The WHO Treaty Is Tied to a Global Digital Passport and ID System

[carol ann parisi]

The WHO Treaty Is Tied to a Global Digital Passport and ID System

BY AARON KHERIATY   MAY 24, 2022   POLICY   4 MINUTE READ

 

 

The WHO recently announced plans for an international pandemic treaty tied to a digital passport and digital ID system. Meeting in December 2021 in a special session for only the second time since the WHO’s founding in 1948, the Health Assembly of the WHO adopted a single decision titled, “The World Together.”

 

The WHO plans to finalize the treaty by 2024. It will aim to shift governing authority now reserved to sovereign states to the WHO during a pandemic by legally binding member states to the WHO’s revised International Health Regulations.

 

In January of 2022 the United States submitted proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations, which bind all 194 UN member states, which the WHO director general accepted and forwarded to other member states. In contrast to amendments to our own constitution, these amendments will not require a two-thirds vote of our Senate, but a simple majority of the member states.

 

Most of the public is wholly unaware of these changes, which will impact the national sovereignty of member states.

 

The proposed amendments include, among others, the following. Among the changes the WHO will no longer need to consult with the state or attempt to obtain verification from the state where a reported event of concern (e.g., a new outbreak) is allegedly occurring before taking action on the basis of such reports (Article 9.1).

 

In addition to the authority to make the determination of a public health emergency of international concern under Article 12, the WHO will be granted additional powers to determine a public health emergency of regional concern, as well as a category referred to as an intermediate health alert.

 

The relevant state no longer needs to agree with the WHO Director General’s determination that an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern. A new Emergency Committee will be constituted at the WHO, which the Director-General will consult in lieu of the state within whose territory the public health emergency of international concern has occurred, to declare the emergency over.

 

The amendments will also give “regional directors” within the WHO, rather than elected representatives of the relevant states, the legal authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern.

 

Also, when an event does not meet criteria for a public health emergency of international concern but the WHO Director-General determines it requires heightened awareness and a potential international public health response, he may determine at any time to issue an “intermediate public health alert” to states and consult the WHO’s Emergency Committee. The criteria for this category are simple fiat: “the Director-General has determined it requires heightened international awareness and a potential international public health response.”

 

Through these amendments, the WHO, with the support of the U.S., appears to be responding to roadblocks that China erected in the early days of covid. This is a legitimate concern. But the net effect of the proposed amendments is a shift of power away from sovereign states, ours included, to unelected bureaucrats at the WHO. The thrust of every one of the changes is toward increased powers and centralized powers delegated to the WHO and away from member states.

 

Leslyn Lewis, a member of the Canadian parliament and lawyer with international experience, has warned that the treaty would also allow the WHO unilaterally to determine what constitutes a pandemic and declare when a pandemic is occurring. “We would end up with a one-size-fits-all approach for the entire world,” she cautioned. Under the proposed WHO plan, pandemics need not be limited to infectious diseases and could include, for example, a declared obesity crisis.

 

As part of this plan, the WHO has contracted German-based Deutsche Telekom subsidiary T-Systems to develop a global vaccine passport system, with plans to link every person on the planet to a QR code digital ID. “Vaccination certificates that are tamper-proof and digitally verifiable build trust. WHO is therefore supporting member states in building national and regional trust networks and verification technology,” explained Garret Mehl, head of the WHO’s Department of Digital Health and Innovation. “The WHO’s gateway service also serves as a bridge between regional systems. It can also be used as part of future vaccination campaigns and home-based records.”

 

This system will be universal, mandatory, trans-national, and operated by unelected bureaucrats in a captured NGO who already bungled the covid pandemic response.

 

Republished from the author’s Substack

[carol ann parisi]

American history is filled with all sorts of irony. The corporate media and court historians perpetually burn the American South in effigy for its aborted secessionist attempts under the rule of Confederacy during the American Civil War (1861-1865). Since then, secessionism has been tied to the South and routinely demonized. However, a thorough glance at American history tells us a different story. During the presidency of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), secessionist sentiments were strong across New England. The Federalist Party, which had a strong presence in New England, was anxious about having Jefferson as president. They were doubly worried about the Democratic-Republican Party’s rise to prominence. Federalist Party leadership viewed the Jeffersonian Democrats as a political threat that could potentially displace them owing to the electoral advantages the Democratic-Republicans enjoyed in the South and the newly-added Western states. The Federalists’ fears grew even stronger during the presidency of James Madison. Under Madison’s leadership, the US found itself in a war for its very existence against the British Empire in the War of 1812. Despite the existential stakes of this conflict, there were Northerners who did not approve of the US’s war effort and wanted to sue for peace with the British. A combination of wanting to maintain trade relations and a strong affinity towards their mother civilization prompted several northern political elites to oppose the war. New England members of the Federalist Party met during the Hartford Convention in 1814 to discuss northern states’ relationship with the federal government. As a result of this meeting,  fears of New England seceding from the Union kicked off across the nation. While the Hartford Convention never materialized in the form of a full-fledged secessionist movement, this convention led to the death of the Federalist Party as a national force. The main reason for the party’s demise was that the American populace viewed its secessionist attempt as an act of treason during the British invasion. Regardless of a failed secessionist effort in the North, the Hartford Convention sowed the seeds for future secessionist efforts. During the early 1830s, South Carolina was embroiled in a nullification crisis with the federal government over the issue of excessive tariffs. Three decades later, South Carolina would find itself spearheading a full-fledged secessionist effort that sparked the American Civil War. No matter what people say, secessionism is as American as apple pie. Just think about it, the American Revolution was history’s highest expression of secessionism, as the American Patriots extricated themselves from the grasp of the British Empire. Court historians would like you to think otherwise. Could secessionism make a comeback in the 21st century? In the short-term, it’s highly doubtful. But as the US grows more socio-economically unstable and people lose faith in the system, anything is possible. We’re living in a time of out-of-control central banks and big governments. This guarantees instability further down the line no matter how you slice it.

[carol ann parisi]

[carol ann parisi]

The WHO intends to amend 13 IHR articles that will establish a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting, and management with the increased powers including:  1. Increased surveillance: Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria to establish a risk assessment for a member state.  2. 48-hour deadline: Member states are given only hours to comply or face international disapproval.  3. Secret sources: Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. (Sources could include Big Pharma, the Gates Foundation, or the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.)  4. Weakened Sovereignty: Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat, the Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.

[carol ann parisi]

DAVOS CLAUSE SCHWABB.........  THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING THE GREAT RESET .....

carbon footprint tracker/...  Alibaba   the individual carbon footprint tracker ...  imagine the compliance,,,,, bio surveilled  yuvalv harari....... monitor under the skin where we go who we meet what movies we watch

HOW DARE YOU!!!!  GRETA  :)

[carol ann parisi]