>>20866855 (pb)
may not be the best article on the topic, but it's the first I found
anons have posted sauced info here before about losing all national sovereignty in the event of a pandemic emergency.
Explainer: WHO’s Pandemic Agreement Threatens National Sovereignty, Free Speech, and Life
The Biden administration lobbied WHO to rename the Pandemic Treaty, so it can adopt the measure without the Senate’s ratification.
Americans have just days left to weigh in on the Biden administration’s plan to adopt a dangerous international accord that gives the World Health Organization (WHO) greater control over the way the U.S. responds to global health pandemics like COVID-19.
As this article will demonstrate, the WHO Pandemic Agreement:
Threatens national sovereignty;
Equates the health of humans with animals and plants;
Calls on nations to “combat” any “misinformation” that reduces “trust” in the government or its measures, such as social distancing;
Would empower private-sector forces such as social media companies to ramp up censorship of disfavored viewpoints;
Worries citizens will have “too much information” about pandemics;
Supports quotas and “gender diversity”; and
Aims to create equity-driven national health care systems around the globe.
To make matters worse, the Biden administration lobbied WHO to rename the Pandemic Treaty, so it can adopt the measure without the Senate’s ratification (which a treaty requires).
Background
The United States joined the World Health Organization in 1948. In March 2021, WHO members called for a new international pandemic “treaty” and began writing the first draft of the “legally binding treaty” on December 7, 2022. When the Biden administration signaled that it could not win Senate ratification as required by the Constitution, WHO transformed the “treaty” into the “WHO Pandemic Agreement” and released the negotiating text of the document last October. All 194 WHO member nations will vote on the agreement at the 77th World Health Assembly from May 27-June 1.
Eroding National Sovereignty
In its own words, the World Health Organization exists “to dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism.” The Pandemic Agreement naturally follows from its globalist mindset.
Under the WHO Pandemic Agreement, nations would retain their sovereignty only “in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the general principles of international law” (Article 3:2). The current “negotiating text” of the agreement is an improvement over the February 2023 “zero text,” which stated that nations have “the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health … provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries.” That would allow WHO to take action against any national policy which it unilaterally determined was not in the best interests of its people, even if its citizens overwhelmingly supported the policy. (Ironically, an Associated Press fact check quoted this sentence as proof the agreement posed no threat to national sovereignty.)
The WHO Pandemic Agreement places a number of restrictions and demands on U.S. sovereignty:
WHO takes a double tithe of U.S. vaccines, medicines, and equipment. “In the event of a pandemic,” the United States must give WHO “a minimum of 20%” of all “pandemic-related products,” such as vaccines or personal protective equipment, for global redistribution: “10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices” (Article 12:4b(ii)(a)).
Real decisions are made by nameless, unaccountable bureaucrats from around the globe. The agreement creates a “Conference of the Parties,” headed by a secretary, within one year of the treaty’s ratification. It will meet annually, or at any member’s request. “Only delegates representing Parties will participate in any of the decision-making of the Conference of the Parties” (Articles 21 and 24).
The agreement will create a global medical force at WHO’s disposal. Member nations must create and fund “a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce that is deployable” to nations at their request to “prevent the escalation of a small-scale spread to global proportions” (Article 7:3).
It gives The Hague jurisdiction over members’ disputes. If WHO is not able to solve disagreements between members, nations may agree to the “submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice.” They may also settle things through arbitration by the Conference of the Parties (Article 34:2).
1/3