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.

Continue reading →