Are treaties signed for what governments expect to be vanishingly rare occurrences?
Following on from his recent One Health article, Mark Anderson unpicks the 32-page Zero Draft (1 February 2023) of the World Health Organisation’s intended international legal text on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. In tandem, the WHO’s proposed power-centralising amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) went to working groups in Geneva in late February.
Like other UK Column authors and interviewees who closely follow the WHO's intended Pandemic Treaty and International Health Regulations, Mark Anderson has worked out that the worldview of those framing these earth control mechanisms is that man is an asset class no better than rodents and algae.
In the ascendancy of the scientific dictatorship, the adverse effects of treatments pushed by the funders of the WHO and by national policymakers are disregarded as anecdotal. As Mark aptly puts it:
There is no separation of religion and state in scientism.
Hear from Mark how the giveth and the taketh away are closely intertwined in the Zero Draft: fine-sounding wording in one section about states' national sovereignty is undone by sleight of hand in subsequent sections that preach the supremacy of "obligations toward international law".
Nor is this a new trick: the 1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights likewise has an article proclaiming that we are free except when we are not free. In the human rights model of liberty, which is ahistorical and unsound, virtually all rights are qualified rights.