While the spotlight of the leading media focuses our attention on the evil Putin, evil Trump, evil far-right, evil climate change, etc., agreements are being concluded that limit the sovereignty of all countries in the world. Agreements in the shadow of the supposedly more important events that will determine our future: the WHO international pandemic agreement.
Did you or your elected representatives have a say in this? Was there a public debate on this in your country?
This agreement was drawn up on the basis of the experience from the COVID-19 pandemic, when countries were “unable to cope” with the crisis (according to the WHO). The main points of the agreement on the control of the world include, among others:
- the sharing of pathogen samples and genetic data, which gives the WHO access to materials from many countries to enable a “fair” distribution of medicines;
- subordination to WHO regulations – a binding international obligation that imposes absolute obedience to the WHO on individual governments;
- promotion of the development of global certification systems in the healthcare sector – i.e. the introduction of digital health passports.
The agreement is not limited to epidemic situations. The WHO has developed the “One Health” system, which aims to unite the health of animals, humans and the environment. In this way, the World Health Organization is expanding its competencies to include possible climate or agricultural policies
The main sponsors of the WHO are worth mentioning:
- the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
- Gavi (vaccine alliance)
- UNICEF
- EU
- Germany and the USA
In this way, agreements are created above our heads, agreements that can have a direct impact on our lives in times of crisis. The pandemic agreement leads to the centralization of power and the weakening of national sovereignty. If the WHO sounds the alarm, our lives will be determined by people who have not been chosen in any electoral process. Think about what happened in 2020-2022. Some countries, like Sweden, have managed to break free from the prevailing narrative. Now it’s getting a bit more complicated. There is hope, though: the agreement needs to be ratified by the individual states, and the Trump-led United States may not choose to do so. This would undermine the effectiveness of the whole project. We, therefore, hope that countries that have expressed their concerns about the agreement (like Poland and Italy) will also resist the WHO.
