|
To view/share as a webpage, click here
The World Health Assembly Pandemic Treaty is still Alive!
A Voice for Choice Advocacy works closely with Stand for Health Freedom, and is their representative organization in California. Stand for Health Freedom has been following the World Health Organization (WHO) and keeping tabs on what they are up to with regard to their Pandemic Treaty and International Health Regulations (IHR).
Just months ago, the pandemic treaty failed to cross the finish line and was punted to the World Health Assembly (WHA). But the game wasn’t over. Globalists have gone into overtime – and into overdrive. The U.S. elections on Tuesday, November 5 will be pivitol in how the Pandemic Treaty affects the US. Former President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the WHO, and the Biden-Harris administration put the US right back in – and then championed the treaty and IHR amendments. The WHO wants a pandemic treaty agreement before then, to ensure it's passage.
Where do treaty negotiations stand now?
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) is set to meet again November 4-15, 2024. Their agenda includes “agreement on the proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement.” The blog Geneva Health Files (a boots-on-the-ground reporter who has been vigilant in the global health trenches) has sources saying there may be a special session of the World Health Assembly on December 18-20, 2024, to adopt the treaty. Under the rules of procedure, the meeting should be confirmed by November 12, 2024.
Treaty Refresh
When agreement wasn’t reached at the World Health Assembly in May 2024, it was decided to continue negotiations for a year until the next WHA, with an agreement sooner if possible. WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus welcomed the INB back to session after the May WHA by encouraging a fast agreement. He said they could reach consensus quickly if they “prioritize public health over other considerations.” That statement alone is an acknowledgement that the WHO is overstepping its bounds. What “other considerations” are appropriate for the WHO to oversee? There have been major disagreements under the umbrella of “equity” about financing, about manufacturing, and about sharing pathogens and research on pandemic products.
Also, it turns out the One Health approach is a fly in the ointment for many countries and is holding up the treaty. In short, there’s a tug of war over what the One Health bucket can hold and when that will be revealed. There’s now a push for countries to reach an agreement and to fill in the One Health details later by adding an annex. This is the blank check we predicted in May and it is expected the pandemic treaty will have lot of gaps.
Why is this happening? Why is there a push to get a legally binding agreement as quickly as possible and with so many holes? In short, it’s much harder to defeat something that’s already in place than it is to stop something from being adopted.
U.N. General Assembly 79 and the Pact for the Future
The World Health Organization is an arm of the United Nations, that has a backup plan when the treaty failed to pass in short order. Nestled into the plans for its annual Sustainable Development Goals meetings in New York in September was an ace in the hole called the Pact for the Future. Plans for this agreement have been in the works for about three years now and culminated as an agreement by “consensus” in September 2024, “despite a last-minute proposal for an amendment by some countries,” according to the U.N.
Some people are calling the Pact for the Future an end-run around the treaty. It covers more than health but is relevant to global health because it includes data sharing and surveillance provisions, censorship, and an “emergency platform” for “complex global shocks” that would include health-related declarations. The words “health” or “healthy” are mentioned 24 times in the 56-page document. The Global Digital Compact annex envisions a “digital future for all,” which is complimentary to the U.N.’s push for digital identities as a human right and its “legal identity agenda” (in its own words). They’ve also promised to accelerate financing of the Sustainable Development Goals, and 14 of the 17 goals relate to vaccination.
G20
Leaders from around the globe will meet in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on November 18-19,2024. The president of the host country has expressed hope that the leaders will agree on two watershed declarations: One Health and Climate, and local vaccines and medicines production.
What’s the significance of the G20 meeting? The meeting is not binding; it does not create law. But the leaders making these nonbinding handshake deals in this forum are also sitting across from each other in places like the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Will they come up with different policies there if they’ve got a “gentleman’s agreement” in the G20? It looks like there is a goal among the G20 to support a global governance through the United Nations. G20 leaders met in New York during the U.N. General Assembly, and they did so as a symbolic statement of support for the U.N. at the “heart of the multilateral system.”
Stand for Health Freedom wrote about the G20 in 2022, in Who’s calling the shots? when President Biden agreed to the Bali Declaration, which called for vaccine passports for international travel, against the will of the American people. Working toward global governance with the U.N. at the center is one of three pillars that currently guide the G20 as a whole. “The third pillar refers to reforming the global governance system in a way that can reposition the UN at the center of international decisions. They’re not even trying to hide it. Brazilian president Luiz Lula, head of the country hosting the G20 this year, declared the Pact for the Future is an “important step” in reestablishing trust that will put the U.N. “at the center of global governance.” According to Lula, this issue should be the focus of the New York meeting: “The international community is running around in circles, we have not been able to respond to global challenges because we exchanged multilateralism for unilateral actions or excluding arrangements. We have not been working together because multilateral institutions have lost credibility.”
Conclusion
These are just some of the highlights of globalist gatherings and plans related to a health-based surveillance state. Stand for Health Freedom will be watching the upcoming COP29, the 29th annual Conference of the Parties on climate policy for the U.N., which is slated to have its second-ever Health Day and launch a new coalition aimed at “embedding health into climate action on a permanent basis.”
SHF and AVFCA will continue to monitor the World Health Assembly and send a more updates as it progresses.
If you found this information helpful and appreciate the work A Voice for Choice Advocacy is doing, please support us by making a donation today.
Together we can make change happen!
C
Christina Hildebrand
President/Founder
A Voice for Choice Advocacy, Inc.
[email protected]
www.AVoiceForChoiceAdvocacy.org
|
