A podcast with the author about this article is now embedded at the foot of the page.
In the wake of the 75th World Health Assembly on 22–28 May 2022, the Geneva-based World Health Organisation (WHO), a United Nations agency, plans to draw more heavily on member states to boost the agency’s budget significantly, while seeking additional authority. This plan comes amid an intensified focus on expanding and more strictly implementing the International Health Regulations (IHR)—to which the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) submitted proposed amendments early this year.
According to the official transcript of a WHO press conference on 1 June, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus, referring to the just-completed assembly, stated the following:
As usual, WHO’s Member States discussed a huge range of issues but the most significant decision of the week was the assembly’s adoption of a landmark resolution to increase assessed contributions, the membership fees that countries pay, to a target of 50% of our base budget by the end of the decade, from just 16% now. This change will give WHO the flexibility and predictability to plan for long-term programming in countries, and to attract and retain the people we need to deliver those programmes.
That represents a 34% increase in the WHO budget. He also emphasised the aim of strengthening the WHO in the area of “governance”—which is code for unelected bureaucrats interacting with the private-sector in public-private partnerships to foist changes upon the world, usually outside the confines of elected legislatures.
The Director-General spelled out how this interference would operate:
Along with this, WHO is committed to stronger governance, accountability and efficiency. The assembly also made important decisions on strengthening WHO’s preparedness for and response to health emergencies, including making targeted amendments to the International Health Regulations.
Referring to an anticipated world pandemic treaty and a “stronger global [health] architecture,” Tedros Ghebreyesus, acknowledging that he will retain the top seat at the agency, continued:
Alongside a new international accord on pandemic preparedness, a sharpened IHR will be a critical piece of a stronger global architecture for health emergency preparedness and response. I am also [. . .] honoured that Member States elected me for a second term.
Meanwhile, the British House of Commons Library, in an article published on 18 May just before the 75th World Health Assembly, noted that “[t]he WHO is negotiating a treaty on pandemic preparedness,” the roots of which go back to March of 2021. The briefing document for MPs goes on to explain that March last year was when “a group of world leaders”, led by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, “announced an initiative for a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response.” From there, “the initiative was taken to the WHO and will be negotiated, drafted and debated by a newly-established Intergovernmental Negotiation Body.”
Notably, under America’s republican form of government, such things need to be debated by the US Congress—and by the parliaments of other nations according to their laws and customs; not delegated to a distant, largely unaccountable extra-constitutional negotiation forum. The idea of farming out the debate on the treaty that gives the WHO its powers to an obscure body may be what sparked some recent opposition, apparently largely from African nations.
“A petition on the UK Parliament website is calling for the government to commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the WHO, unless this is approved through a public referendum,” the House of Commons Library article also noted, adding that the petition had garnered at least 120,000 signatures by mid-May.
The above-noted “group of world leaders” stated the following in a 30 March 2021 online article entitled No government can address the threat of pandemics alone—we must come together:
The main goal of this [pandemic] treaty would be to foster an all-of-government approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international cooperation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production of medical and public health countermeasures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.
Governments in lockstep
The list of 25 world leaders who authored that statement bears more than a passing resemblance to a list of attendees at a Bilderberg Group, World Economic Forum or G7 meeting. Besides Boris Johnson, the list includes Dutch Prime Minister (and frequent Bilderberg attendee) Mark Rutte; WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus; and the rock star of democracy to many, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Others include Spanish premier Pedro Sánchez, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg, and European Council President Charles Michel, along with the heads of government of South Africa, Rwanda, Kenya, Greece, Albania, Tunisia, Senegal, Serbia, Indonesia, Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica, Chile, and South Korea.
The WHO also is trying to attain what are strikingly called “Triple Billion targets”, as well as the “health-related” Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations. SDGs are all-encompassing benchmarks that are tied to various concepts, especially “climate change” in terms of emissions goals. The SDGs are a core component of the UN’s infamous Agenda 2030 and are unequivocally designed for straitjacketed global governance. So to see these rules tied to “health” is indicative of a major power grab by the WHO—which would open the door for Big Pharma to push its dangerous vaccines on the public through a more one-size-fits-all approach. The same apparently goes for “personal protection equipment”, which includes face masks.
“The Triple Billion targets are an ambitious initiative to improve the health of billions of people by 2023”, WHO literature explains in the vague, multi-faceted language of globalese, which tends to make power grabs harder to detect. A paragraph of this globalese will suffice to close this article:
They are the foundation of WHO’s Thirteenth General Programme of Work (GPW 13) acting as both a measurement and a policy strategy. They are an integral part of the GPW 13’s Results Framework, a new tool designed to measure and improve WHO’s impact on health at the country level. Measurement of these targets is closely aligned with those of the Sustainable Development Goals [. . .] to accelerate progress towards achieving key targets.”