Arguably, there is ample evidence to prove that calls for a pandemic response were primarily political and never necessary. That really is the point. In other words, should Americans be held hostage to policies that are mainly political and may have little to do with safety and national security?
In the case of the U.S., the best way to head them off at the pass, according to the Sovereignty Coalition, is to delay the adoption of the treaty and put it in front of Congress to give its advice and consent. In theory, our Constitution protects our sovereignty; however, those protections didn't seem to pan out well in 2020 and 2021. There is good reason to distrust those, like Sen. Dick Durbin, who reassure Americans the treaty is non-binding, and that we should instead participate in WHO's accord and continue to fund the organization.
Given the players involved in these negotiations, being skeptical of their motivations is prudent. President Biden, Big Pharma, the European Union, the WEF, and China all have their hands in this accord. A lack of confidence in their wish to honor individual liberties or sovereignty is understandable. Much of the public policy during COVID-19 was political.
When it comes to public policy, language and agendas become important. Language manipulation is often employed to provide a framework that appears to be binding. Many policies in 2020 and 2021 were not legally binding, but Americans complied with them anyway because they were fearful or they thought they had to comply. In the case of the WHO Treaty, however, many say it will be legally binding.
One of the more telling issues concerning the negotiation process for these treaties is how they have "gone to considerable lengths to hide negotiated text of the proposed regulations," according to reporting from the Sovereignty Coalition. In addition, the negotiation process has also been frustrating and maybe even purposely confusing, which is why so many Americans may not even know what is coming down the pike. Much of the process feels as though it is orchestrated to mislead and obscure consequential policies that will, in the future, drop into place the moment Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus ordains there is a threat on the horizon.
One needs to look at how the WHO seems to be bizarrely obsessed with global vaccination. After all, its global vaccination goals have been thwarted because the COVID-19 vaccines are not only an abject failure but, in many cases, harmful or deadly. The coordinated campaign to inject every arm with COVID-19 vaccines has produced the unintended effect of causing people worldwide to have unprecedented distrust in all vaccines, even ones that may indeed be warranted in certain geographic areas or populations.
The WHO now has what it calls "The Big Catch-up." It is WHO's "essential immunization recovery plan" now in place because of "the backsliding of immunization coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic." Kate O'Brien, Director of the Department of Immunization, Vaccines, and Biologicals at the WHO, acknowledged the "setbacks" during a "pivotal meeting" in March. O'Brien addressed the need for The Big Catch-up by "stressing the necessity of political commitment, community involvement, and healthcare workforce capacity building. Monitoring the initiative's progress through robust data collection and analysis was deemed essential for informing future actions and ensuring accountability. Recognizing the challenges in data collection and surveillance systems, SAGE emphasized the need for long-term investments in strengthening immunization data capacity and infrastructure."
In a nutshell, the WHO is all in for whatever it takes to promote disease-related pharmaceutical interventions, including surveillance, digital health passports, tracing, the ability to impose lockdowns, and mandating vaccines, even experimental ones like the mRNA COVID-19 shots.
Why Should We Pay Attention To The WHO ACCORD?
According to a piece published on Meryl Nass' substack by Mat Staver, Americans have every reason to believe our sovereignty is in peril with the implementation of this accord. Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel, answers 3 "lies" commonly told about the prospective accord. Number One is the issue of retaining national sovereignty. He believes the draft treaty and its proposed amendments, which will soon be voted on, indicate a nation's sovereignty will be affected. While it is true, explains Staver, that "individual nations can make more rules or laws that are more restrictive," nations that have fewer or weaker restrictions than those imposed by WHO will be "forced to abide by WHO's restrictions."Number Two refers to whether the treaty is legally binding. Staver asserts that the draft treaty and proposed amendments indicate that the WHO's documents "will be legally binding," giving the organization "enormous power that will be enforced as legally binding under international law." Staver states that "globalists until now have tried to hide behind the word 'agreement' to avoid the word treaty." He cites Obama's signing of the Paris Agreement or Accord as his example—it is "actually a treaty and is listed as such on the U.N. website, with the U.S. as a signatory even though the Senate did not vote on it." Durbin admits in his letter the WHO Accord is a "draft treaty." Treaties are, in fact, legally binding written contracts in international law.
Finally, Number Three, for those who assert the WHO documents do not mention "lockdowns, closures, or specific surveillance systems," nothing could be further from the truth. The documents contain language related to the imposition of travel restrictions, enforcement of travel through digital passports, the ability to mandate vaccines and medical treatments, and "when drugs will be released to the public, and how vaccines and drugs will be approved."
David Bell and Thi Thuy Van Dinh, authors of a Dec. 2023 Brownstone Institute article, conclude "a rational examination of the texts" shows the proposed treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) will impact the sovereignty of nations who participate and "contradict multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)" They write:
The IHR are a set of recommendations under a treaty process that has force under international law. They seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to coordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency, such as pandemic, occurs. Most are non-binding, and these contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can recommend, including (Article 18)."
The Brownstone authors also argue the treaty will "dismantle UDHR." They explain the proposed amendments will "change the recommendations of the current document to requirements through three mechanisms. The term non-binding (in Article 1 of UDHR) will be removed, and the inserted will be the phrase stating Member States will follow WHO's recommendations and "recognize WHO, not as an organization under the control of countries, but as the 'coordinating authority, (New Article 13A)."
The WHO Accord will rely on funding from member countries to implement its strategies and "to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies." Resources will be shared among the member countries: manufacturing facilities, medical and pandemic-related products, distribution of medical treatments, etc. Therefore, American taxpayers will kick in to fund the operation, and the WHO will decide where the products and funds go with an eye on "equity," of course. According to WHO's One Health initiative, almost anything can be declared an emergency, including climate change. Regardless of location or origin, those health threats will be ours to fund and respond to, should the U.S. agree to participate.
"Claims of reduced sovereignty," according to the Brownstone Institute, "as misinformation or disinformation" should not be ignored. Remarkably, should the U.S. join the WHO Accord, it would also agree to limit any effort to vocalize opposition to WHO's measures or "claims regarding an emergency." On paper, Article 18 of the IHR guarantees the right to beliefs and religion. However, in the real world, the WHO can define and decide what is or is not misinformation or disinformation. We certainly continue to see this kind of authoritarian grip on information from our government four years out from the "pandemic" of 2020.
The Sovereignty Coalition's "Not Now" campaign urges Americans to "engage in a national debate" before binding to a global governance treaty that could significantly affect how we respond to health emergencies. The first step is to tell President Biden "NO" and ask Congress to debate the details of the draft accord and its proposed amendments. When all else fails, matters like these are best handled at the local level. Alabama just introduced a bill that would prevent WHO, the U.N., and the WEF from having jurisdiction in the state—however, nations who wish to exit WHO may experience some roadblocks. There is no procedure for exiting the WHO specified in the WHO's Constitution.
