Amidst all the fanfare in D.C. and the ensuing media sensationalism, few individuals are paying attention to a series of developments in the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO is quietly drafting a “pandemic treaty” that could take effect in May 2024. This treaty contains many concerning ambitions, one of which is expanding the surveillance powers of governments and corporations.
The zero draft of the WHO’s treaty provides a window into the agendas of various agencies including the United Nations (UN). The UN has 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These SDGs are part of the UN’s Agenda 2030 which contains a list of 17 goals the United Nations desires to achieve by the year 2030. The third stated goal of the UN is universal health coverage. Article 4 of the WHO’s zero draft emphasizes the importance of “achieving universal health coverage…as a fundamental aspect of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals…” At first glance, universal health coverage sounds like a noble goal. However, further investigation reveals this goal is a trojan horse for a more nefarious agenda.
The United Nation’s Universal Health Coverage (UHC) 2030 claims that it “provides a multi-stakeholder platform” to progress toward global health coverage. An integral part of UHC is “health security” which entails “disease surveillance.” In a report absent from the UHC2030’s page but available through the UK Government’s website, the authors make clear that UHC and surveillance are inextricably linked. The report claims that “…health systems need…surveillance to manage outbreaks, assess vaccine effectiveness and ensure access to new early treatments…” According to the WHO’s own definition, “public health events” include far more than just disease outbreaks—climate change, population growth, and “rapid urbanization” also ostensibly require surveillance measures.
The purported need for disease surveillance is expressed numerous times in the zero draft. In Article 10, the WHO claims surveillance systems such as “One Health” are needed to control outbreaks. One Health is defined by the WHO as being “an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and the environment.” The One Health approach involves the use of “shared databases and surveillance” across sectors.
The fusing of the private and public sectors poses its own set of dangers to civil liberties. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Big Tech worked with governments to install tracking “spyware” on citizens’ phones, develop vaccine passports, and censor speech on the internet. One of the key goals of the WHO treaty is to “counter misinformation and disinformation,” although neither of these terms is defined. The treaty also adds that “regular social media analysis” should be conducted to “identify and understand misinformation.” Big Tech engaging in censorship is nothing new, but tech companies will be further emboldened if the WHO gets their way.
The WHO has a history of supporting surveillance and last year they collaborated with the Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI) to advance international vaccine passports. The WHO’s support for tracking efforts is especially concerning given the organization’s authority. If this treaty passes, it will be implemented in Article 19 of the WHO Constitution. This would allow the World Health Assembly (WHA) to “force” conventions or agreements on all 194 WHO member states with “a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly.” If this treaty is finalized next year, national sovereignty will be at the mercy of power-hungry technocrats.
While various distractions keep the populace divided, global agencies are currently conspiring to amass more control over our lives. This pandemic treaty is not about creating healthier outcomes but rather enriching private stakeholders, eroding privacy, and curbing medical freedom. Regardless of political affiliation, we should all be united against these corrupt global interests that seek to increase their power at the expense of our liberties.
The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.