United Nations plans to emerge as the controlling government: How declaring a pandemic enlarges the United Nations power.

PPJG Original Article  Author: Marti Oakley (C) Posted August 22, 2009 at  2:33CST

 

In 2005, the Inter-Governmental Working Groups (IGWG) of member states, a United Nations group, created what was to become the International Health Regulations, 2005.  This initial plan was revised in 2006, 2007 and again this year 2009.

Inter-governmental Issues     *Although these articles date from the original 2005 draft, they have remained unchanged through various revisions and remain as originally proposed in 2001.

IGWG

*Article 21 of the WHO Constitution

The Health Assembly shall have the authority to adopt regulations concerning:

(a) Sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures to prevent the international spread of disease;

*Article 22 of the UN Constitution

Regulations adopted pursuant to article 21 shall come into force for all members after due notice has been given after their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such members as may notify the Director General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.  (Few members did notify; without result)

Several nation states objected to the WHO Constitutional provisions which rejected federalism: in the context of the UN Constitution, meaning the right of sovereign states to retain central authority in times of crisis or UN intervention.  Several drafts on a proposed Article asserting Federalism, wherein [nation] states would remain the central authority but which would allow the WHO via the United Nations to implement emergency plans was ultimately rejected by the member states involved in IGWG.  This rejection of federalism was the member states acquiescence to WHO imposed assumption of government, in the event of a declared health emergency.  WHO made clear it would not be subservient to [nation] states. 

In other words:  the member states agreed to step back and allow the WHO to assume control over entire countries, setting aside the legal government, any laws or regulations if the member state or the WHO declared a health emergency for a period of no longer than 90 days: a time line which can be extended.  WHO claims this authority as the world guardian of commerce and trade in times of crisis which includes surveillance and access to intelligence information also claiming that in these situations, WHO will be the determining authority and UN regulations will prevail over sovereign laws and statues in the [nation] states.

 Reading through more than fifty WHO documents, it became quite clear the actual objections to any WHO provisions came from the possibility of impediments to trade and commerce.  Public health seemed to be more of cause of action, rather than a priority.  Many third worlds countries and countries which are suffering severe economic and food crisis were understandably concerned with this unilateral authority assumed by the WHO.   The obvious opportunity to overtake a poorer nation and its resources under the guise of an inter-national health threat when the WHO centers its policies on health by first considering the impact on commerce and trade was understandably a serious concern.  The World Trade Organization, also a United Nations creation, put its two cents in the debate, insisting on trade and commerce being the first priority in a health emergency, declared or undeclared.  But that’s a whole other article in and of itself.

The World Health Organization is fully engaged in an ongoing political and legal process regarding its assumed authority, which it voted to give itself via the Security Council, to intercede in sovereign nation states when it declares an “Inter-National Health Emergency”.  WHO, through its International Health Regulations, does claim the authority to supra impose its World Health Initiative (WHI) on all participating states (nations).  This assumed authority does include the capacity to suspend sovereign laws and regulations, supplanting them with WHO initiatives, planning, agenda, and regulations if they, or any member government declares a national health emergency. 

To further entrench this claimed authority in the US, WHO works closely with the Centers for Disease Control (and now Prevention) to implement emergency health plans in US states.  This will be accomplished by the establishment of “Crisis Committees” which claim cross- jurisdictional responsibility for world health. The WHO under its member plan can come into the country, set up security committees and “crisis Committees” and demand that all information regarding pandemic or epidemic be coordinated through it so that trade and commerce are affected as little as possible.  The “crisis committees” can now make use of military and governmental agencies, and have no obligation to abide by sovereign laws. Everything in a cross-jurisdictional context, is now subject to WHO as the central authority.

Model States Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEPHA)

MSEPHA was devised by the WHO, and adopted by the Department of Homeland Security. It was fully engrossed by the CDC at the end of 2001, which promoted the plan to the sovereign states of the US, and then adopted verbatim in most cases by 39 states.  These model state emergency plans mimic the WHO in their claims to seize property, use deadly force, forcibly examine or quarantine the citizenry and forcibly vaccinate the citizenry.  And that’s the short list.

The 40-page MSEHPA was authored by Lawrence O. Gostin and James G. Hodge of the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins universities at the request of the CDC .

The Homeland Security Department laid out a specific agenda directed by WHO on what the Homeland Security can assume to be in its power in the events of a declared or non-declared health emergency. This statement of policy is a verbatim recitation of WHO plans, including the protection from lawsuit for harm or death which might result  against producers of  untested vaccines. 

Provisions for opting -out

Provisions are included to any member country to allow them to opt-out of any inter-jurisdictional plan by the WHO.  This of course comes with penalty.  For poorer nations or those politically weakened, food and necessary supplies can be withheld.  Their borders can be sealed off by UN “peacekeepers” to keep everyone contained, and all of this can be done without any definitive testing to verify a pandemic or epidemic is present. 

The WHO does have the authority to close ports, quarantine travelers, halt shipping, stop flights, isolate entire geographical regions, and to withhold food and support from states who either refuse to comply or who might try to limit WHO’s interventions into sovereign states.  But, WHO has also made every effort to accommodate international trade agreements and provisions and makes clear that commerce and trade will be the first consideration in any health threat.

In 2005, Kofi Anan, the then leader of the United Nations proposed the thought that the UN should begin emerging as the ruling world government; delivering these thoughts to the UN Security Council meeting.

Not surprisingly, George W. Bush in his 2005 address of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SP&P) at the Montebello, Canada Summit of 2005, announced the International Partnership On Avian and Pandemic Influenza,  where in he unilaterally agreed that the US would work “through the United Nations” in coordination with the UN influenza coordinator in the development of a an emergency response plan that would encompass the North American continent.  This would be accomplished by working through the World Trade Organization along with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).  Bush also sited the corporate government agreement known as NAFTA as some kind of authorization for this plan.  Subsequent to this agreement with the UN and WHO, Dr. David Nabarro was selected as the newly designated United Nations systems coordinator and senior policy advisor to the UN director general.

Under the SP&P emergency actions in the event of a declared or non-declared pandemic threat from flu will be controlled not by the CDC or some other US agency, but rather by the United Nations through its assumed authority utilizing the WHO, WTO, FAO and NAFTA directives –all neatly compiled into presidential directives of which, #51 has remained classified: the contents of this directive are unknown.

For those who think or believe this is nothing to worry about, that there is not a chance this could happen…..not in the US anyway……think again.  We were one of the first countries to agree to all of these provisions and then codify them into US law and governmental agencies before 9/11 ever occurred.  After 9/11, the final phases were put in place with the creation of Homeland Security and the dictatorial powers it was given.  

 

Other resources:

North American Free Trade Agreement 

U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. (FAO)  

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/readingrooms/interlaw-laws.html    See Section #3

Global influenza preparedness plan. Geneva: WHO; 2005.

Resolution WHA58.3. Revision of the International Health Regulations. In: Fifty-eighth World Health Assembly, Geneva, 16-25 May 2005. Resolutions and decisions annex. Geneva: WHO; 2005.

ResolutionWHA.59.2  Revision of International health Regulations

http://www.searo.who.int/en/Section1430/Section1439/Section1638/Section2234/Section2272_11907.htm#WHA59_2

WHA59.26  International Trade and Health

Excerpted:  60.   The resolution also urges WHO to build capacity to understand the implications of trade agreements, and address relevant issues through coherent policies and legislation that take advantage of opportunities and address challenges. Most importantly it provides WHO with an explicit mandate to continue working on trade and health.

http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/WHO_CDS_EPR_GIP_2007_2c.pdf

Interim protocol: rapid operations to contain the initial emergence of pandemic influenza. Geneva: WHO; 2007.