In June, Graham Wood and a group of like-minded campaigners launched a campaign to petition the King against the plans for global governance to which our government seems prepared to sign up without any electoral mandate. Today, in an update, he warns that the World Health Organization’s new draft document on its agenda for World Health does not render the campaign unnecessary.
THE painstaking US researcher James Roguski, who has been watching the proceedings of the WHO in Geneva, has just alerted us to its latest proposal for negotiating the text of the ‘Pandemic Agreement’. This draft text, he tells us, is to be considered by the seventh meeting of the International Negotiating Body (INB) to be held at the WHO Headquarters from next Monday November 6 to Friday November 10 ‘for conversion into a formal negotiating text’. He says: ‘Please do not get lost in the details and comprehend the bigger picture’. His warning is apt.
Although it appears to water down previous drafts, from a joint WHO-UN meeting on September 20 and from other recent WHO documents, he believes they are still bent on getting agreement for most of their pandemic plans by their 77th World Health Assembly in Geneva on May 27 next year. Though marked ‘Provisional’, ‘Advance’ and ‘Unedited’, the document still gives us the direction of travel for the WHO. The changes to the previous text might give the impression that the goalposts have been moved, but in reality are more likely to be a tactical ploy.
The most notable change is the decision to drop the word ‘Treaty’ to replace it possibly with ‘Accord’. This, no doubt, was catalysed by the mounting alarm their ‘power grab’ proposals triggered, detailed in this three-part series for TCW here, and the vocal opposition coming from many other quarters, not least the 11 member states, including Russia, who have rejected the WHO’s totalitarian aspirations.
Roguski points to another hiccup in the WHO’s planning. Some member states have signalled that they doubt the required agreement on the way forward can be reached ahead of a critical WHO meeting in January. The problem this poses for the WHO is that Article 55 of the International Health Regulations legally requires a minimum consultation period of four months to allow each nation to consider the draft agreement. If no agreement is reached, the WHO must wait at least another yearto get their pandemic proposals approved. As Roguski observes, WHO officials are engaging in jiggery-pokery to try to get round the four-month rule.
Here in brief, are the key changes:
· The term ‘Treaty’ has been dropped and substituted with vague allusions to an ‘Accord’, ‘Agreement’ or ‘Convention’. Though informal accords are difficult to enforce in international law we should remain wary. As one commentator on Roguski’s substack put it, ‘a convention is designed to trick nations into agreeing to stick their foot into the trap by agreeing to let other people work out the details later’.
· The previous deadline of December 1, 2023 has disappeared and is replaced by a call for ‘agreement’ by January.
· The WHO appear to suggest that national sovereignty will be respected: ‘States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the general principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies.’ On the face of it, this looks like good news, but that very much depends on the outcome of the 77th World Health Assembly in May. So is this just a ploy to lull critics into a false sense of security and agree to an ‘Accord’ that was never needed in the first place?
· ‘Human rights’ appearto have been restored. A clause in the previous Agreement document had quietly erased preserving fundamental human rights in any pandemic, but this is returned under this Article. Are we to be grateful to be given back something that should never have been taken away, for an accord that is in and of itself an attempt at global health governance?
This is why I believe our campaign to petition the King (PTK) still to be of the utmost importance. No matter what is the final text of a new ‘Accord’, we will continue, via our petition cards, to inform King Charles that it is his duty as the constitutional monarch and Head of State to take action if our government should ever agree to unelected and unaccountable organisations such as the WHO and WEF making decisions which might infringe our sovereignty.
PTK has received very positive mention from a number of groups – the HEART (Christian newspaper); UK Column News; Stand In The Park groups and the White Rose. We received our first batch of 10,000 petition postcards – individually numbered – on July 14. As I write on November 2, 110 days into our campaign, we have received 350 separate orders, sold more than 17,000 postcards, and we’ve just ordered our third batch of 10,000 cards.
Our campaign material has informed many new people about the threat posed by the WHO power grab, and the message is spreading well. We need to keep up the pressure; there is now evidence that determined resistance to the WHO’s totalitarianism is working. See our website www.petitiontheking.org or order cards direct from us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
More good news is that a petition on the Prime Minister’s website, launched by Teresa Blackburn on October 18, which calls on the government to ‘end the UK’s membership of the World Health Organization’ has already, in just 15 days, attracted 46,300 signatures (a rate of more than 3,000 a day). The petition will run until April 18 next year and is on course to top the 100,000 mark, which will mean another opportunity for a debate in Parliament on the WHO. Here is the link. Please sign it and share widely.