02.06.23 (12)

As the WHO concludes its 76th assembly, the Pandemic Treaty continues to be a hotly contested topic, with supporters claiming it will prevent future pandemics and critics warning it will end national sovereignty.

“I think we’ll get an accord in place if everyone realizes that our window before this next pandemic, this next health threat, is probably not far away.”

Those were the words of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra while speaking to journalists in Geneva, Switzerland last week for the 76th meeting of the World Health Organization’s World Health Assembly. The statement is a reminder that world leaders and health bureaucrats who failed the people of the world during the COVID-19 panic continue to push unscientific theories and failed policies.

Becerra was among the heads of state and representatives gathered in Geneva from May 21 to 30 to discuss a wide array of public health issues. While the so-called “pandemic treaty” and International Health Regulations (IHR) were not officially on the agenda of the assembly, the topic was clearly on the minds of the various policymakers gathered in Geneva. The next round of negotiations on the treaty will take place in mid-June with with the goal of hammering out a legally binding agreement to be adopted by the WHO’s 194 member nations by May 2024.

AFP reports that WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called on WHO member nations to “negotiate a strong accord”, calling it a “generational opportunity” that must be seized.

“We are the generation that lived through the Covid-19 pandemic, so we must be the generation that learns the lessons it taught us and makes the changes to keep future generations safer.”

Meanwhile, Luis Villarroel of the Innovarte NGO told reporters the latest draft text of the treaty was “very weak” and called for a stronger mechanism to enforce the treaty. “Voluntary measures are not good enough,” Villarroel stated.

Erosion of National Sovereignty or Just Another Conspiracy?

Critics of the agreement point to statements like Villarroel’s as an example of efforts to limit or erode national sovereignty in favor of granting the WHO or the United Nations decision making power of the member nations. In March, WHO Director-General Ghebreyesus responded to the claims, calling them “quite simply false” and “fake news”. “No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO,” he stated.

Despite assurances from the WHO, fears of globalist organizations overriding national sovereignty continue to spread.

On May 17, the “Sovereignty Coalition”  held a press conference speaking out against the dangers they claim the pandemic treaty poses to individual nation states. The coalition is comprised of Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Lauren Boebert of Colorado. The press conference also featured representatives of the Center for Security Policy, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, ACT for America, and Tea Party Patriots.

“This is not about public health. The W.H.O. made it very clear they will censor anyone who does not agree with their agenda to control every aspect of people’s lives,” Representative Boebert stated at the conference“They want total control over vaccinations, digitalization of health records, and your travel.”

In a statement announcing the press conference, the Sovereignty Coalition calls the WHO a “supranational United Nations agency that is effectively controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)”. The coalition says the influence of the CCP is evident because of Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus “advancing the CCP’s interest in bringing about a post-constitutional America and “global governance” dominated by the Party”.

The coalition notes that during the COVID-19 panic the WHO lied about the nature and origins of the pandemic, as well as effective responses. The WHO also endorsed the lockdowns, masks, injection mandates, and “digital enforcement mechanisms” promoted by the Chinese government.

The coalition repeated the claims that the pandemic treaty will give Dr. Tedros and the WHO the “authority unilaterally to dictate what constitutes an actual or potential” pandemic health emergency and to decide how nations must respond to an alleged pandemic. The group of conservative lawmakers also called on the U.S. government to end membership in the WHO and cease funding to the WHO.

American politicians are not the only ones becoming increasingly vocal on the topic of a WHO-led pandemic treaty. Andrew Bridgen, a U.K. member of Parliament, warned that the WHO pandemic treaty and amendments to the IHR represent “a huge grab of power” by “unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.”

In a speech given during a debate on April 17, Bridgen supported a call for a public vote on the WHO’s proposals. “We should have a referendum, because sovereignty belongs to the people. It’s not ours to give away,” he stated. Bridgen also noted that WHO employees have dimplomatic immunity and cannot be prosecuted for potential crimes.

Bridgen’s statements and the debate in parliament came in response to more than 156,000 petition signatures calling on the U.K. government “to commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the WHO, unless this is approved through a public referendum.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, is another vocal critic of the WHO pandemic treaty. Boyle told Children’s Health Defense he sees the WHO instruments as “an attempt to take over the United States of America by using the WHO as a front for that purpose.”

Boyle places the blame on this coup attempt on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Bill Gates, the Chinese Communist Party, Big Pharma and “the biowarfare industry”. Through the Gates Foundation, Bill Gates is the number 1 non-state funder of the WHO, with the U.S. and China being the top two state funding sources.

Boyle also believes these organizations are using the WHO as a “front organization to accomplish its objectives”.

Whether or not the concerns regarding erosion of national sovereignty register with the general public seems to depend on whether one believes nation-states should be the final arbiter of national policy. If one is inclined to believe that transnational organizations are better suited to tackle public health emergencies, then the WHO may seem a perfect candidate for the role.

However, the last 3 years of international governments terrorizing their own citizenry based on a pandemic that never existed should make it clear to anyone who still possesses critical thinking: these people pretending to fight for the good of the society are not acting in good faith, to say the least.

The Last American Vagabond will continue to follow the developments surrounding the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty and IHR.

Thanks to thelastamericanvagabond.com