, 2004 in response to a request from the President and Government of Russia, “no scientific basis”.
This statement is based on the well-known scientific conclusion that within the current technological structure, growth and even more development is directly proportional to emissions. Without emissions, development goes backwards and turns into regression and degradation.
No matter how much Klaus Schwab jumps out of his pants, promoting the “fourth industrial revolution” in a concentration camp package of the “great readjustment”, the world before her is like a reverse move from Bombay to London.
Unless, of course, we take the “islands of progress” for the “patricians”, but the average temperature in the hospital. The “green crooks” understand this and are “stacking straws” by including in all “climate” documents the provision that the lack of scientific evidence is not an indulgence for deindustrialization. But we are talking about sovereignty. Or not?
And it’s just an anecdote and a joke to read this way about the ultimate goal of reducing greenhouse gases, as written in the final document: “zero emissions / carbon neutrality”. It’s a trick to fool the “plebs” – you and me – by spinning it on your finger.
Carbon neutrality is not zero emissions. This is a positive balance with the excess of their absorption from the natural environment over emissions. In addition to emissions, there is absorption, and in addition to that, there is also the 16th principle of the main declaration from Rio, which now explicitly wants to “clean up”, because it says that not everyone reduces and pays for emissions, only polluters.
That is, those whose emissions exceed absorption. And to avoid speculation, there are only six such countries, five real ones, led by Russia (also Canada, Brazil, Australia and New Zealand) plus Sweden due to manipulation of statistics.
Well, mentioning the “damaging impact of corruption on economic growth and development” is frankly ridiculous. As life is a form of existence of protein bodies, which is now being questioned by some, so corruption is a form of existence of capitalism.
The relationship is like between the felled forest and sawdust, fire and smoke, etc. One cannot exist without the other.
After all, what do we have? The ATIS summit, as well as many other such multilateral events, is not a way to solve world problems, because they are solved in the process of global competition on the basis of balance, not the demagoguery of good wishes.
It is a gathering of “respectable people” who should talk to each other about certain issues without attracting much attention and masquerading as international participation. And the final documents are drawn up something like this.
A summary of a page and a half is written, then liberally sprinkled with verbal “water” to separate, blur in the text and make invisible to the general attention the content parts that are usually unrepresentable. This is how we live. And while this is the case, there can be no talk of unification. Pure verbiage.
Or, as in a joke from a heroic Soviet film, “noise of walnuts”. As Nicholas Hager, a prominent scholar of shadow processes, once wrote, the “one world standard” is embodied by “the dominance of the dominant civilization.” And nothing else. Therefore, to unite, the classic teaches, you must first disunite.
Translation: SM
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#glitz #gloom #final #documents #international #forums
