{"id":252483,"date":"2022-04-21T05:59:30","date_gmt":"2022-04-21T05:59:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=252483"},"modified":"2022-04-22T06:53:15","modified_gmt":"2022-04-22T06:53:15","slug":"pandemic-treaty-will-hand-who-keys-to-global-government","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=252483","title":{"rendered":"\u201cPandemic Treaty\u201d will hand WHO keys to global government"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kit Knightley \u2013 Off-Guardian April 19, 2022<\/strong><\/h1>\n

The first public hearings on the proposed \u201cPandemic Treaty\u201d are closed, with the next round due to start in mid-June.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve been trying to keep this issue on our front page, entirely because the mainstream is so keen to ignore it and keep churning out partisan war porn and propaganda.<\/p>\n

When we \u2013 and others \u2013 linked to the public submissions page, there was such a response that the WHO\u2019s website actually briefly crashed, or they pretended it crashed so people would stop sending them letters.<\/p>\n

Either way, it\u2019s a win. Hopefully one we can replicate in the summer.<\/p>\n

Until then, the signs are that what scant press coverage there is, mostly across the metaphorical back-pages of the internet, will be focused on making the treaty \u201cstrong enough\u201d <\/em>and ensuring national governments can be \u201cheld accountable\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n

An article<\/a> in the UK\u2019s Telegraph from April 12th headlines:<\/p>\n

Real risk a pandemic treaty could be \u2018too watered down\u2019 to stop new outbreaks<\/p>\n

It focuses on a report from the Panel for a Global Public Health Convention (GPHC), and quotes one of the report\u2019s authors Dame Barbara Stocking:<\/p>\n

Our biggest fear [\u2026] is it\u2019s too easy to think that accountability doesn\u2019t matter. To have a treaty that does not have compliance in it, well frankly then there\u2019s no point in having a treaty,\u201d<\/p>\n

The GPHC report goes on to say that the current International Health Regulations are \u201ctoo weak\u201d, and calls for the creation of a new \u201cindependent\u201d international body to \u201cassess government preparedness\u201d<\/em> and \u201cpublicly rebuke or praise countries, depending on their compliance with a set of agreed requirements\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Another article, published by the London School of Economics<\/a> and co-written by members of the German Alliance on Climate Change and Health (KLUG), also pushes the idea of \u201caccountability\u201d and \u201ccompliance\u201d pretty hard:<\/p>\n

For this treaty to have teeth, the organisation that governs it needs to have the power \u2013 either political or legal \u2013 to enforce compliance.<\/p>\n

It also echoes the UN report from May 2021<\/a> in calling for more powers for the WHO:<\/p>\n

In its current form, the WHO does not possess such powers [\u2026]To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered \u2014 financially, and politically.<\/p>\n

It recommends the involvement of \u201cnon-state actors\u201d such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation and International Labour Organisation in the negotiations, and suggests the treaty offer financial incentives for the early reporting of \u201chealth emergencies\u201d [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing<\/strong> and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources<\/strong> they require to effectively respond to the outbreak.<\/p>\n

It doesn\u2019t stop there, however. They also raise the question of countries being punished<\/em> for \u201cnon-compliance\u201d:<\/p>\n

[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.<\/strong><\/p>\n

To translate these suggestions from bureaucrat into English:<\/p>\n