The WHO’s Pandemic Treaty: The finish of National Sovereignty and Freedom
The proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty is certainly nothing less than an exercise within medical totalitarianism
Even as much of the world continues to move past the covid-19 pandemic, the World Wellness Organization (WHO) is already looking ahead and preparing for the particular emergence of “ other pandemics and other major health emergencies . ”
To ensure that the world is adequately prepared for future pandemics, “ the World Health Assembly” held a unique session , on Dec 1, 2021, entitled The World Together .
The World Health Assembly is “ the decision-making body of WHO” and “ is attended by delegations from all WHO Member States and focuses on a specific health agenda prepared by the Executive Plank. ” In this special session, which was actually only “ the second-ever since WHO’s founding in 1948, ” participants agreed to “ set up and negotiate a conference, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution from the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, readiness and response. ” This would come to be known as the Pandemic Treaty, which was the main focus of discussions at the Seventy-Fifth World Wellness Assembly , which happened in Geneva during Might 22– 28, 2022.
According to Dr . Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , the first director-general from the WHO and who is not really actually a medical doctor, this particular treaty represents an “ chance to strengthen the global health structures to protect and promote the well-being of all people. ” If passed, the Pandemic Treaty will allow the WHICH to make radical changes towards the healthcare systems of its associate countries starting in 2024 .
In particular, this agreement will certainly grant the WHO the power to declare a pandemic, based on its own vaguely described criteria, in any of its 194 member countries at any point in the future. It will also permit the WHO to unilaterally determine what measures will be imposed according to these future declared pandemics, including lockdown policies, obligatory masking, social distancing, plus coercing the population into undergoing medical treatments and vaccinations.
Contrary to popular opinion, the WHO is no independent, unbiased, and ethical organization that aims to own common good. In reality, its goals and agendas are usually set by its contributor, including some of the world’s richest countries and most influential philanthropists. For decades, “ philanthropists plus their foundations have [gained] increasing influence ” when it comes to shaping the global health agenda by “ placing people within international organisations, and attaining privileged access to scientific, company and political elites . ”
For example , as Jens Martens plus Karolin Seitz explain in Philanthropic Energy and Development: Who Shapes the Agenda? , “ the Gates Foundation and earlier the particular Rockefeller Foundation, have been shaping global health policies not only through their direct grant-making but also through the provision of matching funds, the support of selected research programs, the creation of global health partnerships with Foundation’s staff in their decision-making body, and by direct advocacy on the highest political level. ” In fact , back in 2006, The Guardian reported that “ the particular Gates foundation is now the second largest donor to the World Health Organisation after the ALL OF US, as well as one of the world’s biggest single investors in biotechnology for farming and pharmaceuticals. ” Unfortunately, when philanthropists and their foundations move forward their own interests, they do so at the expense of the typical interests of society. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this dynamic will be any different in the case of the Pandemic Treaty.
The Pandemic Treaty has the potential to be extremely detrimental to the future associated with humanity, because it will allow the particular WHO’s most powerful contributors to shape universal pandemic procedures instead of recognizing the importance of establishing specific policies and techniques based on the social, economic, plus physical realities and requirements of each individual country. The particular treaty will eliminate the national will and sovereignty associated with member countries, as it will certainly dictate their health plans based on abstraction, as opposed to taking into consideration the realities that prevail within each place.
Even if the Pandemic Treaty genuinely aimed to achieve purely rspectable humanitarian outcomes, it still has to be opposed on the basis of liberal thought, which maintains the individual alone must possess absolute responsibility for his own well-being, assuming that he is associated with mature age and of sound mind. That is to say, the individual may be the only one permitted to make decisions that affect his body, his life, and his long term, absent the coercive strength of any external power.
However , the particular Pandemic Treaty will not permit individuals to rely on their own physical, spiritual, and intellectual faculties in order to achieve their own wellbeing. Instead, it will impose remedies and vaccination on individuals against their own will, thereby violating bodily freedom on a global scale. History is a testament to the fact that violating physical freedom leads to slavery and retrogression in society.
The Pandemic Treaty will also give the WHO the particular authority to issue requires within the private spheres of individuals and to exercise control over their social and public lives, the institutions of their society, and their governments, all in the name of public health. In doing so, it will reduce civil liberties, economic freedom, positive freedom (freedom to), and negative freedom (freedom from). All these forms of freedom are intended to be constructive factors in society that give rise to the achievement of social progress. Once these freedoms are stifled, the fundamentals of progress and development also vanish.
Through the Pandemic Treaty, the WHO will impose its own worth judgment on the world populace, thereby ignoring the fact that beliefs differ significantly between individuals, cultures, traditions, and nations. In other words, it will disregard the variety of people when it comes to making decisions about their own bodies based on their own religious beliefs, commitments, views, commitments, and cultural and traditional values. It will also violate inclusiveness, because the imposition of a single value judgment; namely, the “ One Wellness ” approach, implies that the WHO does not treat other value judgments, nor cultural and traditional procedures, fairly and equally.
The Pandemic Treaty ignores the fact that, as Joseph Schumpeter noted, there is no “ unambiguous standpoint with regard to the social whole, on general welfare and so forth; nor would such a unitary perspective exist if all people and groups wished to behave and evaluate on this foundation, since the general good and the social ideal appears in different ways to each and every one. ” 1
When it comes to medicine, Schumpeter continues, even though people “ adequately recognize what good health is definitely and generally seek to obtain such a condition, ” “ it cannot be demonstrated to anyone that health should be positively valued, ” since health cannot “ be unambiguously defined. ” 2 Actually, people pursue “ good health with very different levels of dedication, valuing this good in relation to others very differently; neither that their aims are certainly not all exactly the same— the health regimes followed by the boxer and the singer are very obviously not identical. ” 3 Even surgeons trained in the same area would not necessarily agree on the same treatment and operation.
For example , writes Schumpeter, “ faced with the option of removing an ulcer, or avoiding the damage associated with medical intervention, two physicians can argue about whether the much more the other would achieve the desired recovery in the same way. ” 4 Furthermore, within a particular nation-state, “ between people of the same political, social, economic, and cultural interest and with the same perspective on the social entire world there can always be distinctions over what is worth seeking. ” 5 Accordingly, why would certainly any person or organization that purports to support liberal democratic values back the Pandemic Treaty?
The ones that support the Pandemic Treaty ignore the core principles associated with liberal thought and the concepts of democratic governance, because they do not, as Ludwig vonseiten Mises put it , “ see any reason they should not by means of push coerce other people to do what these people are not prepared to perform of their own accord. ” The treaty’s advocates believe that it really is acceptable to employ large-scale main planning to coerce people into doing “ the right thing” based on value judgments that are not theirs. It does not matter to them, continues Mises, that “ the apparatus of physical compulsion resorted to in such endeavors is that of the government’s police power or a good illegal “ picket” force whose violence the government tolerates…. What matters is the substitution of compulsion for non-reflex action. ”
Supporters of the Pandemic Treaty should remember the words associated with John Stuart Mill:
Neither one person, nor any number of persons, can be warranted in saying to another human creature of ready years, that he shall not really do with his life just for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. He or she is the person most interested in his own well-being, the interest which every other person, except in cases associated with strong personal attachment, can have in it, is trifling, compared to that which he himself provides; the interest which society offers in him individually (except as to his conduct in order to others) is fractional, and altogether indirect: while, regarding his own feelings and conditions, the most ordinary man or woman offers means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else. 6
That is to say, the individual is in the very best position to be the final assess of action when it comes to his bodily autonomy, his personal sphere, and his freedom.