WHO Strikes Out with Proposed “Pandemic Treaty”
The collapse of the negotiations represents one small win for man, one large win for mankind and its freedoms.
We have been following the developments related to the pandemic treaty the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed.
Legal Insurrection joined others in sounding the alarms in 2022 when it became clear that the international organization was going to use the COVID-19 pandemic response model for more power grabbing and wealth redistribution.
The World Health Organization gets to define what a pandemic is, when a pandemic is in progress and how long a pandemic lasts. Then you read the fine print and you realize the W.H.O will have total authority over emergency operations in the United States if there’s ever a “public health emergency.” Huh?
What qualifies exactly as a public health emergency? Well, they don’t define that, but they get to. They get to decide what a public health emergency is, and then they have total authority. You can see where this is going. Now, the Biden administration has made certain that unelected bureaucrats, the W.H.O., have total authority to declare and define public health emergencies. They did it explicitly.
The White House eliminated a provision that would have required the World Health Organization to “consult with an attempt to obtain verification from the state party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring in.”
I have been following WHO’s efforts to gin up fear related to the bird flu ahead of a conference that would have finalized the treaty. Additionally, we noted that Republican senators wrote a letter rejecting the treaty.
Citizens, their representatives, and many national leaders are balking at agreeing to any treaty the “subject matter experts” of WHO were concocting. So, two years of negotiations ended last week without a final draft of the global agreement.
On Friday, Roland Driece, co-chair of WHO’s negotiating board for the agreement, acknowledged that countries were unable to come up with a draft. WHO had hoped a final draft treaty could be agreed on at its yearly meeting of health ministers starting Monday in Geneva.
“We are not where we hoped we would be when we started this process,” he said, adding that finalizing an international agreement on how to respond to a pandemic was critical “for the sake of humanity.”
Driece said the World Health Assembly next week would take up lessons from its work and plot the way forward, urging participants to make “the right decisions to take this process forward” to one day reach a pandemic agreement “because we need it.”
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization, indicates the negotiations will continue.
“The world still needs a pandemic treaty. Many of the challenges that caused the serious impact during COVID-19 still exist,” said Tedros. “So let’s continue to try everything.”
Experts in global health expect that WHO will grant another six to 12 months for negotiators to complete their work – and resolve the sticking points.
“It was a huge disappointment,” says Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, after learning about the delay. “But there is a strong appetite to carry on.”
This represents one small win for man, one significant win for mankind and its freedoms.
MASSIVE NEWS
The WHO pandemic treaty has FAILED!
Huge development as countries fail to reach a deal on the new pandemic accord.
This is a tremendous victory for freedom. The globalist agenda of unifying the world under the WHO has failed – For now.
After several years of… pic.twitter.com/Zsi6QVvwEB
— PeterSweden (@PeterSweden7) May 25, 2024
What was the reason WHO was in such a rush to close the deal? The ink had to dry before elections in the United States and multiple European countries.
“Donald Trump is in the room,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the W.H.O. Center on Global Health Law, who has helped to draft and negotiate the treaty.
Interestingly, the presences of former President Donald Trump looms large in these treaty negotiations.
“If Trump is elected, he will likely torpedo the negotiations and even withdraw from W.H.O.,” Mr. Gostin said.
During his tenure as president, Mr. Trump severed ties with the W.H.O., and he has recently signaled that, if re-elected, he might shutter the White House pandemic preparedness office.
Given the policies coming out of international bodies lately, I believe Trump’s position on WHO would be a YUGE plus for his campaign. I also suspect that the European election results will result in decidedly less globalism in regional policy-making.
2025 may be a banner year for health and prosperity around the world.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Like Marxist scum everywhere, they’ll keep coming back again, and again, and again until they achieve their nefarious goals.
Will anything less than permanent withdrawal of US support from the WHO be enough to stop them?
Will even that stop them? Or will it make them easier to pass something that some Democrat president can sign onto later?
The Senate has to ratify any treaty before it is the law if the land. Now you know why we need good Senators who will not bargain away our sovereignty to some internationalist scalawags!
I think pedo joe was saying it wasn’t a treaty. Don’t recall his bullschiff as to what he called it, but he wasn’t going to let the senate vote on it if he could avoid it.
Just like the “nuclear agreement” with Iran. Not a treaty, just an “agreement” that
Bath House Barry’s State Department negotiated to give Iran whatever they wanted (primarily the ability to eliminate the Jews from the Middle East with nuclear destruction resulting in the emergence of the 12th Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, from the well).
Don’t worry – they are leftists, and defeat will not stop these turds from trying again… and again… and again….
They won’t ever give up.
Technocrats gonna technocrat.
My tinfoil hat notes the convenience of failing at laws, through inconvenient people’s inconvenient representatives, creating a “need” to address the same “critical needs” with a harder-to-revoke treaty.
Why no WHO pandemic treaty under the UN? Look at what the EU went and got by treaty (of Lisbon) that they couldn’t get by their regular order under their founding agreement — also a treaty.
Technocrats gonna technocrat.
And the people gonna be technocratted upon are *so* not amused they got their co-opted “representatives” to decline. That doesn’t happen much.
“So, two years of negotiations ended last week without a final draft of the global agreement.”
Not getting a *draft* treaty done in two years is not the endorsement of their competence that might get their treaty approved. Just sayin.
“On Friday, Roland Driece, co-chair of WHO’s negotiating board for the agreement, acknowledged that countries were unable to come up with a draft.”
Pesky countries, still wanting a say in what they “agree” to. Inconvenient for that technocrat world government.
Those pesky countries whose representatives do the bidding of those who put them in power, and not the bidding of some international organization WHO have no say I. What other countries must do.
If only the United States had representation that looked after their constituents, and not the so called elite class who line their pockets.
“So, two years of negotiations ended last week without a final draft of the global agreement.”
I can’t decide which is the greater incompetence: not getting an agreement done in two years, or not knowing til the clock runs out that it was not gonna work.
I suppose that insisting that people agree to stuff they don’t agree with is one way to never get agreement, BUT, that shouldn’t take two years, and really, shouldn’t there be some more subtle way to fail? These people are the experts, after all.
WHO had hoped a final draft treaty could be agreed on at its yearly meeting of health ministers starting Monday in Geneva.
“We are not where we hoped we would be when we started this process,” he said, adding that finalizing an international agreement on how to respond to a pandemic was critical “for the sake of humanity.”
Driece said the World Health Assembly next week would take up lessons from its work and plot the way forward, urging participants to make “the right decisions to take this process forward” to one day reach a pandemic agreement “because we need it.”
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization, indicates the negotiations will continue.
“The world still needs a pandemic treaty. Many of the challenges that caused the serious impact during COVID-19 still exist,” said Tedros. “So let’s continue to try everything.”
Experts in global health expect that WHO will grant another six to 12 months for negotiators to complete their work – and resolve the sticking points.
“It was a huge disappointment,” says Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, after learning about the delay. “But there is a strong appetite to carry on.”
This represents one small win for man, one significant win for mankind and its freedoms.
MASSIVE NEWS
The WHO pandemic treaty has FAILED!
Huge development as countries fail to reach a deal on the new pandemic accord.
This is a tremendous victory for freedom. The globalist agenda of unifying the world under the WHO has failed – For now.
After several years of… pic.twitter.com/Zsi6QVvwEB
— PeterSweden (@PeterSweden7) May 25, 2024
What was the reason WHO was in such a rush to close the deal? The ink had to dry before elections in the United States and multiple European countries.
“Donald Trump is in the room,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the W.H.O. Center on Global Health Law, who has helped to draft and negotiate the treaty.
Interestingly, the presences of former President Donald Trump looms large in these treaty negotiations.
“If Trump is elected, he will likely torpedo the negotiations and even withdraw from W.H.O.,” Mr. Gostin said.
During his tenure as president, Mr. Trump severed ties with the W.H.O., and he has recently signaled that, if re-elected, he might shutter the White House pandemic preparedness office.
Given the policies coming out of international bodies lately, I believe Trump’s position on WHO would be a YUGE plus for his campaign. I also suspect that the European election results will result in decidedly less globalism in regional policy-making.
2025 may be a banner year for health and prosperity around the world.
Sorry about that edit bobble.
Weird situation. Literally every sentence embeds presumption, misdirection, self-promotion and grift.
“WHO had hoped a final draft treaty could be agreed on at its yearly meeting of health ministers starting Monday in Geneva.”
“Yearly meeting of health ministers…” sounds like a coordination and best practices kind of thing. Seems like national policy and international agreement originate somewhere else, like, er, national governments.
Interesting how collections of technocrat servants so readily become self-appointed masters. Is it the gig, the situation, or the kind of people attracted to that kind of gig. “Embrace the healing power of “and””, I suppose.
I don’t suppose. Power will corrupt, and people are inherently corruptible.
“…finalizing an international agreement on how to respond to a pandemic was critical “for the sake of humanity.””
Well, international cooperation seemed pretty good — somebody want to point out problems on this one caused by international non-cooperation that would be addressed by WHO overlord-dom? I mean, “problems” aside from countries occasionally acting like, you know, sovereign countries and making their own calls on how to respond internally.
WHO treaty authoritah w0uld give the WHO more authoritah. So, aside from WHO having more authoritah, why would that be good?.
Not good for sovereign nations, that’s for sure.
“Driece said the World Health Assembly next week would take up lessons from its work and plot the way forward…”
Why do they need to “plot the way forward?” On point lessons might be what people want from WHO & Friends, vs how to activist people into doing what you’ve already decided. Just sayin.
Sometimes people notice when service & coordination organizations turn into advocacy groups. No wonder they do: it — advocacy — beats doing the work. Doesn’t mean that’s what the people paying for the
junketscoordination conferences want.Leftists are always in it for the long haul. They understand incrementalism, where they may move one step forward, three steps back, followed by many small steps forward.
Eventually they get what they want, although it could take decades.
Who would have thought that Ivy League colleges would have been advocating for the murder of Jews in 2024, less than 80 years after “NEVER AGAIN?”
Incrementalism.
Sadly enough, you are correct.
The issue is never the problem at hand, it’s always about the Revolution. They’ll gin up some new fancy flavors for their totalitarian cake.
In my view, there is a legitimate role to be played by an organization such as WHO during a pandemic. WHO could act as a reliable clearinghouse for technical information and a resource for public health policies best practices, But to delegate to some self styled technical bureaucracy policy authority over various and disparate countries is simply wrong and would inevitably result in policies that are in the interest of the experts. The responsibility for making public health policy should rest in the hands of the politicians based o consultations with the technologists and the public for the public good.. President Eisenhower warned in his 1960 farewell speech, “”Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”” Sage advice.
Your first three sentences recapitulate the origin story of the UN to a T. They were conceived as a society for global diplomacy and negotiation… not a global government.
Exactly so. Yet, somehow “coordination” becomes “coercion” every time.
“…urging participants to make “the right decisions to take this process forward” to one day reach a pandemic agreement “because we need it.””
Yeah, and they already spent two years not getting an agreement. Double-plus ungood, that, if “we need it.” So add “poor sense of urgency” and “not so competent” to whatever other concerns float around about our international health admini-drones.
Also, not clear on the game. To paraphrase an improbably successful Prime Minister in the anglosphere:
To get a “pandemic agreement” to put WHO? you, in charge:
First you win the argument (that you are correct, competent, and well-intentioned)
Then you win the vote (to put you in charge if there’s a problem.)
They forgot that their good opinion of themselves might not be universal.
Not anywhere near universal. Not even minimal!
“The world still needs a pandemic treaty. Many of the challenges that caused the serious impact during COVID-19 still exist,”
Palmed card there. Why would a treaty address those “challenges?” Why would anything done by authoritah address “the serious impact?” And what of the impact of the responses themselves?
“So let’s continue to try everything.”
Except, apparently, anything not a treaty giving the WHO massive authoritah in an emergency they declare themselves.
“Experts in global health expect that WHO will grant another six to 12 months for negotiators to complete their work – and resolve the sticking points.”
Well, at least they are in the habit of granting themselves prerogatives. So, they’d have practice at that part of the treaty protocols.
“It was a huge disappointment,” says Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, after learning about the delay. “But there is a strong appetite to carry on.”
Except, you know, among the people who need to agree to the treaty.
“What was the reason WHO was in such a rush to close the deal? The ink had to dry before elections in the United States and multiple European countries.”
Well, yeah. They kind a like the “one person, one vote, one time when they vote right.”
Democrats!
“Interestingly, the presences of former President Donald Trump looms large in these treaty negotiations.
“If Trump is elected, he will likely torpedo the negotiations and even withdraw from W.H.O.,” Mr. Gostin said.
So, the problem would be if an elected president doesn’t agree with the agenda you’ve already decided on.
Government of the people, by, well, you, apparently, for … who? Oh, right WHO.
Interesting how convincing those masses that what you want to do is to their advantage never comes up as the plan.
“2025 may be a banner year for health and prosperity around the world.”
Now, there’s a treaty pitch: do this for more health and prosperity, for who, measured how, by when, by doing what.
Jeebus H Presumptive Palmed Cards in the Presentation, people lobbying to give themselves more authoritah are always suspect. I’m reminded of a line from Mary McCarthy (tho often mis-attributed to Dorothy Parker):
“… every word she writes is a lie, including “and” and “the.””
Ref here: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/09/18/every-word/
These guys never address:
— Why would international “coordination” help? (What coordination? Done how? BTW, mandates aren’t so coordinate-y, so maybe use a different word.)
— Why does that need a treaty? (Because in some ways treaties supersede national sovereignty, kinda, depends, it’s complicated.)
— Why them? (What did they do that was so competent we need more of it? Says who? Why can’t somebody else do it? Do it better? Says who?)
— Why should we believe them? People lobbying to give themselves more authoritah are always suspect.
Unwinding crap like that takes way more work than spewing it, per Brandolini’s law:
“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”
Ref here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
BS is easy, intelligent thought is hard.
if you didnt see the picutr and headline in manyyyy of the msm publications it went like this:
a picture of fjb drjill vp hencackler and her boytoy
ALLLL IN COVID MASKS!!!
with the headline reading:
DNC TO NOMINATE BIDEN VIA VIRTUAL METHOD
SO THEY ARE NOW SETTING UP AMERICA FOR THE NEW MAIL-IN PANDEMIC VOTING SCHEME
“DNC TO NOMINATE BIDEN VIA VIRTUAL METHOD”
It’s the only way to fake a speech out of an NPC.
Good news, at least for the moment.
The only 6-foot, medical-separation rule I will obey in future is for halitosis.
And that’s not a cure. It helps me out though.
THE POTUS AND CONGRESS and MOST COURTS
are merely
UNDERLINGS to the UN
Well, that old bat Ginsburg basically thought that US law should follow European precedent, so no surprise there.
Still celebrating.
UN is basically communist central. I don’t trust the politicians on either side not to push this at some future point.
None of them really want to run for their seat. They want it to be theirs for their lifetime. Then they want to pass it on to their kids.
Has everyone forgotten that WHO helped the Chinese spread the lie that COVID wasn’t contagious in late 2019 and January 2020? The Chinese were making sure that the rest of the world would be affected as badly as they were.