Knowledge is power: the WHO pandemic treaty and other “international instruments”

17/06/2022 · Katiouchka

Since the start of the covid crisis, the WHO has been accelerating the process of putting in place a standardised policy on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, which tends to legally supplant the sovereignty of Member States in matters of public health. Where does the treaty in preparation stand, and what room for manoeuvre is there to prevent its adoption? An exclusive BAM! investigation following the behind-the-scenes negotiations step by step.

Under such a treaty, only the WHO would be empowered to define a pandemic and its management. States would not issue passports. It would be the WHO that would assign a vaccine passport and a digital ID. To this end, the WHO has signed a contract with Deutsche Telecom’s T-Systems to develop a vaccine passport system with a view to linking every inhabitant of the planet to an identity QR code ^[1]!

A very discreet process

On 1 December 2021, the World Health Assembly – the WHA, the WHO’s decision-making body ^[2] – met in Geneva. “The 194 members of the World Health Organization (WHO) agreed to launch the process of drafting and negotiating a convention, agreement or other international instrument (legally binding under international law, Ed.) to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” ^[3]

The Health Assembly then set up an intergovernmental negotiating body (Intergovernmental Negotiating Body – INB) tasked with drafting this “international instrument”. The first INB was established in 2002 ^[4]. In other words, its modus operandi is hardly well-oiled.

On 18 January 2022, without a press conference or official statement, US President Joe Biden drafted 13 amendments ^[5] to the International Health Regulations (IHR) adopted by the WHO Member States in 2005 ^[6]. These amendments were discreetly published on the WHO website in April. Under the IHR, the WHO can declare a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC). This would trigger the application of the measures ^[7].

On 14 March 2022, the INB held its first meeting to decide on its working method ^[8] ^[9].

On 22–25 May in Geneva, the 75^th World Health Assembly met to vote on the amendments to the IHR and to re-elect the WHO Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, for another 5 years.

At this meeting, 12 of Biden’s 13 amendments were rejected, notably by the African countries, which said “no” with one voice, joined by Iran, Malaysia, India, China, Russia and Brazil. The latter two want to take their own measures in international health policy, or even leave the WHO. India voiced its concerns about irregularities in the WHO’s finances ^[10].

Had they been adopted, the proposed amendments (together with the existing articles of the 2005 IHR) would have given any WHO Director-General unlimited power to declare “health crises” at will and to implement the organisation’s intervention. The only amendment accepted was Article 59, concerning the time a Member State has to respond to the measures (reduced from 18 months to 6 months), as well as the time for implementing the measures, also reduced from 24 months to 6 months ^[11].

If not through the front door, then through the window

The reluctant States are concerned, among other things, about the proliferation of the WHO’s “international instruments” and other “tools”. Here are a few of them:

the amendments to the IHR mentioned above
the Pandemic Treaty widely discussed by the media, doctors and well-informed lawyers. This treaty is currently being drafted, but its content is not known.
The WHO’s main funder is Bill Gates, via his foundation and GAVI. While the WHO is drafting the Pandemic Treaty, Gates has created GERM, Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization ^[12]. This group would be managed by the WHO and would carry out exercises in cooperation with local public health and military authorities. GERM teams, dispatched around the world, would decide when to close borders, reintroduce mask-wearing, etc.
Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator ^[13] “No one will be safe until the whole world is safe. The ACT Accelerator brings together governments, scientists, businesses, civil society, philanthropists and global organisations to speed up the end of the pandemic by supporting the development and production of COVID-19 diagnostics, treatments and vaccines.” But also, less prominently, to “strengthen confidence in new COVID-19 tools and combat misinformation around COVID-19” ^[14] (read: censorship). The document places very heavy emphasis on its funding and on the “financial crisis” caused by its $14.9 billion deficit. Obviously, the “will to inject as many arms as possible” comes at a cost. As cold as a hospital, this ACT initiative, launched at the end of April 2020 by the WHO Director-General, the French President, the President of the European Commission and the Bill & and Melinda Gates Foundation, also needs to be watched closely, because it is the one that would deliberate on “the architecture of global health security” ^[15].

An impenetrable wall of complexity

The further one ventures into the labyrinth of the WHO website, the more one gets lost in Soviet-style acronyms and the less clearly one sees the mechanisms through which the Organisation is putting in place – with the complicity of governments, pharmaceutical companies and the likes of the Gates Foundation – its “one planet, one health”. One thing is certain: these multiple “initiatives” aim to further commit political decision-makers to one or more legally binding agreements (and to render national sovereignties obsolete), to set targets for future pandemics and to establish “a global, united policy for treatments” (read: generalised compulsory vaccination, which is, for the time being, wrapped in euphemisms ^[16]).

Even if they beat about the bush, vaccination is at the heart of all these policies ^[17]. A bit like a sleazy guy who uses every trick in the book to chat up his prey, knowing full well she won’t escape, willingly or by force.

The WHO’s progress is linked to that of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, meeting in the same country at the same time ^[18]. Notably, this year saw a clear loss of interest in the Forum: the number of guests had fallen from 3,000 (2019) to 2,200 ^[19]. The big absentees were China (apart from a special envoy for climate change) and above all Russia. On the other hand, the number of Ukrainian guests exceeded that of the European Union ^[20].

It is not too late to derail the plan

Here is the timetable for the Amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) ^[21]:

30 September 2022 – deadline for proposed amendments

1 October 2022 – the Director-General convenes the IHR Review Committee to make technical recommendations on the amendments

15 November 2022 – the WGIHR (the working group) meets to discuss the IHR amendments

15 January 2023 – the Review Committee submits its report to the Director-General

2023 – presentation of the revised amendments to the 76^th meeting of the WHO World Health Assembly

Here is the timetable for the Pandemic Treaty

The WHO had organised a public consultation, already hard to find on the WHO website, for 16 and 17 June 2022. This consultation was cancelled ^[22]! (See the text in red on the website.) Apparently, the negative feedback from citizens on the treaty was massive ^[23].

1 August 2022 – submission of a preliminary draft of the Pandemic Treaty

2023 – progress report to the 76^th WHA ^[24]

2024 – adoption of the treaty at the 77^th WHO World Health Assembly ^[25]

Possible actions to stay informed and influence the outcome

Those who want to make it known that they do not recognise the authority the WHO intends to exercise over their lives, and that they will not tolerate this abuse of power, can still:

Get information from groups closely following developments in the IHR and the Treaty, such as
World Council for Heath https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/campaigns/stop-the-who/2022/05/stopthewho-oppose-international-health-regulation-amendments/73799/
Liberty Council https://lc.org/newsroom/details/053122-stunning-defeat-for-biden-amendments-at-the-who-1
Write to the members of the intergovernmental negotiating body (whose addresses are given at the end of James Roguski’s article here: https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/i-am-so-pissed-off-?s=r)
Learn about the principles, agreements, conventions and treaties that protect human rights. These include the Siracusa Principles ^[26] in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provide legal standards to protect rights ^[27].
Urge all elected representatives to do as the US senators who oppose the WHO’s overcharging ^[28].
Consult the sessions of the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, because it is the heart of the core (World Health Assembly) of the decision-making body (WHO) ^[29].
Sign the World Freedom Declaration and read the information on the IHR amendments https://healthfreedomdefense.org/wfd/, a declaration signed by, among others, Children’s Health Defense, Robert Kennedy, Jr., Reiner Fuellmich and Catherine Austin Fitts.