Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is set to ratify its controversial “Pandemic Treaty” after a three-year battle with member states.

In a 16 April press release, the WHO celebrated the final draft and said the “global collaboration” would “strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.”

For the treaty to proceed further, WHO bureaucrats need the 78^th World Health Assembly’s (WHA) blessing.

Member states will meet between 19–27 May under this year’s ominous theme, One World for Health, to consider the treaty.

WHO boss, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, viewed by many as one of COVID-19’s arch-villains, cheered on the consensus.

“Making the World Safer”: Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus

He welcomed more pandemic powers, arguing that the treaty was about “making the world safer.”

The “agreement” was proof,” Dr Ghebreyesus said, “that multilateralism (globalism) was alive and well, especially in our “divided world.”

“Nations can still work together to find common ground and a shared response to shared threats,” he added.

As of March 2024, Article 24 of the treaty insisted these powers wouldn’t compromise national sovereignty, or give the WHO the power to impose vaccine mandates, or implement lockdowns.

Critical Concerns about Sovereignty and Human Rights

Despite these assurances, critics are widespread and rightly sceptical.

Centralisation and critical race theory rear their ugly heads.

Article 3.3-5 states the treaty is about creating “a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics.”

Equity, the WHO assert, is the “goal and outcome of the treaty.”

There are also no specific protections in the Pandemic’s principles for freedom of speech or informed consent.

Article 3.1 is a close as the WHO gets to any free speech provisions.

According to the WHO, its pandemic powers would “fully respect the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons.”

Of concern here is Article 18, which orders Pandemic Treaty members to discredit misinformation or disinformation.

Neither of these are specifically defined in the treaty.

The closest we get to a definition is anything considered to be the opposite of “credible and evidence-based information on pandemics and their causes, effects and drivers.”

Again, the language of the law is subjective and open to interpretation.

Not without coincidence, the treaty appears to make the WHO our single source of truth.

They get the power to decide what is credible and evidence-based.

As Article 18.2 states, treaty members are to ensure they put in place communication policies that “strengthen adherence to public health and social measures, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies.”

Article 18.4 tells member states to “prevent misinformation and disinformation.”

States are required to “develop best practices to increase the accuracy and reliability of crisis communications” in collaboration with the WHO (see Article 19).

Australia Set to Sign the Pandemic Treaty

Australia’s Health Minister Mark Butler is likely to sign the Pandemic Treaty in May, regardless of what Australians think.

This is because the Australian government is one of the Pandemic Treaty’s negotiating architects.

Fleur Davies, a career bureaucrat, joined the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) in July last year, taking up a Vice-Chair role.

Davies works for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Dfat).

She is also a member of The Global Fund (GF), a corporate health conglomerate funded by “key partner” Bill Gates to the tune of 3.62 billion US dollars.

“Not Health Sovereignty”: Aligned Council of Australia

Warning about the treaty, the Aligned Council of Australia (ACA) – a group made up of doctors and lawyers – said, “this is not health sovereignty. It’s international supervision.”

Under this agreement, Australia would be at the beck and call of the WHO.

In a simple three-point explanation about what this means for Australia, ACA said,

1. The WHO becomes the directing and coordinating authority.
2. Australia will have to create emergency health teams under WHO oversight.
3. The WHO directs international rules, while Australia foots the bill and loses control.

These points appear to have been confirmed by the Albanese government in an information sheet published in July 2024.

There, Labor indicated they would consider changing Australian laws to accommodate the One World Health “instrument.”

USA: Pandemic Treaty’s Biggest Obstacle

The United States remains the Pandemic Treaty’s biggest hurdle.

The Trump administration is wary, stating that the Pandemic Treaty may harm Americans.

In a 557-page Lab Leak report on the origins of COVID, President Trump said the WHO’s response was an “abject failure because it caved to the Chinese Communist Party.”

They “placed China’s political interests ahead of its international duties.”

The WHO, he implied, could not be trusted with this kind of power.

Not completely writing off the treaty, the US report stated, it “seems like a good idea in theory, on paper it falls short.”

“The draft does little to address any of the shortfalls revealed in COVID-19,” the Subcommittee looking into COVID-19 added.

Such as “the WHO’s refusal to hold the CCP accountable for violating the IHR.”

This, the report’s authors said, “is a major issue in protecting global public health.”

Adding questions regarding the Pandemic Treaty’s transparency and accountability, the report noted that promises about openness were negated by “multiple closed-door negotiations.”

Consequently, the United States is in no hurry to sign away American sovereignty by allowing the WHO to dictate domestic law.

___

Image via Adobe.