The Pandemic Treaty -The ‘Great Reset’ for Globalism

The Pandemic Treaty otherwise known as the great Reset. Technocracy is seen as the force behind the proposed “pandemic treaty” that would give the World Health Organization total sovereignty over global health. For the record, the U.S. is on board.

US Supports Creation of Global Pandemic Treaty

The first public hearings on the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” are closed, with the next round due to start in mid-June.

What scant press coverage there is, mostly across the metaphorical back-pages of the internet, will be focused on making the treaty “strong enough” and ensuring national governments can be “held accountable”.

An article in the UK’s Telegraph from April 12th headlines:

Real risk a pandemic treaty could be ‘too watered down’ to stop new outbreaks

It focuses on a report from the Panel for a Global Public Health Convention (GPHC), and quotes one of the report’s authors Dame Barbara Stocking:

Our biggest fear […] is it’s too easy to think that accountability doesn’t matter. To have a treaty that does not have compliance in it, well frankly then there’s no point in having a treaty,”

The GPHC report goes on to say that the current International Health Regulations are “too weak”, and calls for the creation of a new “independent” international body to “assess government preparedness” and “publicly rebuke or praise countries, depending on their compliance with a set of agreed requirements”.

Another article, published by the London School of Economics and co-written by members of the German Alliance on Climate Change and Health (KLUG), also pushes the idea of “accountability” and “compliance” pretty hard:

For this treaty to have teeth, the organisation that governs it needs to have the power – either political or legal – to enforce compliance.

To translate these suggestions from bureaucrat into English:

• If you report “disease outbreaks” in a “timely manner”, you will get “financial resources” to deal with them.
• If you don’t report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions.

In combination, these proposed rules would literally incentivize reporting possible “disease outbreaks”. Far from preventing “future pandemics”, they would actively encourage them.

National governments who refuse to play ball being punished, and those who play along getting paid off is not new. We have already seen that with Covid.

All of which can be generally summed up as “give the WHO (and their cronies) more money, and more power”.

Each section of their recommendations contains several bullet points of its own, far too many to go through all of them, but there’s definitely some paragraphs that should cause any attentive reader to raise an eyebrow:

WHO to establish a new global system for surveillance, based on full transparency by all parties, using state-of-the-art digital tools to connect information centres around the world and including animal and environmental health surveillance, with appropriate protections of people’s rights

…Which means essentially legalising global surveillance programs on a massive scale, with – of course – “appropriate protections
of people’s rights” (and shame on you for thinking otherwise).

It also echoes the UN report from May 2021 in calling for more powers for the WHO:

And then there is:

Future declarations of a PHEIC by the WHO Director-General should be based on the precautionary principle where warranted

…Which calls for the Director-General of the WHO to have the power to declare a global “pandemic”, not because there definitely is a new disease killing people, but because they think there might be.

Essentially handing the Director-General of the WHO the power to simply create a pandemic whenever they feel the need. Somewhat ironically the panel for “pandemic prevention”, is recommending making “pandemics” far more likely.

Further, the report goes out of its way to praise the countries which engaged in the most authoritarian “anti-Covid” measures.

Specifically, China is praised both for their “fast identification” of the virus, and their incredibly stringent lockdown measures. Another country held up as a good example is New Zealand, which was likewise very strict.

H/T: Technocracy

The best of the swamp today.