The W.H.O constitution and its new Pandemic Treaty
Astrid Stuckelberger speaks on the Germ warfare podcast.
Astrid Stuckeberger is an international health scientist with more than 25 years of experience. She worked for the WHO for many years and has a deep understanding of how the organisation operates along with the agencies ethos.
The W.H.O constitution and its new Pandemic Treaty
In February 1946 the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations established a Technical Preparatory Committee of Experts to prepare an agenda for the International Health Conference in New York, to be held from the 19th to the 22nd July 1946. The agenda included the preparation of a constitution for a World Health Organization, otherwise known as 'The Organisation'.
The Conference eventually approved the W.H.O Constitution on the 22nd of July and designated an Interim Commission to carry out essential public health activities until the new organisation was established in 1948.
To this day, the W.H.O is the only agency to have a Constitution. A constitution can be defined as: The basic principles and laws of a nation, state or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it. It is a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organisation. Special attention should be drawn to the phrasing that a constitution can determine the powers and duties of governments.
The W.H.O's Constitution was approved by the International Health Conference and ratified by 26 member states and has shown itself to be robust during the 54 years since it came into effect. Nowhere is its purpose more clearly implied than in its Constitutional Preamble. Here, it states the objective of the World Health Organisation, (Chapter 1, Article 1) 'The objective of the world health organisation shall be the attainment by all people's of the highest possible level of health'.
It also makes the claim that, 'health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.'
When an agencies purpose and existence is based on the attainment of objectives that include hugely broad statements such as 'attainment by all people's of the highest possible level of health' and 'the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health' we should ask ourselves the following questions: to what end and by what means are they willing to implement such objectives and what does the attainment of such look like? What are they willing to do in order to achieve such goals? What is the highest possible level of health for humans? What does that world look like?
In short, the answer is completely relative to the person or group writing the statement and is open to interpretation. Could the attempted implementation of such be catastrophic if the actor has mal-intent, is unsupervised or just plain misguided? For a real-time example, Shanghai has locked down 26 million people in their apartments and homes whilst Police bring food to the doors of the imprisoned citizens. The streets are patrolled with Covid-19 marshalls and animals are kidnapped, whilst all the time playing intimidating and fear invoking statements via speakers and drones. The reasoning behind this despotic lockdown? The recent deaths of 10 people who just so happened to test positive for covid-19. Are such measures justified in the attainment of the W.H.O's constitutional objectives? How far are the powers that be willing to go in order to achieve this 'highest possible level of health for all peoples'. The proverb, 'the road to Hell is paved with good intentions,' could be brought into focus here; if, that is, the Constitution was originally crafted with good intentions. One could also argue that the ethics behind the constitution could not only be used as a moral compass for guiding the health of the world's population but on the contrary could be used as a weapon against the masses if deemed necessary by those that matter.
The New Treaty
That being said, as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the WHO have put forward their answer to all future pandemics. On the 3rd of March 2022, the Council adopted a decision to authorise the opening of negotiations for an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Special attention should be drawn to the concept of the Council's response and how it could impact international citizens during future pandemics.
This treaty, or instrument of global control will hold its next meeting by the 1st of August 2022, to discuss progress on a working draft. It will then deliver a progress report to the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023, with the aim to adopt the instrument by 2024.
If brought into being, this treaty will be legally binding under international law; making it so that the WHO has ruling authority over all individual member states. Effectively, creating a centralised, global governing agency that can not only declare a global pandemic to the world, but can also dictate and co-ordinate the world’s response to such a pandemic.
The fact that China is the WHOs largest donor should make alarm bell's ring loud and clear as it's evident how they have enforced their reaction upon their people.
As written on the consilium.europa website: (Council of the European Union)
The COVID-19 pandemic is a global challenge. No single government or institution can address the threat of future pandemics alone.
A convention, agreement or other international instrument is legally binding under international law. An agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO) would enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics".
This all sounds fine and dandy, but in the spirit of trying to see things from other perspectives and in light of the totalitarian reactions to the pandemic worldwide, I believe, Dr Tess Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD sums it up best in her recent Substack post.
"I just got off a call with the WHO that's left me shaken, reaching for my affirmations and more determined than ever. As you may know, the WHO is proposing a global pandemic agreement that would give it undemocratic rights over every participating nation and its citizens. Put simply, in the event of a 'pandemic', the WHO's constitution would replace every country's constitution. Whether your country's elected government would agree or not, the WHO could impose lockdowns, testing regimes, enforce medical interventions, dictate all public health practice, and much more".
Conclusion
It seems then, that we are at a crossroads. We are faced with two paths ahead of us; one which leads to a centralised, global governing agency that rules over our health and therefore us and our lives, and which strives to make more people dependant on the state, and the other, which leads us to a kinder and fairer model of healthcare, based on the principles of doing no harm and freedom of choice. Personal perspectives aside, we would all agree on the latter path, not only for ourselves, but for our future generations. This future is entirely possible for us to carve out and would only take a few immediate actions; the first being, supporting the World Council for Health and its inspirational team that are committed to safeguarding everyone's human rights. Secondly, it's vital that we unite so that our voices are heard loud and clear and one of the best ways to accomplish this is through supporting a petition. The New World Alliance will be launching a petition with the aim of hindering the roll-out of the WHO's Pandemic Treaty.
