Senator Malcolm Roberts has brought attention to a proposed treaty by the World Health Organisation (WHO) that could have significant implications for Australia’s sovereignty during a pandemic. The treaty would grant the WHO the power to enforce various health measures, including mandatory vaccinations, lockdowns, vaccine passports, and even border closures. This has raised concerns about the creation of a potential police state in Australia.
The WHO, established in 1948, was initially tasked with improving health outcomes in developing nations. However, under the leadership of Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus, the organization’s focus has shifted towards benefiting predatory billionaires like Bill Gates and pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, there have been reports of unsupervised WHO staff engaging in child sexual abuse and other illicit activities.
In September 2022, the United States, along with Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand, proposed a treaty that would empower the WHO to take over member states’ health measures. This includes the authority to enforce compulsory vaccinations and medical procedures through mandatory detention. The proposed measures also include the ability to order border closures, shutdowns of businesses and schools, and the implementation of international vaccine passports. Furthermore, the treaty would grant billionaire owners of the WHO full member status, allowing them to vote on declaring health emergencies and mandating specific vaccines.
However, the proposal faced significant opposition during a special meeting of the World Health Assembly in December 2022. The African bloc, representing 24% of the membership, resisted the changes, preventing the proposal from passing. As the World Health Assembly operates on consensus rather than voting, any measure with less than 100% support cannot be considered consensus. As a result, the proposal was deferred for further discussion at the May 2023 World Health Assembly, with a final vote scheduled for May 2024.
The IHR Review Committee, established by Ghebreyesus, was tasked with refining the proposal. In January 2023, the committee initially recommended that the amendments proceed, but they faced strong opposition, prompting a change in the committee’s stance. In a final report issued in February 2023, the committee withdrew the more controversial aspects of the regulation changes that could infringe on human rights and dignity. The report also emphasized that granting the WHO powers to compel actions is contrary to its charter, which calls for voluntary cooperation with host nations. The committee highlighted that the proposed changes have tarnished the WHO’s goodwill and diverted its focus from providing health support.
While some parts of the proposed amendments were removed, the inclusion of a global digital health certificate remained. However, the current wording only allows the WHO to cooperate when another entity introduces a digital ID, and it does not grant the WHO the power to introduce one itself. To address the issue of digital health passports, the WHO is partnering with the EU Digital Health Certificate, which individual nations can adopt voluntarily. It is crucial to recognize that the fight over digital health passports is primarily with national governments that introduce such measures, rather than with the WHO.
In Australia, there have not been any official announcements regarding the implementation of digital ID or health passports. However, Senator Malcolm Roberts and One Nation have vowed to strongly oppose any form of digital ID or health passport should the Labor Government attempt to introduce one.
In conclusion, Senator Malcolm Roberts has raised concerns about the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty, which could compromise Australia’s sovereignty and potentially lead to a medical police state. While the proposal has faced opposition and certain aspects have been withdrawn, the issue of digital health passports remains prominent. It is important for citizens to stay informed and advocate for their rights and freedoms amidst these ongoing discussions and potential policy changes.
Source link
