Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Margaret Anna Alice's avatar

Thank you for calling attention to the treaty, Michael, and I am one of those alarmists warning people about it ;-)

An even greater and more pressing threat than the treaty, however, is the International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments up for vote at the May 22–28 World Health Assembly meeting. I detail the concerns in my public comment, which I published here:

• “Letter to the US HHS Office of Global Affairs” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-the-us-hhs-office-of-global)

After the letter, I include a list of action steps people can take to voice their objections, which we need to do within the next week or so before these amendments are carte-blanched through.

Expand full comment
The Mallorn Tree's avatar

Thanks.

I would add that it's also setting a precedent for a one world government. We've already had a sort of power grab by globalists and authoritarians during the Covid crisis. But this treaty serves as a sort of statement that it was not a mistake, but rather that they do have the authority to do this, and in fact should have more authority from now on.

While national sovereignty is recognised, the treaty does say that if a member nation rejects the WHO's recommendations, it needs to explain itself to the other signatories. And a compliance board is established. So there are mechanisms to pressure signatories to comply. Sovereignty is recognized de jura, but de facto, it will be eroded.

These things happen in small steps.

And I suspect we shall soon see more of this in other areas. Like perhaps ways to make states more compliant with IPCC recommendations, or with IMF recommendations and so on.

Expand full comment
32 more comments...

No posts