28 March 2022 | Video (CC EN) | The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently working on a global pandemic treaty with the EU and national governments worldwide. Among the few who know about it, the project is raising serious concerns. They fear that such a treaty would put governments and parliaments under the direct rule of the WHO or that it would be used to promote the transhumanist agenda of the World Economic Forum’s leader Klaus Schwab. A search of official sources reveals that one of these fears, at least, is rather well founded.
The “Scientific Initiative Health for Austria”, a network of members of health professionals, has written an open letter to politicians, the courts and the media, with the stark warning (in German):
“The World Health Organization (WHO) plans to establish an agreement on “global pandemic preparedness.” The plan is highly dangerous. This agreement is intended to allow the WHO to go from making recommendations to the governments of member countries, as it has done in the past, to making legally binding decisions that would above our constitution. The ‘pandemic preparedness agreement’ would mean bypassing all democratic institutions, because the WHO itself has no democratic legitimacy.”
A text on the website of the US organization Children’s Health Defense warns that the pandemic treaty will serve to implement the transhumanist vision of Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum. It consists of a “merging of the physical, digital and biological spheres, with consequences for all disciplines, economies and industries, which will even challenge notions of what it means to be human.” This will happen, the organization fears, initially through constant testing for all sorts of viruses and injections of gene-edited substances to boost immune defence. Once the population is used to that sort of quasi-obligatory interference with their bodies, other, bolder interferences could follow.
A search of official sources
I set out on a search of (mostly) official sources to see what was true about these warnings.
First of all, it is true that WHO is not an organization controlled by parliaments, but to a considerable extent by private donors. The WHO has been driven into an almost total dependence on earmarked voluntary donations by freezing the compulsory contributions of the member states since 1993. According to the Bundestag’s scientific service, about 20 percent of WHO’s funds are mandatory contributions, while 80 percent are mostly earmarked donations from foundations, corporations, governments and others. To the 2018/19 biennial budget of $5.84 billion, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the GAVI Vaccine Alliance, established by that foundation, together contributed $844 million, just under 15 percent, almost as much as the U.S. government, the largest single contributor. This gives Microsoft-founder Bill Gates, as co-chair of the foundation, very great influence on the WHO.If he acts in concert with the U.S. government, the influence is overwhelming(more, in German),
The EU Council writes on the beginnings of the pandemic treaty project that the proposal was first announced by the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, at the Paris Peace Forum in November 2020 and that this call for an international treaty on pandemics was also highlighted by the G7 leaders in their statement on 19 February 2021.
What is this “Paris Peace Forum”? On its website, you learn that it was founded in 2018 as “a platform open to all who seek to develop coordination, rules and capacities to solve global problems”. It sees itself as a kind of back-up regulator of world affairs:
“Multilateral organizations with universal membership have legitimate mandates for the creation of rules and mechanisms to solve transnational problems. We pick up the slack when these institutions cannot act or when the solutions proposed are insufficient.”
The main sponsors (Strategic Partners), in addition to the EU Commission and the consulting firm Brunswick, are the Open Society Fondations of billionaire George Soros and Mircosoft. In addition, “Main Partners” are the Gates, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. “Grand Partners” are Wellcome Trust and Youtube (Google). These are also the main sponsors of the WHO and international vaccination drive.
Wikipedia says about the Forum (as of 3/20/2022):
“The Paris Peace Forum complements the existing global agenda of multilateral meetings by creating a dedicated event for global governance issues, as economic and financial issues are addressed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and security issues at the Munich Security Conference.”
(This is the near-identical translation of the French and German wikipedia entries. Surprisingly there is no English entry amoung the 15 languages of this wikipedia-article.)
Before the G7 heads of government embraced the proposal for a global pandemic treaty put forward from this circle in February 2021, something else happened: on 3. February 2021, UN Secretary General António Guterres, EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, French head of government Emmanuel Macron, Charles Michel, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel – having just having just given their keynote speeches at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum – signed a joint commentary and distributed it internationally via the Project Syndicate network of Peace Forum sponsor George Soros:
“The most serious crises call for the most ambitious decisions to shape the future. We believe that this one can be an opportunity to rebuild consensus for an international order based on multilateralism and the rule of law through efficient cooperation, solidarity and coordination. (…) The world after Covid will not be the same again. Let us make use of different fora and opportunities such as the Paris Peace Forum to work towards tackling these challenges with a clear vision.”
If you wanted to be cynical, you could translate that as: “Corona is a great opportunity for the globalists.”
Oh yes, I forgot: Senegal’s President Macky Sall was also one of the authors as a token non-European to soften the impression that this is about multilateralism of the kind that industrialized countries and their corporations like.
A month after their globally circulated newspaper commentary von der Leyen, Michel, Macron, Merkel and Sall became more specific about what they were aiming at. On March 30, 2021 the WHO let the world know that “Global leaders unite in urgent call for international pandemic treaty,”
UN-Chief Guterres was replaced by WHO Secretary-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Apart from this change, the five mentioned heads of state were joined by Britain’s Boris Johnson and 18 heads of government of nations of predominantly regional (economic) power and importance, such as South Africa, Ukraine, Kenya, Thailand and Korea.
One wonders: where is the global leader USA in this? Where are China, Russia? Might it be, that the U.S. government and US corporations are the real drivers and stay in the background for strategic reasons, while China and Russia and their allies do not participate exactly for this reason? The role of the G7, a U.S.-dominated group without China and Russia, points in this direction.
The first sentences of the appeal by the heads of government and the WHO show the great ambition of the project. It is compared to the creation of the UN:
“The COVID-19 pandemic is the biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s. At that time, following the devastation of two world wars, political leaders came together to forge the multilateral system. The aims were clear: to bring countries together, to dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and cooperation, namely peace, prosperity, health and security.”
Ironically, much like WHO as part of the UN system, the UN itself has been systematically starved financially and driven into the arms of the largest corporations, their foundations, and their lobby, the World Economic Forum.
The pandemic regime as the new normal
It joint declaration continues by declaring pandemic response as the normal and permanent state and the creation of structures of coordination:
“Today, we hold the same hope that as we fight to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic together, we can build a more robust international health architecture that will protect future generations. There will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies. No single government or multilateral agency can address this threat alone. The question is not if, but when. Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly coordinated fashion. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a stark and painful reminder that nobody is safe until everyone is safe.”
It sounds innocuous, but anyone who has heard Bill Gates’ more explicit announcements will understands what we are in for. Gates, a main sponsor of the Paris Peace Forum and the WHO, wrote in his foundation’s January 2021 annual letter that there could be no return to normalcy for a long time, because:
“The unfortunate reality is that COVID-19 might not be the last pandemic. We don’t know when the next one will strike, or whether it will be a flu, a coronavirus, or some new disease we’ve never seen before. But what we do know is that we can’t afford to be caught flat-footed again. The threat of the next pandemic will always be hanging over our heads—unless the world takes steps to prevent it. (…) Pandemic preparedness must be taken as seriously as we take the threat of war. (…) Stopping the next pandemic will require spending tens of billions of dollars per year. (…) But it’s possible to build up diagnostics that can be deployed very quickly. By the next pandemic, I’m hopeful we’ll have what I call mega-diagnostic platforms, which could test as much as 20 percent of the global population every week. (…) The world needs field-based capabilities that constantly monitor for troubling pathogens and can be spun up as soon as they’re needed. (…) We need to spot disease outbreaks as soon as they happen, wherever they happen. That will require a global alert system. The backbone of this system would be diagnostic testing. “
Gates wants us to spend tens of billions per year to build a testing infrastructure that can test 1.6 billion people per week for anything that could be infectious.
It’s easy to see that the joint WHO-government appeal just echoes the Gates announcement in slightly different terms, or vice versa:
- “predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics” means: test, test, test, en masse as a permanent fixture, against everything that is infectious and can be tested. Upon detection of a spread of an infectious disease – even if it may only reach the flu category in the end – initiation of the countermeasures that have been practiced in the meantime, such as isolation, lockdowns, basic rights restrictions of all kinds.
“In a highly coordinated fashion” means: no country may opt out. All must contractually commit to take the agreed countermeasures at appropriate alert levels declared by WHO. All under the pretext that “no one is safe until everyone is safe.”
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen talked about pandemic response as the new normal about as early as Gates. in January 2021 she warned of the coming “era of pandemics” . With the billion-dollar “Hera” project announced shortly before, the EU now has a suitable public-private partnership vehicle to channel a great deal of money into the coffers of the pharmaceutical and IT industries in the presumed spirit of the planned global pandemic contract.
Also entirely in the spirit of the pandemic as the new normal, the German federal government purchased over half a billion vaccine doses in 2021, seven per federal citizen, and in March 2022 the federal cabinet decided to sign a contract with five vaccine manufacturers for Corona vaccine supplies through, believe it or not, 2029 at the cost of a payment of nearly 3 billion euros to vaccine manufacturers, not for specific supplies, but for having and maintaining production capacity.
International health regulations to be sharpened
It gets even more interesting if one follows the hints in the concluding sentences of the joint declaration:
“Such a renewed collective commitment would be a milestone in stepping up pandemic preparedness at the highest political level. It would be rooted in the constitution of the World Health Organization, drawing in other relevant organizations key to this endeavour, in support of the principle of health for all. Existing global health instruments, especially the International Health Regulations, would underpin such a treaty, ensuring a firm and tested foundation on which we can build and improve.”
What’s the deal with these “International Health Regulations” with a capital “I”? On the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (CDC) web page, one reads about “International Health Regulations (IHS)” :
“With the signing of the revised International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005, the international community agreed to improve the detection and reporting of potential public health emergencies worldwide. IHR (2005) better addresses today’s global health security concerns and are a critical part of protecting global health. The regulations require that all countries have the ability to detect, assess, report and respond to public health events. (…) IHR represents an agreement between 196 countries, including all WHO Member States, to work together for global health security. (…) IHR (2005) is coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO) and aims to keep the world informed about public health risks and events. As an international treaty, the IHR (2005) is legally binding.”
The Scientific Service of the German Bundestag writes (in German) on the legally binding nature of international treaties in Germany:
“In German law, international treaties that require the consent or participation of the respective bodies responsible for federal legislation according to Art. 59 para. 2 p. 1 of the Grundgesetz (constitution) have the rank of simple federal laws. Under Article 20(3) of the Grundgesetz, executive power and the judiciary are bound by the laws.”
This is likely to mean that the International Health Regulations, which are to be sharpened, and any future WHO pandemic treaty ratified by Germany would have the force of law here and would bind and oblige the authorities accordingly, as long as they do not contradict constitutional norms.
Technocratic ambitions
On September 29, 2021, the pandemic treaty project moved forward at an informal meeting of the UN Health General Assembly. Mike Ryan, Director of the WHO Emergencies Program addressed delegates on behalf of the WHO Secretary-General. The intention to disempower parliaments in favor of a technocratic global governance regime rings through in his words:
“We need a generational commitment that outlives budgetary cycles, election cycles and media cycles; that creates an overarching framework for connecting the political, financial and technical mechanisms needed for strengthening global health security.”
Finally, on December 1, 2021, the UN General Assembly decided to begin the process of developing a “historic global agreement” on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The decision establishes an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) to “develop and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument within the framework of the Constitution of the World Health Organization.”
The US comes forward
This was the time for the U.S. government to come out of hinging. It backed the treaty project in public and claimed a leading role. It wrote of its role in the new negotiating body:
“The United States looks forward to continuing to serve as a leader in building consensus in this new and important forum. (…) As the longstanding largest contributor to global health and health security, the U.S. commitment to pandemic preparedness and response is strong and enduring. The world can count on the United States to continue delivering assistance and taking concrete actions to end the COVID-19 pandemic and build back better at home and abroad.”
In its statement, the U.S. government also emphasized the importance of the International Health Regulation:
“The United States commits to work with Member States at the WHO on targeted amendments to the IHR to improve implementation and compliance on key issues such as early warning alerts, timely information sharing, and rapid risk assessments.”
This says that all countries are expected to participate in the intensified testing regime and report anything they find in the process to WHO immediately, no matter what it costs them.
And it revealed what else will be worked on, far from any public view, and which organizations from the shadowy realm of global governance will be involved in enforcing the new global pandemic regime:
“We also invite others to join in implementing other vital recommendations from world’s experts, including by convening the newly formed G20 Finance-Health Task Force, establishing a Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF) for health security and pandemic preparedness at the World Bank, reaching multifaceted outcomes on trade and health issues at the World Trade Organization (WTO), and taking next steps to stand up additional political leadership, such as a Global Health Threats Council.”
To be sure, the G20 group also includes China and Russia. But it is the US who calls the shots in this informal, body of the top 20 countries, which decides by “consensus”. The same applies to an even greater extent to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, where the U.S. has a blocking minority. In other words, if the U.S. vetoes a loan or grant from the World Bank or IMF, there will be no money.
The Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF) at the World Bank was launched back in September 2021 at a Corona Summit by U.S. President Joe Biden with seed money of $250 million and $850 million more requested from Congress. Declared targets are at least 30 paying governments and 10 participating international organizations, and at least $10 billion in annual budget. All to reward countries that faithfully implement the new pandemic prevention regime and to punish others by withholding funds.
In April 2022, based on a report from the G20 task force, a decision will be made on the modalities of this financial intermediary fund “to ensure adequate and sustained funding for PPR (pandemic preparedness and response).” A new global governing body, the Global Health Threats Council, is to be created and will be responsible for distributing the funds.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is another powerful enforcement tool. Trade advantages for good behavior and restrictions for recalcitrance, are a time tested governance tool. The reasoning is likely to be: Those who do not faithfully implement WHO pandemic preparedness and response measures are gaining unfair cost advantages and are putting other countries at risk. Therefore they can be subjected to punitive tariffs and other trade sanctions by other WTO members without them breaking WTO free trade rules.
In addition, at the urging of the U.S. government, a new “Resilience and Sustainability Trust” (RST) is to be created at the IMF from which poorer countries will receive money for pandemic response. During the Corona pandemic, the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust, which was not actually designed for this purpose, has ensured, via its conditionality, that almost all countries implemented pandemic measures that were previously unheard of, such as lockdowns and comprehensive restrictions on freedom of movement.
The roadmap to the global pandemic treaty
The G20 task force met for the first time on Dec. 20, 2021 and a second time on Jan. 27, 2022. Central banks, with their financing power, are also involved. In the communiqué of their Feb. 18 meeting, the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors (also an informal body) call on WHO and the World Bank to continue to ensure that countries report on any hurdles to their immunization programs and accelerate them “to get more shots in arms”. That’s because the G20’s goal is to have at least 70% of the world’s population shot in the arm by mid-2022.
After the first meeting of the pandemic treaty negotiating body on February 24, the EU Council decided on March 3, 2022, almost completely unnoticed by the European public, to begin negotiations on an international pandemic treaty.
By Aug. 1, 2022, at the latest, the negotiating body is to discuss progress on the working draft in a second meeting, according to the EU Council communication, and present a progress report to the World Health Assembly in 2023. Finally, the outcome is to be considered and adopted by the World Health Assembly in 2024, just a good two years from now.
In parallel, enforcement tools will be forged and sharpened at the World Bank, IMF, and WTO.
Conclusion
The WHO’s planned pandemic treaty, with its foreseeable regime of excessive testing and mandatory authoritarian countermeasures, could, as an international treaty, directly bind the authorities of participating nations and oblige them to act in accordance with the treaty.
This will be especially true for all those countries which, because of economic weakness and dependencemust obey the often informal rules from the shadowy realm of global governance, as they depend on money and goodwill from the World Bank, IMF and WTO.
Unlike in 2020/21, we will know exactly afterwards why almost all countries in the world have adopted and stubbornly kept in effect the same, often unprecedented and exaggerated measures with little scientific evidence or evaluation to combat an infectious disease with relatively (as pandemics go) moderate mortality.
More
