The World Health Organisation (WHO) resumed its 9th session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) meetings in Geneva on April 29th, officially concluding the meetings on May 10th.
The ostensible purpose of these negotiations was to draft final texts for adoption by its governing body at the upcoming 77th World Health Assembly, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, May 27- June 1, 2024. The stated goal of the meeting was to finalize “the world’s first pandemic agreement.”
The global framework being constructed by this unelected “global health steward” is contained within:
1) The Pandemic Treaty, also called the Pandemic Accord, or Pandemic Agreement and;
2) Amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”).
The WHO sales pitch is for “greater cooperation” amongst the 194 member states in regards to public health, pledging that “the pandemic agreement is for protecting future generations from the suffering we endured through the COVID-19 pandemic.” All of this in sync with the UN’s Post-Coronavirus Global Governance which maintains a need for a “post-pandemic global governance” based on “cooperation between global and regional organizations, international financial institutions and other global alliances.”
No mention of how the WHO was largely responsible for that suffering and that the people of the world have not expressed any desire to be “governed globally.”
The particulars of these latest negotiations reveal that the WHO and its sponsors seek to make significant alterations to the Pandemic Agreement and IHR Amendments which would result in further assaults on our rights and demand more resources be funneled into the pharmaceutical industry and their financiers.
The provisions and language in this treaty could turn “non-binding” agreements into legally binding requirements for member-states, health documents could become a necessity of civic life, surveillance of information deemed “misinformation” could become codified, lockdown measures could be unilaterally declared by the WHO for arbitrarily defined “health emergencies” requiring member states to purchase and mandate “relevant health products” like vaccines.
Desperate to push this treaty through, the WHO seems to have no problem with trampling democratic processes, kicking transparency to the curb, and flouting the rule of law.
This pathological desire to shove this treaty down the world’s throat is readily apparent as the WHO reneges on its own bylaws during negotiations.
One example of this imperiousness is noted in the WHO’s dismissal of Article 55 para. 2 of the 2005 IHR Agreement which requires that member-states be given a four-month review period to review any final text:
The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.
This provision was broken by WHO Director Tedros as no such text was submitted to member states by the deadline of Jan. 27, 2024 rendering the entire process unlawful.
Further duplicity and vagaries are found throughout the new proposals.
In Article 5 of the draft agreement titled ‘One Health’, member states are required to promote a ‘One Health’ approach to prevent and respond to pandemics.
‘One Health’ is defined as an “integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognises that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants and the wider environment (including ecosystems) is closely linked and interdependent.”
Signatories would be obliged to protect human, animal, and plant health by implementing national policies based on a ‘One Health’ approach. Among other things this would require the establishment of ‘One Health’ joint training programs and environmental health workforces.
No details are provided as to what any of this means operationally and as expressed in Section 4 the particulars could be defined up to two years later:
The modalities, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions of a One Health approach shall be further defined in an instrument, that takes into consideration the provisions of the IHR (2005), and is operational by 31 May 2026. Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement (A/INB/9R/3), World Health Organisation, April 2024.
Another example is found in Article 12 concerning the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS) which is designed to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely sharing of biological material from a pathogen with pandemic potential, as well as sequence information relevant to the development of pandemic-related health products.”
Under Article 12 a mechanism will be developed “to allocate and distribute pandemic-related health products based on public health risks, needs, and demand.”
The draft WHO Pandemic Agreement defines “pandemic-related health products” as “safe, effective, quality and affordable products that are needed for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, which may include, without limitation, diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines and personal protective equipment.”
As with Article 5 the specific details of member states obligations are not clearly defined:
The modalities, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions of the PABS System shall be further defined in a legally-binding instrument, that is operational no later than 31 May 2026. Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement (A/INB/9R/3), World Health Organisation, April 2024. [Emphasis Added]
What this means in practice is that member states are being asked to sign off on legally binding responsibilities that won’t be specified until some time in the future.
Discussions surrounding the details of the (PABS) system were particularly tense as noted when the Co-chair of the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) tried to shut down the Africa Group’s proposals on the matter.
Article 7 concerning health and care workforce is also profoundly problematic and amorphous.
This provision would demand that parties invest national resources to establish a “global health emergency workforce.” Upon request this workforce would be sent out to contain “outbreaks.” This radical concept conjures up images of military style “peacekeeping forces” and resembles pandemic response teams championed by Bill Gates.
As it is with much else in the Pandemic Accord this would mean states signing up for a global “health” project based on vague language, scant details, and considerable expenses.
These and many, many other complications caused one negotiator to admit, “the negotiations are in a quagmire.”
Another experienced observer remarked, “Geneva is no stranger to stage-managed, forced multilateralism, it has nevertheless, been eye-opening to witness this. It is revealing how much these negotiations have been shaped by political, commercial and other interests.”
Knowledge Ecology International (a non-profit organization which focuses on social justice) director James Love who attended the meetings remarked, “The reason why negotiations are going badly is because the countries are really divided on matters of substance.”
In this interview Love noted that the governments of the EU, US, Switzerland and Japan have been advocating for the pharmaceutical industries in their countries. Love observed that, “hardcore trade and foreign policy people have been running the negotiations for the North.”
The pressure to reach an agreement is intense. Determined to hammer home a final draft amidst failed negotiations the WHO issued a press release making known that, “Governments agree to continue their steady progress on proposed pandemic agreement ahead of the World Health Assembly.”
These extended meetings would consist of, “hybrid and in-person discussions over coming weeks to advance work on critical issues, including around a proposed new global system for pathogen access and benefits sharing (i.e. life-saving vaccines, treatments and diagnostics); pandemic prevention and One Health; and the financial coordination needed to scale up countries’ capacities to prepare for and respond to pandemics.”
Third World Network (TWN) reported that, “A developing country delegate privy to a private conversation by the WHO DG and his staff, told TWN that the DG’s plan is to get this draft adopted at WHA. He apparently instructed his staff to make delegates negotiate as much as possible prior to the WHA, remove all colour coding from the negotiating text that indicate lack of consensus, and present a clean text to the ministers at the WHA. He would then ask health ministers of the various Member States “whether they can live with the text” amounting to forcing a political compromise.”
In the face of failed negotiations and the imperative to come up with a finalized Pandemic Agreement for the fast-approaching WHA meeting it has become increasingly evident that certain member-states which are aligned with big business and the Pharma cartel will resort to ‘whatever it takes’, including backroom dealings, subterfuge, and political handouts, in order to coerce compliance.
Such tactics illustrate the real face of this rogue institution and the true nature of these discussions which are perfectly described by James Roguski:
The WHO negotiations are NOT about health. They are a blatant attempt to mis-allocate billions of dollars in order to feed the beast of Big Pharma.
Stay tuned.
