U.N. ‘Agenda 21’: What Are the True Implications

of this Global Program?


By John Pellam

Director and Publisher

The Bibliotheque: World Wide (BWW) Society



Agenda 21 is a global program that will affect all of us. On the surface, Agenda 21 appears to have some good aspects, some even excellent. Sustainability, protection of the environment, and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels are all points that are extremely positive and indeed critical for the well being of humanity, both in the long and short term.


However, the methods by which these goals are to be accomplished are questioned by some, and the cause of great concern to many others. Too often, proposals that are outwardly very appealing at first glance can also entail certain aspects that could be quite negative beneath the appealing veneer.


What exactly is involved in the implementation and execution the UN’s Agenda 21 program, who does it affect, and what will be the final outcome of this plan?


Some see Agenda 21 as Utopian and impractical, others see it as invasive and dictatorial. But what are the varied opinions of this controversial program?


Some weeks back I sought the opinions and insights of a number of BWW Society members. I received a number of opinions in reply; two, in particular, were detailed in both their preexisting knowledge of the Agenda 21 program and in their observations of the implications of this program’s implementation. These informed and perceptive replies are presented below (the opinions expressed are those of the authors):


From Mr. Helge Edholm

Taipei, Taiwan:


Dear Mr. Pellam,

Thanks to BWW for taking up such a controversial issue and I will try to utter my most honest opinion in this matter.


The UN was established by joining all nations in a union to prevent wars and injustice in the world in the future. But never mind how good the intention was at the inauguration of UN; it is becoming more and more a failure in respect of the original ideology.


On the other hand, the UN is becoming more and more efficient in downgrading Western values such as democracy and personal freedom, as it appears that more and more, extremism is being accepted and honored.


Up to recently the United States has been the Western world’s supreme guardian and has been the back pillar for the prosperity and improvement in the world at large especially in the free world; as for freedom and avoidance to be engulfed by other ideologies, the UN would never have been able to achieve this major and costly task, as it is in majority only a discussion club, which can never come to conclusion on issues that really matter in the world due to political differences between governments and especially the veto power of the more powerful states.        


However, the result and outcome from the Rio environmental agreement with “Agenda 21”, were received very positively by most of the present political powerhouses, as it was agreed upon without stepping on some other nation’s feelings or ideas and at the same time, it is very much in line with  mainstream liberal ideas.  In point of fact, all that is agreed upon by the mainstream will receive the highest possible appraisal and acceptance irrespective of what is right or wrong —  sort of an “educated” herd instinct!


By Agenda 21,  under the cover of the “environmental protection program” one would,  with the current political climate be able to practically accept almost anything, with hardly any opposition or resistance.


It reminds me of the concept to build the huge Babel Tower — that of being able  to stay together to offset any adverse conditions not to mention the positive effects, of which,  we have all be told about the outcome. However, in my opinion it is most dangerous when we become so proud that we no longer know our place on earth, but start taking over from God and believe that we can control the whole universe. It does not mean that I am against development and science, far from for that I am a strong promoter, but I am strongly against science, and especially environmental issues, becoming more and more political with it being pushed by the environmental community under the guise of environmentalism. This is a most dangerous trend because it has nothing to do with science, but is purely politics which can and will only lead to disaster, as has been declared by Mr. Al Gore.    


It seems that the political system is turning more and more to the left with the idea of controlling and managing all systems, not only rules and laws, as the promulgation of laws as all government are supposed to do.


It reminds me of a farmer and his pig farm. Every day he watches over his pigs and he sees that they are happy with curled tails, smiling faces because they are not worried, as they get their food on time every day.


However, one day he finds one pig sick and he calls his usual veterinarian to look at this pig, and the vet comes to the conclusion that it is a certain sickness and gives the medicine for that, but as the sickness is misdiagnosed, the pig dies.


It is the same in the “dream world” where government is in control of the people. So long as they are healthy there are no problems and no one actually cares about the sick as long as the government takes care of them and when you get sick and run into problems, you can of course not sue your government, but you can always bring it up and the mishap will be properly explained to you; it seems.


Agenda 21 is based on a Brave New World where every thing is perfect. The whole world is well controlled by the elite and of course they are favored over the masses.

Everything will be controlled by the “world government”:

v      Production

v      Farming

v      Mining 

v      Pollution

v      Environment

v      Education

v      Living

v      Construction

v      Development

v      Science

v      Wildlife

v      Nature

v      And all other matters 


It is a dream world where everybody is equal and have the same developing change in life except that the elite is the farmer who has and can require everything, while the people are the pigs, who do not need to care what so ever as long as farmer takes care of them from they are born to they die. In case you try to save up for your children or you let your parents have their retirement life together with you, not only you have to pay additional tax but also you parents as it will be charged as gift, because you for sure should not be better off than your neighbor and same time you show that you mistrust your farmer, who will provide you with all of  your  needs from the time you are born to your death, which also can be decided by the farmer/government. Of course it is always assumed that the farmer will not go bankrupt, in which case it becomes a totally new issue/proposition.  


The world is becoming more and more controlled by the authorities, in some ways, while it is becoming more and more liberal in other ways as if it is a “fashionable thing” and is supported by the mainstream!


Human nature is such that man does not like to be controlled, but perhaps only guided in the correct direction in order to have a stable, free life, where he feels he is in charge.  In case there is no proper direction for him to go and  life becomes too liberal, which means that we always are expected to do our utmost to protect the lawbreakers and try to find a reason for their action, and at the same time we hope to be able to punish the lawbreakers and if not, the perennial question for those on the straight and narrow would be why should I then be law obedient. We see this trend clearly developing more and more in Europe with demonstrations against any thing and people travel far and wide in order to attend such demonstrations. Meanwhile locally there is shooting, stealing and other serious misbehavior with minimal risk or light punishment for the demonstrators.


With no jobs (especially for the younger generation) and high cost of living, it is for sure a reason to cause trouble in the community. Politicians and the Unions are also doing their outmost to increase the number of unemployed by setting minimum wages and other rules which limit the free flow of labour.


The modern man is so proud that they think they can now control the world without God’s help, by meeting together in huge,  expensive conferences where they can sit down together  and agree on how to solve the greenhouse effect, how to reestablish the ozone layer, how to avoid pollution and CO2. All of these are only paperwork and would not and cannot assist the earth in recovering the ill effects of misuse of the earth, but it makes them feel good because it shows that they have power and can have influence on the world.


However, what can help would be to reestablish the world natural filters, which are our forests and jungles; if the earth were without such “filters” it would be like a moonscape or desert, arid and dry.  However, this is a political issue and therefore not touchable, we can only touch what every one can agree upon and at the same time we are expected strongly to promote it utilizing all available media. 


The size of deserts are increasing by the minute mostly due to forest, jungles and grasslands which are removed to provide farmland to feed the people. When that land is dried up and stripped of its nutrients and is without regular rain, it  dries  up and becomes desert and new land has to be developed.


There is an enormous demand for fine timber in the world, but due to environmental consideration what you can cut and trade are limited. However as there is no money in it, these are instead just burnt and demolished because profit must come, in another way. In case logging is allowed in a stipulated area of forest or jungle, then every tree removed within that area must be replaced with new trees in order to maintain the balance. In Scandinavia this is a law and logging is big business, and yet the size of the forest area is maintained. 


In the desert there are many oases and the reason for that is because there is water and trees to protect the oases. In the Sahara it is said that there are quite a number of wasted water reservoirs, because when it is raining, it is like a sponge and the water is just drained down into the solid ground. It would not require any major science to pump up this water and make man-made oases and cultivated land. We see Dubai and other gulf states transforming deserts into cultivable land even if it is mostly done for entertainment purposes such as golf courses. But it shows it can be done and Israel has done it from beginning, so that is something to start on, however, difficult due to political and environmental issues.


I could continue writing plenty more, but it is possible that most readers may not share my view point so it is better to stop now and positively look forward to the politically Brave New World or paradise where all is well controlled and all are equal    


 Helge Edholm

Taipei, Taiwan


From Dr. KOH Kim Seng

Political Scientist and International Business Entrepreneur



Dear John


Re: your email received 5 minutes ago, hereunder you will find my quick thoughts:-


The concept of environmental sustainability is a utopian concept which is more difficult to practise and attain than it is to conceptualize, which is “class-room” evolved, often devoid of reality.


For alas, it was Kant who emphasized that while thought is important,  thought without action is sterile and this sterility unlike  Einstein’s ‘million, million spermatoza,” need not necessarily produce one Einstein.


Pontification is great, but alas after donkeys’ (was it 6 centuries)  years, we now know,  with the most profound respect,  that even the Supreme Pontiff, God’s representative on earth,  like Adam, could fall, in the spirit of “to err (being) human”.


Fundamentally, environmental protection is diametrically opposed to the basic if not animalistic desires of capitalism and especially capitalistically-inclined, mammon worshipping capitalists, whose external proclamations differ vastly from their actions.


The developing Third World is skeptical and critical of the First World stewards who logically advocate environmental protection and sustainability when the Third Worlders  “exploit” their economic advantages,  e.g. utilizing their labour, savouring their national endowment factors - forestry, labour,  etc.,  only to be rebuffed by the First World gurus.  How does one win this ‘tussle’ of right and wrong when all the agents of publicity are at the disposal of the First World holders and the Third World can only stand, stare and gape without any means to rebut!


Despite the foregoing, all is not lost for the Third World because they are cottoning on fast and  a number have done in 60 years what the First World took 300 years to do, “short cutting” many intermediate steps in development as Jan Romein in his  “…Limiting Advantage” postulated/observed.


You are aware in the not too distant past on this subject in northern Europe those important ones who formulated the high “ideals of how to erase the problem of breach of environmental sustainability, had in retrospect, to back down. It was all no go – not “UN” but “NATO” – No Action Talk Only – but alas this too helps the economy as far as the hospitality, transport and similar sectors of the economy go!(sic).


I am skeptical you may find the move déjà vu even as I hope all parties, for the good of homosapiens (among others, recalling how the dinosaurs went out of existence)  find their joie de vivre.


Sorry, but the above does not represent any profound excogitation as this note is done off the top of my head in 15 minutes, 5 minutes after receipt of your e-mail!


Warmest regards,


Kim Seng


In Follow-Up:


Dear John,

                                                     Some quick thoughts


Many thanks yr email 20/3 and it is nice to know that you concur with some of my observations which are by no means iconoclastic.  They are the product  of a simple mind albeit reinforced slightly by reading and some excogitation.


Indeed, some of them and your own, thanks, no thanks, to the great Col. Edward Mandelhouse and President Woodrow Wilson and the other Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminatis (of which very very confidentially I happen to be a member even though a non-illuminati) and money bags in the form of the Fords, Carnegies, Rockefellers and in Europe, the Rothschilds and all other Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)/Federal Reserve Board (FRB) big time bankers, who were persuaded that the New World Order ought to be of a “one government world” and, so you have the  US’s “international policeman” role; the cordon sanitaire of states; McCarthyism etc etc to ensure that the US stands supreme and is in full control of the world.  And, to a certain extent, they almost succeeded, no thanks to Gorbachev whose resistance  to apply “glasnost and perestroika” simultaneously, broke down, following the so satisfying  ego boosting Time Magazine ‘Man of the Year’ (front cover) page and the Nobel Peace Prize, leading to not only the break down of sovereignty and the eventual implosion of the USSR.  And, see what a mess now, even though Russia has managed somewhat to pick up the threads and move on. 


Of course, in all matters the First Worlders must expectedly take the lead and such leaders tend to expect and insist that the rest follow, but alas, the Pied Piper of Hamelin is no more and certainly not in practice.  And, I am with you on your skepticism on  the “erosion of national sovereignty” as this makes a farce of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) wherein notional, sovereignty was ensconced.  Today it is a world of dog eat dog; the big ones swallowing up the small ones. 


Information overload and fatigue, pandering to the non-serious, non-critical literature and dangerous propaganda which I now regard as “plague” and unfortunately which is now  being pushed as something esoteric and abstruse by the First World would prevail, it seems.  However, the Third Worlders, though more concerned with bread and butter issues are inextricably bound to the First Worlders, despite all.  And, the Third World makes up easily 70% of world population but globalization characterized by the time–space contraction and the more recent “development triangles” complete with its “continental shifts” i.e. now one does not necessarily talk of FTAs and the like on trans-national basis e.g. the USA and China but with say, Beijing and New York or Beijing,  Shanghai and New York or New York, California and Beijing  and this imposes itself on all!  This is faster done and more effective ostensibly for the First World but for the Third…? and perhaps finally leading to the loss of control by  primary state governments and thus, sovereignty!


Indeed, from this point of view, while speaking to a foreign academic on FTAs/Development Triangles, I was surprised to learn that he felt that the US-Canada-Mexico Free Trade Arrangement was to facilitate trade between the US-Canada which in any event, had been going on smoothly for a long time and he was shocked (at least a little) when I told him that I reckoned that the true motive is to ensure that the abundant clean, fresh, water from Canada could be supplied to the US!   As for Mexico, one’s backyard, especially as a conduit for drugs which some quarter of a century ago was said to be worth US$60 billion annually, must be kept under control, so how better than to tie it down?  Globalization applied to Mexico, we all know,  turned out to be a fiasco! So, many sea changes pursued  in the New World Order have the First World self-fulfilling motivation and  there are those who do not  read and/or think about even for the hot-shot senior foreign academic I cited. The outcome is that  with so much on your platter, you were understandably not aware of  “Agenda 21”  till recently and as for me, the overall picture and debate on environmental protection, measures and need,  I am aware of, but not the nitty gritties, or the  paper pertaining to it!.


I hope some of the above make sense and if not, forgive me! 


Warmest regards and forgive me if you find anything unpalatable.




Kim Seng


In Second Follow-Up:


Dear John,


It was after reading your earlier email and my response that I spotted your email about Herr Edholm’s piece and generally I agree with your comments about certain similarities between Edholm’s and my perceptions.


I would  therefore in brief, respond to his piece by making the following comments:-


1)     UN to prevent wars and unjustness in the world –


The irony is that the Rt. Hon Idi Amin was hosted and held in the highest esteem with full fanfare at a UN function.  This shows how cock-eyed the judgment of some of the Iluminatis can be, though admittedly hindsight, as always, is 20/20.  No excuse for this because background research of Idi Amin should have been conducted in the first place and based on his record of human rights abuse he should have been the last candidate on the rostrum, if at all


2)     UN, democracy and personal feeling


Democracy per se is a great concept but the only problem is that it is solely dependent on the strength of numbers, the latter of which adds nothing to wisdom.  Simply, four asses would prevail over one genius.  Read also Rousseau’s “Social Contract”. 


 3)   US as world’s supreme guardian.  They are entitled to their views but recent events with all the financial tsunami and the Freddie Mac and Fanny May fiasco (forgive me)  with May tickling Freddie’s mac and Mac tickling May’s fanny, (if at all??) one can be sure nothing good can come out of the escapade! (sic).


On the resolution of political differences, it is only too well known that at the end of any discussion, power will prevail.  Thus the UN, in spite of its original laudable aim to be a  “guardian angel”  of sorts  inter  alia, international problem resolver,  has become no more or less than “talk shop”,  expending enormous amounts of money on those employed, and indeed for those after employment for a certain minimum number of years,  they get an amount of “gratuity/pension” of a few hundred thousand dollars  paid to them!.  The UN to cynics, has become a NATO - what is affectionately called - NO ACTION, TALK ONLY. Indeed the query should be whether or not in the long term, it would go the way of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nation — ignominy! (sic)


The “holy writ” UN charter, endorsed by some 50 nations in San Francisco on 16/6/45 and its General Assembly, an international meeting, has certainly fallen short of its aims and in its actions.  Thus, by way of illustration, as late as October 1975, it hosted and feted Idi Amin ( understandably as Chairman of the Organization of African nations) at an international meeting,  despite the fact that by the time the blood thirty dictator had , murdered a  couple of hundred thousand  Ugandans.  Indeed on his arrival  and during his address, he was applauded time and again at the Assembly;  he was given a standing ovation as well..  And this was given by the big guns of the world, even though perhaps one of the objectives might have been to give the emerging non-aligned developing nations a leg up.  But surely there could have been a better candidate among the “predecessor”, Bandung Conference attendees?  So this is the kind of “judgment” par excellence  virtually decades after its inception!


This is not to mention that even as recently as the early 1990s the UN opposed any attempt at free enterprise in the form of government central planning and control.   Indeed a reference  to the 22/7/1991 issue of the Barons (would you believe it)  will reveal  an article by a  Christopher Whalen criticizing the UNDP for expending US$1.5 billion a year,  assisting authoritarian governments preserve their status quo!!   So, will a leopard change its spots, really?  And can we believe that it would be out to topple totalitarian regimes?   Unless these substantially adversely affect the geopolitical and geostrategic interests of the US?


4)  MARX

Marx and his Dream:  

In spite of the number of criticisms about  his philosophy – political,  economic, sociological etc etc –  it would have been more appropriate to have  critiques rather than  criticisms  in quite a number of areas.  This in my view,  I deem  would be more  appropriate.  In others -   not in defense of  Marx -  but just like Bismarck, he   had the unpleasant duty to make high quality, strong steel.  This invariably calls for the application of great heat and quick curing/cooling – tempering!.


5) Substitute God

There is no question that the US lives in the phantasmagorical belief that they are God’s gift to the world; that they are omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.  Power has the nasty habit of making people take ego trips without so much as their realizing, that alas, it’s all a dream.  What is often forgotten is that the belief in God/religion -  whatever, whoever, whichever one’s God may be -  is not contra-indicated to State development!.  However the profanity of the use of God’s name as being an anathema to development is!  Such antithecal belief/concept as God being an obstruction to development is pure sacrilege.  In point of fact, the Lord Buddha in  his enlightenment  reached the conclusion that suffering is stupidity since as a prince, he made all sorts of sacrifices and suffered in the wilderness.  However politicization of an issue is the favourite modus operandi of bullies, couched in nice sounding officious nomenclature!.


As for Al Gore, his performance over dinner (at an environmental issue function ) in Kuala Lumpur is a total disgrace, if not  simply crude, many in the Asean Region feel. All present were stunned that he could have made some “unwieldy” comment and stormed out of the function, frothing away.  He left many to wonder which political/foreign affairs institution he was schooled at.


6)  Political system turning left and over-exerting itself.
The English word for this is “BULLY”; for the animalistically  strong,  subjugating the weak and in the context,  the piggy anecdote cited by Mr. Edholm is typical of  that of the misuse of power.


7)  Karl Marx’s dream

As mentioned above, there are merits to his thinking. However what has been sighted is typically the picture of an Orwellian society and it is indeed the way that communism operates, especially over  the pre- Deng Xiao Ping period.  This is nothing new and increasingly, the so-called liberal aspects allowed in the modern “fashionable” world is a big trade-off by governments to allow the otherwise pent-up feelings created by suffering, to find release.


8)  New York’s Bloomberg’s Methods:  Another means to permit release of pent-up despair and hatred which will lead in many cases down the slippery path to damnation.   This is the conflict between the dominating and the dominated and at the end of the day “ultra- liberalism” and ultra modernity will cost mankind a lot.


The younger set term this  “modernity”,  to the extent and the 30-40 year olds ( I am  74+ years) think that my thoughts, concepts practices are passé, archaic and incongruous, vis-à-vis the moderns because I suppose the “moderns” are born with 3 hands, 2 noses, 4  eyes, 2 mouths, etc etc but for me the only problem is that they do nothing, smell nothing, see nothing but talk too much (rubbish)!.


I think it is fair to say that I have taken too much of your time except to add to the thoughts on desertification being a common phenomenon in many areas, especially China not forgetting to mention   El Nino , La Nina  playing havoc on the environment.  These phenomena appear to be prevalent in the developing world, no thanks to the fulfillment of the needs of the First World in the first place and candidly the need for the Third World to eke out a living.  In the context, while the “virgin” First World need not necessarily go out to destroy forests, waterways and other natural endowment factors, they destroy the environment by secondary methods in their industrialization moves……so now one talks of “carbon credits” which are “marketable”.


9)  Brave New World  or Paradise – the rate at which the First World 4th wave technology States are going about to achieve their “paradise” will prove to be a mere catastrophic essay because to be simplistic, it appears to be a case of exploitation of man over man and man over matter, ad infinitum,. in its effort to quench its thirst for the Aristotelian eudemonia.


How can this pursuit go on ad infinitum without adverse consequences?


Finally, incidentally, you will note that I respond practically immediately and this is because upon receiving a piece whatever is in my silly little head (after years of reading and thinking (sic) is put on paper without any research or reference to any texts and so,  if a thing here or there is wrong, please excuse me.



Warmest regards,


Kim Seng


My own replies to the commentaries above are provided below:


Dear Kim Seng,


You are certainly correct when you say that “environmentalism is diametrically opposed to capitalism” and dead-on again when you mention the First World nations’ attitude toward the Third World.


My impression of Agenda 21 is that it will have the most effect starting with the Euro bloc nations, the US and Canada, and will spread out from there. [Kim Seng, when your schedule allows, I would encourage you to lightly research (Google) more information about Agenda 21.]


There are a number of reasons I am skeptical of Agenda 21, one being the erosion of national sovereignty tending toward a global world government. There are a number of other factors as well that do not sit well at all with me.


Many of the replies I’ve received thus far also show a suspicion of this program (none thus far support it) and several others had no idea of Agenda 21’s existence – this is also matter of concern, as the group of people from whom I solicited opinions are very knowledgeable and highly educated professionals and academic scholars; I only learned of Agenda 21 myself a few weeks ago and was quite surprised that I had been unaware of a program of such impact.


Thanks once again, Kim Seng,


With best wishes,





Dear Kim Seng,


Many thanks for your email of today’s date (27/3).


Reading your text, what I see overall is the contrast between what the UN was originally set up to do versus what is has actually become. I agree: I see a bloated, ego-centric organization.


Agenda 21 could well be a means by which to exert more control (to the point of repression), under the guise of environmentalism.


One commenter suspects that it is a means of distracting attention away from the actions of the Oligarchy that is amassing ever more wealth and power (in the US this is seen as the consortium of big Wall Street banks, large insurance companies, healthcare conglomerates, industrialized agriculture corporations, large chemical companies, the military-security industry, and to a large extent, AIPAC) vis-à-vis political contributions (which have in effect become legalized bribery).


As I mentioned in a previous communication, one aspect upon which all commenters independently concur is that Agenda 21 is wholly unwanted.


Food for thought for all of us!,


With best wishes,




In conclusion, I will state once again that Agenda 21 is a global program that affects all of us, regardless of culture, nationality or location. Its implications are of grave concern. In continuation of the BWW Society’s on-going evaluation of Agenda 21 I hereby encourage all readers of this Journal to contact me and let me know your thoughts and opinions regarding Agenda 21.


What is perhaps most disconcerting is the fact even among the otherwise well-informed and highly educated so few are even aware of this program’s existence. If you are unclear on the details and repercussions of Agenda 21 I would encourage you to avail yourself to the abundance of information available on the internet.


With your collaboration, I look forward to our on-going research and analysis of the full and complete implications of Agenda 21.


John Pellam

Director & Publisher

The Bibliotheque: World Wide (BWW) Society




[ back to "Publications & Special Reports" ]
[ BWW Society Home Page ]