Tedros Desperately Wants a Treaty
It appears that secret WHO negotiations will be continuing right up until the very last minute. What's the rush?
The pressure to reach an agreement regarding the “Pandemic Treaty” is quite intense.
The WHO Director-General has pushed delegations to conclude negotiations on a pandemic instrument by the beginning of the 77th session of the World Health Assembly (27 May to 1 June 2024).
Instead of postponing the negotiations beyond WHA77, which would give time to build a better pandemic instrument, DG Tedros said the INB has two more weeks before the WHA77 to arrive at a compromise deal.
Sources from the Secretariat confirmed with Third World Network (TWN) that DG Tedros has made the need for a pandemic treaty entrenching One Health obligations as a matter of his legacy. He is constantly pushing the INB Bureau to present a clean text to the WHA.
A developing country delegate privy to a private conversation by the WHO DG and his staff, told TWN that the DG’s plan is to get this draft adopted at WHA. He apparently instructed his staff to make delegates negotiate as much as possible prior to the WHA, remove all colour coding from the negotiating text that indicate lack of consensus, and present a clean text to the ministers at the WHA. He would then ask health ministers of the various Member States “whether they can live with the text” amounting to forcing a political compromise.
According to negotiators who spent a whole day on PABS, last week, DG Tedros sat through the negotiations and intervened, attempting to make compromises primarily on proposals from developing countries.
Sources have also confirmed that earlier in the week the DG had reached out to certain country capitals, whose delegations were actively seeking meaningful deliverables on equity in the pandemic instrument that were resisted by developed countries. He requested the ministries to discourage their delegations from making demands that would really address inequities in the draft giving priority to reaching a deal.
So while international treaty making typically takes years, “time” is being wielded into beating this process into shape to deliver a Pandemic Agreement.
“There is perception that this is a take-it-or-leave-it-moment. The Africa Group is being led to believe by developed countries, particularly by the EU, that the text on the table is the best bet developing countries can hope for,” an activist observing these dynamics told us last evening.
A developed country negotiator told us, “If logic prevails, the IHR should be pushed through because we are close to finalising it. But it seems there is no common sense here.”
https://genevahealthfiles.substack.com/p/pandemic-agreement-borrowed-time-fate-ihr-stake
Take all of the information below with a grain of salt. The situation is fluid and ever-changing.
“Pandemic Treaty”
SOURCE:
https://twitter.com/ThiruGeneva/status/1790091073391329530
Amendments to the International Health Regulations
A revised version of the proposed amendments was supposed to be circulated on May 10, and the 8th session of the Working Group for amendments to the International Health Regulations was scheduled to be held on May 16-17, 2024.
The eighth meeting of the WGHIR will resume in a two-day final session 16-17 May to continue and conclude the work of the Working Group according to its mandate from the Health Assembly.
However, a new version of the amendments has NOT been made publicly available.
The resumed session of the WGIHR scheduled for May 16-17, 2024 (which was added to the WHO website) has been removed.
The status of the next meeting of the WGIHR is currently unclear.
Tuesday, 28 May 2024
by James Roguski
The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.
If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.
JamesRoguski.substack.com/about
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
310-619-3055
All content is free to all readers.
All support is deeply appreciated.
The WHO DG Fool declared a Monkey Pox Pandemic over the top of the majority voting NO. Why the hell would you trust this criminal? Most people forget the Loud Boos from the fraught gallery from his Nation at the WHO meeting when this criminal was announced as the new WHO DG.
Did you vote for this NGO criminal who was backed by Billy Big Deal Microsoft Gizz/Liz/Wizard twisted Malthouseant who perceives himself as Health Manager for the World, at your National Referendum vote? I must have dementia due to the aluminum adjuvents in all my recent shots. I SURE as HELL Do Not Recall voting for This Criminal Pond Scum. Why did the Australian Corporate Grubberment vote for this Criminal Pond Scum? Hhmmm, blackmailed, compromised Aussie representative? AUSTRALIA has 28 currently deemed Aussie Prosticians paedophiles.
And Billy Big Deal was involved with the infamous paedo blackmailer, Jeffrey Epstein. So glad Epstein only worked on his own volition and was never controlled by any parasitic organisation . . . . . . .
This is long but you'll want to read: I have an idea regarding this matter
While we're dealing with two issues
1. The Amendments to the IHR's
2. The Pandemic Agreement
The former is a modification of a congressional-executive agreement that got us into the WHO back in 1948; the second one is a framework convention that effectively gives them the ability to do what they did before but with more power and money (something I think we all can conclude they don't need and we don't want).
In both cases we need to contact our legislators
For the former we need them to pass H.R.79 which withdraws all funding to the WHO, and we should also apply pressure to Senators to pass companion legislation since the House and Senate are both required to get a bill passed
For the latter we need to contact our Senators only and provide them solid reasons to reject this (many reasons are provided here). Use arguments that are hard to fact-check away since the use of social media will be vital.
Because Twitter not only allows us to easily get a hold of legislators (as well as all the others), but also put them on the spot where others can see our message: I suggest we do that since that has historically been a way to force responces. While we should focus on all legislators, I'd probably more heavily weight my message towards conservatives (particularly those who have endorsed HR.79) and Senators with similar attitudes.
With text limitations being a major problem on Twitter, one do simple things like make a text-message; then screen-cap it (I've done this and it works) or use one of Mr. Roguski's infographics to get around said limitations. I would focus on things that cannot be easily fact-checked away since even Twitter does this, and it's election season (and fact-checkers tend to be on high-alert during this time period).
Tagging people is important as well as that applies additional pressure: You'll want to do the following.
1. Find every libertarian party for the legislator you're messaging (so, if they're from Georgia, look up Libertarian Party of Georgia, there's also LP Mises groups as well): They tend to be sensitive to things that infringe upon their individual liberties and it woudl stand to reason many would be opposed to this on principle.
2. Look at the replies to the legislator on messages he's made. You'll find some people who are quite pleased with him, others who are angry at various things he/she's said/done. Generally you can tell that certain people would be receptive and you want to tag them.
You can contact me at
Zipper730@gmail.com