Posted on 04/20/2024 6:02:20 PM PDT by ransomnote
The latest draft of the Pandemic Treaty proposed by WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body is an admission of failure so significant that they are suggesting nations sign an incomplete document.
“They know that they cannot show us the details of what they really want to do. So, they are proposing an incomplete, watered-down agreement in the hopes that they will be able to make decisions in the future; in the hopes that we won’t be paying attention,” James Roguski has concluded.
Please note: WHO’s Pandemic Treaty has also been referred to as the Pandemic Accord, Pandemic Agreement and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”). In this article, we refer to it as the Pandemic Agreement.
The ninth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (“INB”) started on 18 March and ended on 28 March. “WHO Member States agreed to resume negotiations aimed at finalising a pandemic agreement during 29 April to 10 May” at the resumption of INB9, a statement released by the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) said.
In December 2021 WHO decided to establish the INB to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. INB9 is the ninth meeting of the INB.
The next round of INB9 negotiations will end a little over two weeks before the World Health Assembly.
“Next month’s resumption of INB9 will be a critical milestone ahead of the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, starting 27 May 2024, at which Member States are scheduled to consider the proposed text of the world’s first pandemic agreement for adoption,” WHO’s statement said.
WHO’s statement includes a link to a draft of the Pandemic Agreement that INB9 was negotiating. This version is labelled A/INB/9/3 and is dated 13 March 2024.
Related: WHO’s Pandemic Treaty negotiations are going very badly
In an article posted on Thursday, James Roguski highlighted some serious issues with a more recent version of WHO’s proposed Pandemic Agreement which is labelled A/INB/9R/3 and dated April 2024.
His article titled ‘Bullsh*t’ includes a 5-minute video and written explanation of the issues in the latest draft, as well as a copy of the draft that can be downloaded. You can find his article HERE.
Below we have picked up some of the issues Roguski has alerted us to and fleshed them out to give them some context.
Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement (A/INB/9R/3)
The newly released draft of the proposed Pandemic Agreement begins: “The Parties to the WHO Pandemic Agreement … have agreed as follows …”
As defined in the draft, “Party” means a State or regional economic integration organisation that has consented to be bound by this Pandemic Agreement.
According to the draft Agreement, a “regional economic integration organisation” means “an organisation that is composed of several sovereign states and to which its Member States have transferred competence over a range of matters, including the authority to make decisions binding on its Member States in respect of those matters.”
Although it’s not stipulated which regional economic integration organisations WHO selects to participate in its decision-making – concurrently affecting the lives of people living in several countries – a list of regional economic integration organisations the United Nations collaborates with and supports includes:
- African Union (AU)
- Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
- Arab League (AL)
- Arab Maghreb Union (AMU)
- Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
- Council of Europe (CoE)
- Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)
- European Union (EU)
- South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
- Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
- Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation (AALCO)
- Union for the Mediterranean (UfM)
- Union of South American Nations (USAN)
Article 5
Article 5 of the draft is titled ‘One Health’.
The draft Agreement defines the One Health approach 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.”
According to Article 5, the Parties that sign up to the draft pledge to promote a collaborative One Health approach to prevent and respond to pandemics, recognising the interconnectedness of people, animals, and the environment.
The Parties commit to addressing the root causes of pandemics and integrating interventions into pandemic prevention plans.
Each Party pledges to protect human, animal, and plant health by implementing national policies reflecting a One Health approach, involving communities in policy development and response, and promoting or establishing One Health joint training programs and continuing education programmes for human, animal and environmental health workforces.
Here’s the problem. The Parties who sign this document pledge to go along with a One Health approach for which the details will be defined at a later stage and finalised up to two years after they sign it:
4. 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. [Emphasis added]Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement (A/INB/9R/3), World Health Organisation, April 2024
In other words, Parties that adopt this agreement in May are giving WHO carte blanche regarding people, domestic and wild animals, plants and the wider environment (including ecosystems).
Article 12 has the same problem.
Article 12
Article 12 is titled ‘Access and benefit sharing’. This article deals with the establishment of a “PABS system” to ensure rapid, systematic and timely sharing of PABS Material and Information.
The draft defines “PABS Material and Information” to mean “the biological material from a pathogen with pandemic potential, as well as sequence information relevant to the development of pandemic-related health products.”
And, a “pathogen with pandemic potential” is defined as “any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterised) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern.”
According to Article 12, Parties who agree to the draft agree that WHO will coordinate and convene the PABS System.
The PABS System will be built upon the commitment of parties to share pathogens and their benefits equally, without stifling research and innovation. It will also be designed to complement the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework and adhere to biosafety, biosecurity and data protection standards. Intellectual property rights will not be sought on PABS materials and information.
The key components of WHO’s PABS System will include the rapid and systematic sharing of PABS materials and information, as well as the fair and timely sharing of benefits. During a pandemic, WHO will have access to 20% of safe and effective pandemic-related health products. Monetary contributions from PABS System users will be administered by WHO. 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.”
Article 12 also states that laboratories in WHO’s network will be encouraged to involve scientists from developing countries in research projects related to PABS materials and information. Parties with manufacturing facilities for pandemic-related health products are expected to facilitate their export according to agreed timetables between WHO and manufacturers.
However, as with Article 5, the Parties who sign this document pledge to go along with WHO’s PAB System without knowing the specific details of what will be imposed on them:
6. 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. [Emphasis added]Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement (A/INB/9R/3), World Health Organisation, April 2024
Similarly, Article 6 also has gaping holes and presents problems regarding a lack of transparency and accountability.
Article 6
Article 6 has the title ‘Preparedness, readiness and health system resilience’.
According to this Article, the Parties who sign the document agree to develop and maintain a resilient health system, with a focus on primary care, to prevent and respond to pandemics. Each Party will strengthen their health system functions and infrastructure, including providing timely and equitable access to quality healthcare during pandemics, with a particular focus on vulnerable populations.
They will also promote post-pandemic health system recovery, enhance laboratory and diagnostic capacities, and use social and behavioural sciences for pandemic prevention.
The Parties will collaborate with WHO to establish international data standards for sharing public health data.
Additionally, a monitoring and evaluation system “shall be developed, implemented and regularly assessed by WHO in partnership with relevant organisations, building on relevant tools, on a timeline to be agreed by the Conference of the Parties.”
The Conference of the Parties (“COP”) has not yet been established. It will be established with the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement. Article 21 of the draft states: “A Conference of the Parties is hereby established.”
Usually, a COP is composed of representatives of the member states of a convention and accredited observers.
There is no indication in the draft Pandemic Agreement of which representatives or observers, or how many, will make up the COP. So Parties that sign the draft Pandemic Agreement are agreeing to implement a monitoring and evaluation system devised by unknown people in an unknown timeline.
To add insult to injury, the proposed Pandemic Agreement gives WHO, literally, an open chequebook.
According to Article 21: “The Conference of the Parties shall by consensus adopt financial rules for itself as well as governing the funding of any subsidiary bodies it may establish as well as financial provisions governing the functioning of the Secretariat.”
And, “The Conference of the Parties may establish subsidiary bodies, as it deems necessary, and determine the terms and modalities of such bodies.”
#ExitTheWHO
Featured image: Image of Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus taken from ‘Robert Mugabe as WHO goodwill ambassador – what went wrong?’, The Conversation, 24 October 2017
The US Constitution does not allow a treaty to be enforced unless the Senate ratifies it. The rest of the world operates on the signature of the leader concept. Customary international law” does not trump the Constitutional requirement of Senate ratification.
The Paris climate accords is the latest example. Obama signed that treaty, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. When Trump came in, he pulled us out of it.
And the Supreme Court could not force anyone to obey a treaty without it being ratified.
You realize of course that the rest of the world doesn’t give a damn about the US Constitution,
as indeed most of our political rulers don’t either.
-fJRoberts-
Please, read the article. We're so far outside what the Constitution says, that to admonish me so is just callow.
We are now operating according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, effectively a treaty about treaties. And guess what? It was never ratified, but the government has been ignoring that little complication since the 1970s.
Doesn’t matter. The rest of the world can enjoy the treaty but cannot enforce it with just a president’s signature. And they all are very well aware of it being worthless without Senate ratification. US courts will not enforce a non ratified treaty… not yet.
I read it, but the unratified Vienna treaty on treaties does not supersede the treaty clause of the US constitution and no Supreme Court has gaps that so far.
“We are now operating according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”
Inaccurate. If that was the case we would have not submitted any more treaties to the Senate since that time, but we have. Presidents enter into agreements, but they do not carry force of law in the USA unless they otherwise completely follow the constitution. And such agreements can be ended at will by the next president. They made all your arguments about the Paris climate treaty and Trump ended it just the same.
I’m sure someone someday will change that in our Supreme Court, but we aren’t there yet.
The government has been taking advantage of it since the 1970s, particularly with Section 1531 of the ESA. NO ONE has challenged that successfully, and one would think that if it were a likely avenue it would have been tested by now. I think you know that I wish I could agree with you, but suggest that that extra comma in the Supremacy Clause may be more problematic than the debators at the Virginia Ratifying Convention realized.
I think the Constitution needs a clarifying amendment there, and that the manner of ratification needs to be amended to 3/4 of the full Senate.
I've pinged Levin on both items more than once and he's never taken it up. Makes me think it's a really sticky issue.
(From the article):" The latest draft of the Pandemic Treaty proposed by WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body is an admission of failure
so significant that they are suggesting nations sign an incomplete document."
“They know that they cannot show us the details of what they really want to do.
So, they are proposing an incomplete, watered-down agreement in the hopes that they will be able to make decisions in the future;
in the hopes that we won’t be paying attention,” James Roguski has concluded."
"Please note: WHO’s Pandemic Treaty has also been referred to as the Pandemic Accord, Pandemic Agreement and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).
In this article, we refer to it as the Pandemic Agreement."
"The ninth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (“INB”) started on 18 March and ended on 28 March.
“WHO Member States agreed to resume negotiations aimed at finalising a pandemic agreement during 29 April to 10 May”
at the resumption of INB9, a statement released by the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) said."
(My Comment): The WHO already facilitated and delayed international response to the covid-19 virus when it was first discovered
and has done little to nothing to discover and hold responsible the source of the virus.
As another cliche: "Fool me once shame on You. Fool me twice shame on me !"
Given the recent history of the United Nations funding and supporting NGO's who are funding illegal immigrants at the southern border, their reputation is well earned.
What *specifically* in Section 1531 are you referring to?
What *specifically* in Section 1531 are you referring to?
><
You seem to be defending the Globalist plans.
Subsection (a) at the link I provided you, listing the "authority" for the Act.
It sure as hell isn't Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
Good grief. How ignorant. I asked a question for what *specifically* the original poster was referring to in Section 1531.
Re: 15 - okay, thanks.
Agreed about mentioning other countries and world regions.
Re: Art 1 Section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Re: the General Welfare Clause, that ship set sail long ago as to its expansiveness. So things like ESA, etc will be unlikely to be done away with.
I read through this entire article and did not see anything that was obviously nefarious or that we are supposed to assume is nefarious. It looks like a basic legal document, attempting to set forth terms and definitions.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating a framework for international cooperation on pandemic preparedness and response. In fact, there are international treaties governing how different countries cooperate on a number of issues. Unless you are trying to spread misinformation that cooperating in order to attempt to prevent the emergence of pandemics and deaths of millions of people is somehow nefarious, this is a big nothingburger.
Wow, you are sick!
I don’t think so. I feel perfectly fine, in fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.