The savants who manage global affairs never let a crisis go to waste. Our political and social betters have seized the opportunity provided by the Wuhan Coronavirus to expand their control, management, and surveillance of ordinary citizens, who are required to obey the new rules that were imposed in response to the “pandemic”.
The following article reports on a meeting in Davos where the issue of pandemics was discussed. The emphasis was on globalism — the global nature of the crisis, the necessity for trans-national co-ordination, shared information, and above all a binding international pandemic treaty.
Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this essay from the German portal Multipolar Magazin:
International Pandemic Treaty: A Global Automatism is Installed
A new contract should prescribe an internationally binding procedure in the event of health emergencies. At the same time, false information about pandemics and vaccinations should be combated. What is it about, and what is planned?
In her speech at the Davos Dialog of the World Economic Forum in January, Chancellor Angela Merkel stated:
“If we look at what the pandemic has done to us, my conclusion is that it can be seen as a confirmation of everything that has always made up the spirit of Davos in recent years. […] But I believe that the pandemic has also made it clear to us that a time for action is coming, in which we will act as concertedly as possible, as jointly as possible and as far as possible according to the same and jointly discussed principles, in which something is done in order to overcome as far as possible the weak points that we have all experienced.”
The extent to which the pandemic confirms the “spirit of Davos” remained cryptic. What the concerted action mentioned should look like can be seen in a prominent guest article published in the FAZ [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung] at the end of March. Under the heading “A great treaty to combat pandemics”, more than 20 heads of government are calling for globally binding measures to combat pandemics — including Merkel and the heads of state of Great Britain, France, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Greece, Ukraine, South Korea, Chile, South Africa and Indonesia; also the President of the European Council and the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Contract without prior processing of the measures
The initiative is being put forward before a transparent political and legal review of the previous pandemic measures can take place, for example:
- to influence the population through fear in order to justify encroachments on fundamental rights,
- on the basis of the declared epidemic emergency and on the role of the PCR tests as alleged evidence of infections,
- on the question of treatment recommendations (early intubation, no medication) as well as the misappropriation of successful treatment concepts that could have reduced the death rate among sick people if they had been widely communicated and implemented,
- related to the question of the justification of the emergency approval for the mRNA and DNA preparations (vaccines),
- through country comparisons, to answer the fundamental question as to whether the so-called “non-pharmaceutical interventions”, in particular the lockdowns, are a suitable means of combating infection,
- on the health, existential and economic consequences of the lockdowns and thus on the proportionality of the encroachments on fundamental rights.
Lack of “Global Political Leadership”?
The independent panel “Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response” set up by the WHO General Assembly in May 2020 does not do justice to these concerns in its report. The questions listed above are not even asked; that which should actually be examined is presupposed.
The preparation for a pandemic was inconsistent and underfunded, and the early warning system worked too slowly. There was a lack of “global political leadership”. Right now the priority is to end the illnesses and deaths caused by Covid-19. Every affected country should systematically take non-pharmaceutical measures. Demands include that rich countries should finance one billion vaccine doses by September 1 and two billion vaccine doses for poorer countries by mid-2022.
The authors of the aforementioned guest article in the FAZ share with Bill Gates and a plethora of pandemic scenarios the assumption that pandemics should be seen as a growing global threat to the future for which one must prepare. At the beginning of the text, a comparison is made with the situation after the Second World War, which the Chancellor had already made in the spring of 2020 to justify the first lockdown:
“The Covid-19 pandemic posed the greatest challenge to the global community since the late 1940s. Back then, after the devastation of two world wars, leaders came together to lay the foundation for the multilateral system. […] The states should act more together, the temptations of isolationism and nationalism should be averted and challenges addressed that could only be overcome together in a spirit of solidarity and cooperation — peace, prosperity, health and security.”
The UN Charter is alluded to as the basis of international law. Analogous to the UN, “a more robust international health architecture” is to be built on the basis of an international treaty on pandemic prevention and control based on the so-called “International Health Regulations” of the WHO.
A joint approach is intended to achieve “closely coordinated pandemics to be better predicted, avoided, recognized and assessed, as well as to effectively combat them.” The necessary instruments are in particular warning systems, the “shared use of data”, tests for diagnosis and immunization through vaccines. There is also talk of fair access to safe and inexpensive drugs, but this goal is no longer pursued, in contrast to the emphasis on vaccine development, as immunization through vaccination is “a global public good.”
In the context of preparing for the next pandemic, the proposed contract aims to “recognize a ‘One Health’ approach […] that links the health of people, animals and the entire planet.” Instead of going it alone at national level, a stronger obligation through “more mutual accountability and shared responsibility, transparency and cooperation in the international system in accordance with its rules and norms” must be introduced. Pandemic preparedness requires “global leadership for a global health system that can cope with the demands of this millennium.” In addition to the heads of state, “all stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector” should be included in global leadership.
Involve corporations and foundations
The ideas presented addressed the demands of pandemic scenarios that have been developed in recent years, including the integration of companies and foundations into the “Pandemic Preparedness and Response” and prophylaxis through mass vaccinations.
An international treaty that prescribes an internationally coordinated and binding procedure for dealing with an epidemic will hinder or even prohibit national procedures that contradict, possibly with good reasons, the WHO guidelines. The rejection of lockdowns, as in Sweden and some US states, of mass tests as in Tanzania, or the refusal to use vaccines across the board — after bad experiences as happened in India or Kenya — could then be sanctioned.
The draft contract creates a new triad in dealing with pandemics: modeling (early detection and prediction), testing (diagnosis) and vaccination. With the prioritization of vaccines over drugs, the use of inexpensive and proven drugs (such as ivermectin), the strengthening of immune defense (e.g. with vitamin D) or proven treatment methods by experienced doctors (see the interviews with doctors Dr. Voshaar and Dr. Thomas Ly) are prohibited under international law.
Every international treaty acts as ‘concrete’ — the resolutions cannot be corrected by elections. This makes humane goals and democratic legitimation all the more important. However, the contract is based on a public-private partnership: the heads of state and government are to make decisions together with stakeholders from civil society and the private sector. It is understandable that corporations and lobby groups (research centers, companies in the pharmaceutical, data and technology sectors) would like to participate in global leadership on their own behalf. However, it is questionable that heads of state and government, who are formally answerable, at least in democracies, to the electorate as sovereign, would demand such a thing.
The already existing interweaving of national health authorities and international organizations such as WHO or EMA [European Medicines Agency] with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry is likely to increase and give legitimacy to the influence of these lobbyists. Only two examples are given. The career of the head of the EU Medicines Agency, Emer Cooke, is typical of the revolving door effect between the pharmaceutical industry, its associations and government regulators. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the WHO’s second-largest financier. At the same time, the foundation is involved in the share capital of pharmaceutical companies, among other things. Thomas Kruchem writes in a BWR Post:
“The World Health Organization is caught in a classic conflict of interest which limits its scope for action and which, in view of its financial dependence on the Gates Foundation, can hardly be resolved.”
There may be some arguments in favor of concerted action during a pandemic. However, after the political experience with the current Corona crisis, it is obvious that the development of warning systems, the handling of data and the use of tests are prone to abuse and make it possible to construct an emergency.
In the tunnel vision of a viral outbreak, the main global problems of health care such as the affordability of the health system, the lack of access to basic health care, to clean water, food sovereignty or job and livelihood security as basic prerequisites for health are not addressed as problems. The propagated “one health approach” is reduced to avoiding the transmission of infections between animals and humans.
The paper breathes a totalitarian spirit behind the friendly terms. All states must do the same and are accountable for their actions — to the newly-created international organization, not to the democratic sovereign, who is not even mentioned. Core concepts of the pacifist, socialist, anti-capitalist and ecological movements (solidarity, internationalism, peace, justice, global public goods, fairness) are being adopted, emptied of their original meaning and placed at the service of Big Pharma and Big Data.
A reference to the UN Charter — which contains the absolute prohibition of violence in international relations, the principles of territorial integrity and sovereign equality of all members, social and economic development and the self-determination of peoples — is highly questionable in view of such an approach. States that oppose the “new collective obligation” are marked in the emotionalized linguistic context as discordant nationalists and isolationists. Will new rogue states be defined in this way soon?
Binding set of rules for joint steering
According to the lawyer Dr. Silvia Behrendt, who did her doctorate in pandemic law, this continues a development that began with SARS in 2003 and about which she warned the Corona Committee in February 2021. Since 2005 the international legal basis for dealing with pandemics has been the “International Health Regulations”, abbreviated IHR, of the WHO.
According to Behrendt, they will be expanded in several steps from recommendations to a binding set of rules to which the states must adhere without first having to check the facts of the epidemic emergency. Only “preparedness, response, enforcement” would be required. The IHR was initially expanded “from a simple list of diseases to a completely open […] concept of the public health emergency”, in which any initial suspicion could lead to the declaration of a public health emergency:
“This is the Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). And this Global Health Security Agenda has set itself the goal of regulating states concerning the implementation of these international regulations.”
WHO Revision Committee headed by Lothar Wieler
In a response from the Federal Government in March to a parliamentary question from the FDP, reference is made to “a comprehensive process to come to terms with the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic,” which was initiated at the World Health Assembly in May 2020:
“Specifically on the question of a possible need for adaptation of the IHR (International Health Regulations, ES), an independent committee was set up by the WHO, the so-called ‘IHR Review Committee’ chaired by the President of the Robert Koch Institute.”
The report of the WHO Audit Committee headed by RKI CEO Lothar Wieler was submitted on May 5, 2021. Among other things, the following are required:
- a legal framework for more “compliance” and “empowerment” related to “emergency preparedness and response” as well as a central body that is supposed to ensure more responsibility for the highest government agencies and nationwide binding force in the implementation of the IHR in national laws (see point 143) ;
- an early warning system for events that pose a risk of cross-border spread so that we can react immediately, even if the WHO emergency committee has not yet made a decision (see points 144 and 146);
- an early exchange of genetic information and samples in the case of pathogens of concern (see point 148);
- more rights for WHO if states with an epidemic event refuse technical support offered by WHO. In this case, these states should have to justify their refusal. The WHO should then exert pressure by publishing the risks (see point 145);
- a global convention for pandemic preparedness and response (point 148). The world must be prepared to better respond to the next “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” (PHEIC). Urgent action is required and not years of negotiations (see point 151).
- Digital technologies could support the needs mentioned. Specific data searches (“data mining”) are mentioned in order to identify disease outbreaks at an early stage, as well as molecular tools of the next generation to track down pathogens, their origin and their distribution (see point 149).
In his opening speech at this year’s WHO General Assembly on May 24th, WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus demanded that as a consequence of the Corona pandemic, monitoring and testing must be expanded, false information must be combated, national vaccination strategies implemented and vaccinations as an act, especially in developing countries. Solidarity to be expanded. He also called for a binding international agreement to prepare for the next pandemic based on the International Health Regulations. This is a sign of solidarity, equality and sustainability.
The Federal Government describes the difference from the previous meaning of the IHR (German: IGV) as follows:
“Although the IHR are the only binding framework under international law with regard to the global coordination of the response to a pandemic, they do not interfere with the sovereignty of the contracting parties in such a way that national measures cannot be taken in addition to the regulatory area covered by the IHR.”
Here it becomes apparent that the sovereign response of a state to a health emergency could be restricted in the future if such a binding agreement finds sufficient support.
Enlighten — and monitor — “confused citizens”
In addition to efforts to make the IHR more binding, more and more initiatives are being launched to control public opinion, particularly as it concerns false information about pandemics and vaccinations, as well as to expand surveillance using information technology in connection with health issues.
The fourth WHO virtual conference on “Infodemy Management” took place in May, after three had already been held last year. In the event announcement, the goal is formulated to use “digital social listening for public health” to find out what is communicated in social media during health emergencies, in order to be able to react more effectively and more precisely.
The aim is to reach citizens who are “undecided or confused” about the Corona measures — including the vaccination, which is explicitly mentioned. The most important opinion leaders and their networks are to be identified by monitoring social media. Early intervention is important to ensure the dissemination of credible health information.
In May the WHO, supported by the German government in Berlin, also started a global platform for the collection and exchange of pandemic and epidemic data — a global pandemic Intelligence Service, to work together in the partners from around the world. The aim is to predict global health threats, identify them early and prepare to combat them.
The same terms appear in the WHO press release as in the planned agreement. Using information technology (collecting, linking, exchanging data, artificial intelligence) and new instruments, forecast models for risk analysis are to be developed. In addition, it is desirable to monitor the extent to which the population adheres to the prescribed restrictions (“community acceptance”). In addition, there is the monitoring of “infodemics”, i.e. those sources of information and media that contradict government statements or model assumptions.
Like the planned WHO pandemic contract, the “global hub for pandemic and epidemic intelligence” of the WHO is to be run as a public-private partnership, as a collaboration among governments, science and the private sector. The platform will become part of the WHO health emergencies program.
The expansion of data collection and use also includes a number of advances at EU level: According to plans by the EU Commission, a “European area for health data” is to become the “building block of the European Health Union”.
“Eavesdropping on social media and biosensors”
The journalist Norbert Haring also pointed to the European program STAMINA, “improve pandemic management”, by “social media eavesdropping and biosensors”, that is. The program was launched by 37 international organizations in September 2020 and is scheduled to run for two years. In addition to the evaluation of Internet and social media, portable devices (wearables) functioning as biosensors are to be used to obtain information about physical and mental health.
The organizations involved are particularly interested in the population’s attitudes towards public institutions, vaccines and pandemic measures in order to be able to align PR campaigns accordingly. In addition, the tools to be developed and the data collected on a common platform should serve as an early warning system for pandemics. The national responses to an epidemic situation are thus to be aligned internationally.
The abstract construct of “public health” is declared the goal, whereas “personal health” has to take a back seat. Decisions on how to deal with health and illness are largely shifted from the individual or community to the international (EU / WHO) level and an opaque network of organizations and responsibilities.
Not only actual illnesses, but a mix of data analysis, computer models, artificial intelligence and test results should justify risk assessment and thus in the future decide about a health emergency and an authoritarian, global regime of measures. It is to be feared that an uncontrollable automatism will take place once a data alarm has been triggered.
Dr. Behrendt points out the danger that simply declaring an epidemic emergency, i.e. a formal event without necessary reference to real evidence, can trigger “non-pharmaceutical interventions”, such as lockdowns. The April 2021 report of the IHR Committee to the WHO Secretary General offers illustrative material. It is claimed that Covid-19 continues to be an international health emergency without mentioning a quantitative criterion:
“The Committee unanimously agreed that the Covid-19 pandemic remains an extraordinary event that continues to harm the health of populations around the world, poses a risk of international spread and affects international traffic, and therefore requires a coordinated international response. Therefore, the committee concludes that the Covid-19 pandemic remains a public health emergency of international concern.”
If the contract plans outlined were to be implemented, decisions about how a society should deal with diseases, prevention and epidemics — and that could be any flu wave — would be withdrawn from the democratic process in many ways: through the use of digital and molecular biological tools, through one concrete hardly vulnerable international, binding treaty, through the admission of unelected and democratically uncontrollable organizations and foundations in global decision-making bodies. This process has been taking place at the WHO level for years without this “participation model” ever being voted on in a public and democratic manner. The people affected are seen as controlled objects of the measures, from which unconditional consent is required.
Health emergency as a lever for surveillance
The lever of an impending public health emergency is thus used to monitor and control populations. According to this logic, the monitoring must take place permanently, otherwise it is not possible to recognize at an early stage when a health emergency is imminent. The model of the preventive war in the fight against terrorism is transferred to the fight against real or supposed dangerous pathogens. Everyone is considered to be a potential threat as long as they have not proven that they are harmless.
The permanent, intrusive insistence on vaccination alone to end a pandemic makes one suspicious. It feeds the suspicion of more far-reaching goals when the majority of people have become used to repeated vaccinations with the new experimental gene preparations.
A draft resolution of May 25, submitted by more than 30 states, indicates that the WHO General Assembly is discussing the proposed international pandemic treaty at a special meeting in November of 2021. And in the media, that date was last called. In the meantime, a working group should develop the basic lines for this. This deadline would make it possible to conduct a public debate on the prerequisites, content, objectives and mechanisms of such an agreement.
About the author
Elke Schenk, born in 1960, studied social sciences and German and works as a teacher at a vocational school center. For almost two decades she has volunteered in initiatives that are critical of globalization. Topics of her publications and lectures include EU treaties, EU enlargement, the euro crisis and geopolitical developments.
Afterword from the translator:
There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it.
— “The Ultimate Revolution”, Aldous Huxley’s speech at Berkeley Language Center, March 20, 1962
And I, as a Hellequin, as a Gentleman and as a Bastard say “NO” to that.