Last week, Mark Fletcher, Member of Parliament for Bolsover, responded to a constituent’s email:
“Then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, alongside other world leaders, called for the creation of a pandemic treaty … the current target date for agreeing on the text of the new instrument is May 2024, at the World Health Assembly (WHA) … Over the next year, the UK will continue to work towards building a consensus on how the global community can better prevent, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics,” he wrote.
Fletcher’s reply implies that it is not only a fait accompli but that the UK is very much one of the significant, if not the major, driving forces behind the Treaty.
Many things can be said about Fletcher’s response, not least of all his questionable statement: “A pandemic treaty [ ] would help … prevent a global pandemic, if this were to happen again.” However, in this article, we want to draw your attention, again, to the fact that the Pandemic Treaty is not the only route WHO is pursuing in its quest to impose a global health dictatorship. And, at this time, the Pandemic Treaty is the less urgent of the evils.
We have included a copy of Fletcher’s response at the end of this article.
Two weeks ago, in response to a petition, a debate was held in Westminster Hall on the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) proposed Pandemic Treaty. As the petition and the parliamentary debate had done, many are focusing on the ratification of the ‘Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response Accord’, the so-called “Pandemic Treaty.” However, there are two routes through which WHO is attempting to impose a global health dictatorship. One is the Pandemic Treaty and the other is the amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”).
The two proposals aim to expand an international bureaucracy for health emergencies with an additional annual budget estimated by the World Bank at three times WHO’s current budget. This program is heavily backed by WHO’s major individual and corporate sponsors – entities that will directly benefit through the commodity-centred responses that are proposed.
Why is WHO following two routes and not just one? Because if power and authority over much of the world cannot be gained through amendments to the IHR then WHO will rely on its Pandemic Treaty.
The proposed amendments to the IHR are a completely different set of proposals to the Pandemic Treaty that will not need to be signed into being by any government. For the amendments to be adopted all that is required is a simple majority of the World Health Assembly (“WHA”). WHA can adopt regulations that are legally binding on WHO Member States unless they expressly reject them or “opt out.” The participation of national legislatures or other governmental bodies is not necessary. The Pandemic Treaty, on the other hand, will require a two-thirds majority of the Member States present and voting in the Assembly for it to be adopted.
It is the proposed amendments to the IHR, wholly or in part, that could be adopted at the next WHA meeting in May 2023. Failing that, the IHR amendments could be adopted at the subsequent WHA meeting in May 2024; when the text of the Pandemic Treaty is scheduled to be agreed by Member States.
After reading the draft amendments to the IHR it becomes obvious that the proposed new powers sought by WHO, and the pandemic preparedness industry being built around it, are not hidden. The only subterfuge is the farcical approach of corporate media and politicians in many nations who seem to pretend that the proposals do not exist.
Read More: Member of Parliament confirms the UK will sign up to WHO’s Pandemic Treaty