ISO and Globalism

Does ISO (International Organization for Standardization) have or support, a globalist agenda?

Since the beginning of the 21st century, ISO has been transitioning from a group supported by individual nations; to a central body dictating to those individual nations. With each new revision to an ISO standard, their increasingly globalist agenda becomes more evident.

What is a "Globalist"?

The Cambridge Dictionary defines a “globalist” as:
someone who believes that economic and foreign policy should be planned in an international way, rather than according to what is best for one particular country

NAZI Germany (1933-1945) had an economic policy called, “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz,” meaning “Common good comes before self-interest”. This Socialist concept was so integral to NAZI society that it was inscribed around the edge of every NAZI Reichsmark coin.

This Socialist mantra is often repeated with slight variations, such as “the welfare of the nation (or community) takes precedence over the selfishness of the individuals.” And it reveals that socialism is simply another word for “Statism”, “Collectivism”, or the ultimate extreme of both… “Globalism”.

The Origins of ISO

The “International Federation of the National Standardizing Associations” (ISA) was founded in 1926 with a mission of enhancing international cooperation for all technical standards and specifications. The ISA had been operated Mr. Huber-Ruf, a Swiss engineer who administered the organization virtually single-handedly from his home in Basel, Switzerland. ISA suspended operations in 1942 due to World War II.

In 1944 the United Nations “Standards Coordinating Committee” (UNSCC) was formed (by the USA, UK & Canada) to promote cooperation between the allied “countries in standardization matters as an aid to the production and use of war supplies and equipment and also in relief work.”1)

The UNSCC was administered from the London offices of the “International Electrotechnical Commission” (IEC). During World War II, the IEC Secretary (and a founding member) was a British engineer named Charles Le Maistre. Already in his 70s, Charles Le Maistre accepted the position of Secretary-General of the UNSCC, in addition to his IEC position.

After the war, the UNSCC (Charles Le Maistre) approached ISA (Mr. Huber-Ruf) with a proposal to form a new global standards body. In October 1946, ISA and UNSCC delegates from 25 countries met in London and agreed to join forces to create the “International Organization for Standardization” (ISO); which officially began operations in February 1947.

IEC / ITU / ISO: 3 “sister” organizations

The “International Telecommunication Union”, originally the “International Telegraph Union”, is a specialized agency of the United Nations that is responsible for issues that concern information and communication technologies.4

The ”International Electrotechnical Commission” (IEC), the “International Telecommunication Union” (ITU), and the “International Organization for Standardization” (ISO) consider themselves to be 3 global “sister” organizations working to develop International Standards for the world.

When appropriate, the IEC, ISO & ITU cooperate to ensure that International Standards fit together seamlessly and complement each other, typically through joint committees.2)

Many ISO and IEC standards are issued jointly (e.g., ISO/IEC 17025). And both ISO and ISO/IEC Standards are normatively referenced in ITU-R Recommendations.

ISO Membership

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) has 164 Member Nations, represented by their Standards Bodies. The vast majority of these National Standards Bodies are either: Government entities Quasi-government entities

Consequently, ISO 9001:2015 was written largely by government bureaucrats with their own socio-political agendas.

ISO Members representing government Standards Bodies include, but is not limited to:
(BOLDED nations AREN'T communist, totalitarian, or outside of the Cato Institute's 2019 top 100 ranked most free nations)

ISO is so important, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran (I.R.I), currently Hassan Rouhani, is also the President of the “Supreme Council of Standards” (a full member of ISO) AND is ex officio the chairman of the Iranian “Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution”.
  • Algeria (#155 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Belarus (Totalitarian / #92 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • China (Communist / #126 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Congo (#137 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Cuba (Communist / Totalitarian)
  • India (#94 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Indonesia (#81 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Iraq (#158 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Iran (#154 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Kazakhstan (Totalitarian / #73 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Kuwait (#124 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Lithuania (#22 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Malaysia (#106 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Mexico (#92 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Pakistan (#140 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Poland (#40 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • North Korea (Communist / Totalitarian)
  • South Korea (#27 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Russian Federation (#114 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Sri Lanka (#110 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Sudan (#159 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Syrian Arab Republic (Totalitarian / #162 (the bottom) in Cato's 2019 “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Thailand (#103 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • United Arab Emirates (#128 in “Human Freedom Index”)
  • Uzbekistan (Totalitarian)
  • Viet Nam (Communist / #117 in “Human Freedom Index”))

Several other ISO Members represent Quasi-Government entities under Socialist systems of government, often identified as “private”, “independent” or “non-profit” while:

  • established by law as “non-government” regulatory bodies
  • appointed sole authority (legal monopoly) for issuing national standards
  • established as a Public Utility Organization under a government agency (e.g., Brazil)
  • completely or partially funded by the government

Obviously, many ISO member nations represent the most oppressive, least free nations in the world.

How ISO promotes the UN Socio-Political Agenda

As stated in “ISO & SDGs – Contributing to the UN Sustainable Development Goals with ISO standards”:
“Transforming our world is the aim of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its corresponding 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).”

“ISO & SDGs – Contributing to the UN Sustainable Development Goals with ISO standards” also states:
“ISO has published more than 22,000 International Standards and related documents that represent globally recognized guidelines and frameworks based on international collaboration. Built around consensus, they provide a solid base on which innovation can thrive and are essential tools to help governments, industry and consumers contribute to the achievement of every one of the SDGs.”

How ISO is using Management Systems Standards to promote Globalism

ISO/TC 176/SC 2’s vision is for its products (primarily ISO 9001 and ISO 9004) to be “recognized and respected worldwide, and used by organizations as an integral component of their sustainable development initiatives”.
~ Nigel H. Croft, ISO/TC 176/SC 2 Chair, 28 August 2012 3)

It is critical to recognize that ISO is openly biased toward promoting communist and socialist ideologies through the UN globalist agenda.

For ISO 9001:2015, and several other ISO management system standards, this was primarily accomplished through “ISO/IEC Directives – Part 1” (Annex SL) mandating standardized language to be used in ALL ISO management system standards. This was done under the pretext of promoting consistency in integrated management systems.

After some joint ISO/IEC management system standards (e.g. ISO 17020, ISO/IEC 17025) refused to adopt the Annex SL format, the “ISO/IEC Directives – Part 1” was revised (2019-05) such that Annex SL was re-named Annex L and its scope expanded to include IEC standards (in effect, “strong-arming” them). From the perspective of the standards developers opposing “ISO/IEC Directives – Part 1”, perhaps ISO should modify their logo to more closely resemble the Federation logo seen in "Star Trek: The Original Series", season 2, episode 4 titled "Mirror, Mirror".

An example of how ISO promotes communist and socialist ideologies can be found when reading ISO 9001:2015, sec. 4.2 “Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties”. And it accounts for the following definition being completely incongruent with businesses operating in a free society with a free-market economy (the “Example” having been added by TC 176).

ISO 9000:2015, sec. 3.2.3:
interested party / stakeholder
person or organization that can affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision or activity

EXAMPLE Customers, owners, people in an organization, providers, bankers, regulators, unions, partners or society that can include competitors or opposing pressure groups.

Fortunately, ISO 9001:2015, sec. 4.2b, effectively re-defines an “interested party” (relevant to the quality management system) as a “party” invoking quality-related requirements.

Also, ISO 9001:2015, Annex A.3 states:

“There is no requirement in this International Standard for the organization to consider interested parties where it has decided that those parties are not relevant to its quality management system. It is for the organization to decide if a particular requirement of a relevant interested party is relevant to its quality management system.”

ISO 9001:2015 and the “Made in China 2025" (MIC) Policy initiative

Some of the language in ISO 9001:2015 appears to have been introduced to support the “Made in China 2025“ (MIC) Policy initiative.

A departure from the Hu-Wen administration's approach to innovation and technology upgrading, the “Made in China 2025” initiative was launched in 2015; which coincided with the release of ISO 9001:2015. In many respects, the launch of this initiative reflected a response to the weakness of (1) Chinese manufacturing capabilities relative to global leaders, and (2) the lack of Chinese innovation. It was also a reaction to the realization that other low-cost (low skill) nations were entering the global market.

The inability of China's communist leadership to understand the concepts of free-trade and free markets led to several miscalculations in dealing with the Trump Administration. On March 22, 2018, the USTR (Office of the United States Trade Representative) announced “action against four broad Chinese MIC policies, including (1) forced technology transfer, (2) unfair licensing requirements, (3) government-backed cyber-theft of U.S. trade secrets, and (4) efforts by China to acquire U.S. technology and IP through acquisitions to support its industrial plans.”4)

Even after a reduction of reliance of China (due to tarrifs), during February 2020 the United States Stock Market felt the effects of US industry remaining so heavily dependent upon China when the COVID-19 pandemic began sweeping the world.

4)
Source: The Made in China 2025 Initiative: Economic Implications for the United States - Updated April 12, 2019