Who is Scared of the WHO?
Be aware of the WHO’s slow motion coup d’état of every nation’s sovereignty.
Commentary
Ironically, one of the solutions enforced by the World Health Organization (WHO) with little resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic was the introduction of vaccine passports.
Once fooled, twice cautious of the proclamation: “Trust us. We are from the WHO, here to protect you.”
This takeover took the form of a new pandemic treaty and over 300 amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) signed in 2005 and activated in 2007.
Related Stories
Both issues are up for approval at the World Health Assembly meeting in Geneva from May 27 to June 1.
Why I Disagree With the Good Doctor
A reply by Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, a co-chair of the WHO working group on the IHR amendments, was published in The Australian on May 3.
Dr. Bloomfield, who served as New Zealand’s Director-General of Health from 2018-22 and received a knighthood for his service in 2024, participated in the public debate.
Dismissing claims of the WHO’s power grab over states, Dr. Bloomfield mentioned that no single member state, let alone all 194 members, would concede sovereignty.
While I acknowledge Dr. Bloomfield’s medical expertise compared to my lack of medical qualifications, I have insights on U.N. reforms, sovereignty, and the relationship between the U.N. and its people.
I played a key role in redefining sovereignty as state responsibility and citizens as rights holders, endorsed by world leaders at a U.N. summit in 2005.
I have experience in U.N. system reforms.
Risk to the Sovereignty of 200 Nations
Sir Ashley echoed the WHO chief’s arguments.
“The pandemic agreement will not grant WHO authority over any state or individual.”
Their denial appears excessive.
Even if Australia decides to sign the new agreements as a sovereign nation, it may result in a loss of effective sovereignty, impacting Australia’s ability to make independent health decisions.
This prompted 49 U.S. Republican senators to urge President Joe Biden to reject the proposed changes due to potential violations of U.S. sovereignty.
On May 8, the UK expressed reluctance to sign the treaty unless clauses mandating the transfer of pandemic products were removed.
Under a draft provision, the WHO could enter contracts with manufacturers for pandemic-related products, raising concerns about undermining British sovereignty.
If incorporated into Australian law, this would give the WHO a level of authority, power, and influence over Australia’s operations that many find unacceptable.
The best approach to allay these fears is to restore responsibility to national governments and parliaments, ensuring accountability where it belongs.
Nations should enhance collaboration in managing global pandemics without ceding decision-making powers to unelected international bureaucrats.
Opinions expressed in this article represent the author’s views and not necessarily those of The Epoch Times.
