The World Health Organization Pandemic Treaty and Global Enslavement By Chris Knight (Florida)
Here is another take on how the World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic treaty, which will dissolve national sovereignty on health issues with respect to pandemics, however that will be defined, all up to how the WHO defines things. Most of you are of the opinion that the signing is set for May 2023, but there is one view that it will be signed up, at least by the US by the end of February! Hopefully the African nations will hold out. If not, we fast forward even more into the new tyrannical New World Order.
“Biden Admin Negotiates Deal to Give WHO Authority Over US Pandemic Policies
New international health accord avoids necessary Senate approval
By Kevin Stocklin
February 18, 2023 Updated: February 20, 2023
The Biden administration is preparing to sign up the United States to a
“legally binding” accord with the World Health Organization (WHO) that
would give this Geneva-based UN subsidiary the authority to dictate
America's policies during a pandemic.
Despite widespread criticism of the WHO's response to the COVID
pandemic, U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra
joined with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in September
2022 to announce “the U.S.-WHO Strategic Dialogue.” Together, they
developed a “platform to maximize the longstanding U.S. government-WHO
partnership, and to protect and promote the health of all people around
the globe, including the American people.”
These discussions and others spawned the “zero draft” (pdf) of a
pandemic treaty, published on Feb. 1, which now seeks ratification by
all 194 WHO member states. A meeting of the WHO's Intergovernmental
Negotiating Body (INB) is scheduled for Feb. 27 to work out the final
terms, which all members will then sign.
Written under the banner of “the world together equitably,” the zero
draft grants the WHO the power to declare and manage a global pandemic
emergency. Once a health emergency is declared, all signatories,
including the United States, would submit to the authority of the WHO
regarding treatments, government regulations such as lockdowns and
vaccine mandates, global supply chains, and monitoring and surveillance
of populations.
Centralized Pandemic Response
“They want to see a centralized, vaccine-and-medication-based response,
and a very restrictive response in terms of controlling populations,”
David Bell, a public health physician and former WHO staffer
specializing in epidemic policy, told The Epoch Times. “They get to
decide what is a health emergency, and they are putting in place a
surveillance mechanism that will ensure that there are potential
emergencies to declare.”
The WHO pandemic treaty is part of a two-track effort, coinciding with
an initiative by the World Health Assembly (WHA) to create new global
pandemic regulations that would also supersede the laws of member
states. The WHA is the rule-making body of the WHO, comprised of
representatives from the member states.
“Both [initiatives] are fatally dangerous,” Francis Boyle, professor of
international law at Illinois University, told The Epoch Times. “Either
one or both would set up a worldwide medical police state under the
control of the WHO, and in particular WHO Director-General Tedros. If
either one or both of these go through, Tedros or his successor will be
able to issue orders that will go all the way down the pipe to your
primary care physicians.”
Physician Meryl Nass told The Epoch Times: “If these rules go through as
currently drafted, I, as a doctor, will be told what I am allowed to
give a patient and what I am prohibited from giving a patient whenever
the WHO declares a public health emergency. So they can tell you you're
getting remdesivir, but you can't have hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.
What they're also saying is they believe in equity, which means
everybody in the world gets vaccinated, whether or not you need it,
whether or not you're already immune.”
Regarding medical treatments, the accord would require member nations to
“monitor and regulate against substandard and falsified pandemic-related
products.” Based on previous WHO and Biden administration policy, this
would likely include forcing populations to take newly-developed
vaccines while preventing doctors from prescribing non-vaccine
treatments or medicines.
Circumventing America's Constitution
A key question surrounding the accord is whether the Biden
administration can bind America to treaties and agreements without the
consent of the U.S. Senate, which is required under the Constitution.
The zero draft concedes that, per international law, treaties between
countries must be ratified by national legislatures, thus respecting the
right of their citizens to consent. However, the draft also includes a
clause that the accord will go into effect on a “provisional” basis, as
soon as it is signed by delegates to the WHO, and therefore it will be
legally binding on members without being ratified by legislatures.
“Whoever drafted this clause knew as much about U.S. constitutional law
and international law as I did, and deliberately drafted it to
circumvent the power of the Senate to give its advice and consent to
treaties, to provisionally bring it into force immediately upon
signature,” Boyle said. In addition, “the Biden administration will take
the position that this is an international executive agreement that the
president can conclude of his own accord without approval by Congress,
and is binding on the United States of America, including all state and
local democratically elected officials, governors, attorney generals and
health officials.”
There are several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that may support the
Biden administration in this. They include State of Missouri v. Holland,
in which the Supreme Court ruled that treaties supersede state laws.
Other decisions, such as United States v. Belmont, ruled that executive
agreements without Senate consent can be legally binding, with the force
of treaties.
There are parallels between the WHO pandemic accord and a recent OECD
global tax agreement, which the Biden administration signed on to but
which Republicans say has “no path forward” to legislative approval. In
the OECD agreement, there are punitive terms built in that allow foreign
countries to punish American companies if the deal is not ratified by
the United States.
As with the OECD tax agreement, administration officials are attempting
to appeal to international organizations to impose policies that have
been rejected by America's voters. Under the U.S. Constitution, health
care does not fall under the authority of the federal government; it is
the domain of the states. The Biden administration found this to be an
unwelcome impediment to its attempts to impose vaccine and mask mandates
on Americans, when courts ruled that federal agencies did not have the
authority to do so.
“To circumvent that, they went to the WHO, for either the regulations or
the treaty, to get around domestic opposition,” Boyle said.
According to the zero draft, signatories would agree to “strengthen the
capacity and performance of national regulatory authorities and increase
the harmonization of regulatory requirements at the international and
regional level.” They will also implement a “whole-of-government and
whole-of-society approach at the national level” that will include
national governments, local governments, and private companies.
The zero draft stated that this new accord is necessary because of “the
catastrophic failure of the international community in showing
solidarity and equity in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
pandemic.”
A report from the WHO's Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and
Response (pdf) characterized the WHO's performance as a “toxic cocktail”
of bad decisions. Co-chair Ellen Johnson Sirleaf told the BBC it was due
to “a myriad of failures, gaps and delays.” The solutions proposed by
that report, however, did not suggest more local autonomy or diversified
decision-making, but rather greater centralization, more power, and more
money for the WHO.
'One Health Surveillance' and Misinformation
The WHO pandemic agreement calls for member states to implement “One
Health surveillance.” One Health is a concept that has been embraced by
the UN, the CDC, the World Bank, and other global organizations.
“The term originally meant a way of seeing human and animal health as
linked—they sometimes are—so that you could improve human health by
acting more broadly,” Bell said. “It has become hijacked and now is used
to claim that all human activities, and all issues within the biosphere,
affect health, and are therefore within Public Health's remit. So public
health can be deemed to include climate, or racism, or fisheries
management, and this is being used to claim that addressing carbon
emissions is a health issue and therefore a health 'emergency.'”
The WHO zero draft states that “'One Health surveillance' means …,”
leaving the definition to be worked out in future drafts. Whatever One
Health surveillance ultimately entails, however, the signatories must
invest in it, implement it, and “strengthen” it. In September 2022, the
World Bank approved a Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF) to finance,
among other things, One Health surveillance.
Signatories also agree to support the official narrative when it comes
to information about a pandemic. Specifically, they will “conduct
regular social listening and analysis to identify the prevalence and
profiles of misinformation” and “design communications and messaging
strategies for the public to counteract misinformation, disinformation
and false news, thereby strengthening public trust.”
This aligns with efforts by the Biden administration to, as former White
House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki put it, “make sure social media
companies are aware of the latest narratives dangerous to public health
… and engage with them to better understand the enforcement of social
media platform policies.” Or as UN Undersecretary-General Melissa
Fleming stated at a 2022 World Economic Forum panel on “Tackling
Disinformation” in Davos, “We own the science and we think that the
world should know it.”
The official narrative during the COVID pandemic included support for
lockdowns, school closures, and masking—all of which have since proven
to be ineffective in stopping the spread of the virus and damaging to
public health. A group of more than 900,000 doctors, epidemiologists,
and public health scientists jointly signed the Great Barrington
Declaration in 2020, expressing “grave concerns about the damaging
physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies.”
This declaration was widely derided as dangerous misinformation and was
censored on social media.
“The views that they crushed were orthodox public health,” Bell said. Up
until 2019, public health guidelines “specifically said that things like
prolonged border closures, closing stores, etc. were harmful,
particularly for low-income people, and shouldn't be done beyond a few
weeks.”
Those who pushed for lockdowns “were very clear that what they were
recommending for COVID was going to be extremely harmful, and that the
harm would outweigh the benefit,” Bell said. “They were clear because
they wrote that down before, and there's nothing new in the idea that
impoverishing people reduces life expectancy. Something dramatically
changed their minds, and that something wasn't evidence, so we can only
assume that it was pressure from vested interests.”
In January, a survey presented at the World Economic Forum found that
public trust in government has plummeted since the start of the
pandemic, though attendees were at a loss to explain the reasons for the
decline in trust. Instead, the discussion at the panel, titled
“Disrupting Distrust,” focused on combating rogue news sources that
challenged the central narrative.
America's Membership in the WHO
In July 2020, then-President Donald Trump withdrew the United States
from membership in the WHO. Citing the WHO's dismal performance in
responding to the COVID pandemic and its ties to the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP), Trump said that U.S. funding of approximately half a
billion dollars per year would also cease.
In response, then-presidential-candidate Joe Biden vowed: “On my first
day as President, I will rejoin the WHO and restore our leadership on
the world stage.” Biden kept his promise and took it one step further,
negotiating the pandemic accord.
Today, GOP lawmakers are attempting to revive the effort to take the
United States out of the WHO. On Jan. 12, House Republicans introduced
the “No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act,” which
was sponsored by 16 representatives.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), lead sponsor of the bill, stated: “Funneling
millions of taxpayer dollars to the corrupt World Health Organization
that serves the Chinese Communist Party is a slap in the face to
hardworking American families struggling under record high inflation,
and to all those whose lives and livelihoods were ruined and destroyed
by the COVID pandemic. The WHO … praised China for their 'leadership' at
the beginning of COVID-19 and has done nothing to hold the CCP
accountable for the spread of COVID-19.”
The pandemic accord, a spokesman for Roy told The Epoch Times, “is just
another reason to defund the WHO.”
Redefining Sovereignty and Human Rights
The zero draft of the accord states that national sovereignty remains a
priority, but within limits. “States have, in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law,
the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to pubic
health,” the draft declares, “provided that activities within their
jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other
countries.”
The accord states that human rights are also important, and it mandates
that “people living under any restrictions on the freedom of movement,
such as quarantines and isolations, have sufficient access to
medication, health services and other necessities and rights.” The
accord presents human rights as “health equity, through resolute action
on social, environmental, cultural, political and economic determinants
of health.”
In line with this concept, countries like Austria went so far as to
criminalize the refusal to take the COVID vaccine. Within the United
States, places like New York City mandated vaccine passports for access
to public spaces, dividing its residents into a privileged vaccinated
class and a second-tier unvaccinated class.
However, others see human rights not in terms of collective health but
rather as individual rights, to include such things as personal
sovereignty, the ability of individuals to make their own choices, the
right of people to have a voice in medical decisions that affect them,
free speech, and freedom of movement and assembly.
Following the Second World War and the state-control ideologies of
fascism, national socialism, and communism, “it was realized that there
has to be a fundamental understanding that individuals are sovereign”
Bell said. Human rights declarations after the war emphasized that, even
during times of crisis, “we are born with rights, we're all equal, and
those rights are inviolable. That is being very much watered down or
wiped away in order to do this.”
“I think this issue is much, much broader; it's what sort of society we
want to live in. Do we believe in equality or do we believe in a feudal
system where we have a few people at the top, controlling society,
telling others what to do? That's the direction we're going in.”
Comments