Zelensky Should Have Stayed Home
BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • OCTOBER 3, 2023
Most Americans do not understand how the United Nations functions, or does not function as the case might be, preferring to think of it as some kind of debating society where the 193 member nations representing the world community can vent over issues that they rarely have control over. Nevertheless, in spite of the torrent of words and the lack of any real program, it is always interesting to watch and listen to the UN’s annual General Assembly meeting, which is held in New York during September. This year’s meeting was particularly interesting as it came complete with a major war blazing in Eastern Europe as well as political turmoil in Africa and rising tension with China. It also features the rumblings coming from a new emerging global economic movement, the so-called BRICS developing as a champion of a multipolar-world currency challenge to the US-European dollar dominated international monetary and banking system.
And with economic union, there is also some political realignment, with China strengthening its ties to the developing world and Russia entering into defense arrangements with Iran. President Xi Jinping and Russian president Vladimir Putin will be meeting in Beijing later this month to discuss common concerns. And, as usual, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu showed up to vent his hostility towards Iran with demands that that country’s alleged “nuclear program” be confronted militarily and the sooner the better, just as he has been claiming for the past twenty years.
Indeed, several back stories playing out during this year’s meeting made it more than usually interesting. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky had hoped to turn the gathering into an anti-Russian hate fest, but though there was much complaining about Moscow’s attack on Ukraine coming from the Baltic States and others, the ground continues to be shifting against Zelensky over concerns that the war has become an unwinnable money pit that could easily escalate into a nuclear exchange. Speaking before a UN Security Council session, Zelensky was reduced to harshly criticizing the UN itself for failing to prevent or resolve conflicts before calling for Moscow to be stripped of its veto power on the Security Council. Zelensky, his voice rising in anger, complained how “It is impossible to stop the war because all actions are vetoed by the aggressor.” Observers noted immediately that Zelensky’s complaint did not help his cause. While there have been calls for UN reforms in the past, including over the veto power, the existence of the veto for a limited number of post-1945 greater powers was the only reason the United Nations could be created in the first place at all.
Zelensky also did real damage to his position when he said that while the Ukrainian refugees in Europe have “behaved well . . . and are grateful” to those who have given them shelter, it would not be a “good story” for Europe if a Ukrainian defeat “were to drive the people into a corner.” It was reasonably enough seen by critics as nothing less than a threat of possible unrest producing domestic terrorism as well a possible internal insurrection uncontrollable by whatever Ukrainian government survives defeat. Such unrest might involve the millions Ukrainian refugees without houses and jobs already in place in other European nations if Zelensky is not given all the support which he apparently believes is his due.
Zelensky’s actual message to the General Assembly was not quite so incendiary and impulsive as his other interactions while on his visit, but he offered little new. He reportedly received an obligatory “warm welcome” from those in attendance, but “he delivered his address to a half-full house, with many delegations declining to appear and listen to what he had to say.” He warned those present that “The goal of the present war against Ukraine is to turn our land, our people, our lives, our resources into a weapon against you, against the international rules-based order. We have to stop it. We must act united to defeat the aggressor.” Zelensky did go overboard when he referred to Russia and Russians as “evil” and as “terrorists” and accused them of carrying out a “genocide” against Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov responded to comments made by both President Joe Biden and Zelensky by turning the argument around and observing that it is the US and its NATO “puppets” who already “are waging war against us.”
Zelensky’s frustrations spilled over in Washington on the following day where he met both with Biden and with some members of Congress and also dropped by the Pentagon and left flowers at the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial in Arlington Virginia. His meeting at the White House with the president went relatively well with the announcement of a new aid package in the works including “significant air defense capabilities,” and, according to one report, even some of the much sought after ATACMS long range missile systems. Nevertheless, to his evident disappointment, Zelensky was not given a hero’s welcome like he received last year. He met privately with Kevin McCarthy, speaker of the House, and several other GOP hawks who will be instrumental in approving any aid, as well as with Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer who promised to be “in his corner.” McCarthy boldly asked what Zelensky needed to win the war and to provide lawmakers with “a vision of a plan for victory.”
Nevertheless, it seems that many conservative Republicans and some progressive Democrats are fed up with the war and are concerned over the lack of accountability combined with the all too evident level of corruption within the Ukrainian government. There are moves by some in the GOP to separate Ukraine funding from other defense appropriations, requiring a separate vote, and other proposals by the White House to guarantee the money even if the government shuts down. One wonders if anyone had the grit to ask Zelensky how many mansions he owns in Israel, Europe and the United States, but that is precisely the sort of story that is being increasingly written about Ukraine’s comedian turned war hero, demonstrating that the public and even the media have become tired of the charade. A continuing multi-billion-dollar cash flow, seen by Joe Biden as necessary to keep the war going until the 2024 election to vindicate his policy, is still likely but it is no longer a slam-dunk.
Two other media accounts also suggest that the dissatisfaction with Zelensky and the war is breaking through the self-imposed acceptable narrative on the war, that Vladimir Putin is an aggressor without any real provocation from Kiev, a despot and the human monster. One came surprisingly from the New York Times and is apparently a leak from the White House or Pentagon on a September 6th missile attack on the Ukrainian village of Kostiantynivka which killed at least 18. The attack was quickly labeled by Zelensky as a war crime carried out by Russian “terrorists” which was echoed by the US media but an investigation, presumably carried by the US military and intelligence using satellite and other technical methods, has now determined that the missile was fired by Ukraine. This is similar to the missile attack that struck Poland in November 2022, which also was blamed by Zelensky on Russia but turned out to be from Ukraine, both incidents reflecting just how willing Zelensky is to lie and cheat to get a NATO and US intervention in a full-scale war with Russia, which could easily go nuclear.
The other story tells how Poland will not be providing any more arms to Ukraine, in part because it is now building up its own defenses and also over Ukrainian attempts to flood the Polish agricultural market with cheap low quality grain that it cannot sell elsewhere. To describe the Polish action as disappointing to Zelensky would be an understatement, but it is one more indication that many former allies are now seeing Ukraine as a lost cause and are looking to their own national security and economic interests. Both of these stories were, incidentally, published while Zelensky was in the United States hat in hand, and it must be considered that the timing was deliberate to damage the Ukrainian president’s credibility to coincide with the UN General Assembly visit and the trip to Washington.
Zelensky’s journey to North America ended in Ottawa, where he apparently recouped some of his swagger during a speech to the Canadian government and parliament which resulted in standing ovations. Or so it seemed. The Canadians produced a 98 year old Hungarian veteran of the Second World War named Yaroslav Hunka who had fought against the Russians and emigrated to Canada after the war ended. He too was cheered by the assembled Canadian politicians. The intention was clearly to present a narrative of a brave Ukrainian who fought valiantly to free his country from Russian domination but it didn’t quite work out that way. To fight the Russians required being in Nazi Germany’s armed forces and it turned out that Hunka had served in the 14th Waffen-SS Grenadier Division, also known as the Galicia Division, a volunteer unit made up mostly of ethnic Ukrainians commanded by German officers that has been rightly or wrongly credited with a number of wartime atrocities against Russians, Poles and Jews. Soldiers in the division swore a personal loyalty oath to Adolf Hitler. The bad judgement shown by the Canadian government in producing Hunka without fully investigating his story subsequently produced a huge uproar in Canada, with the head of parliament resigning, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in deep political trouble and the Polish government demanding that Hunka be extradited to them for a war crimes trial. There has been some suspicion that Zelensky may have been instrumental in arranging the affair in expectation that it would strengthen Canadian support for his cause. Instead, it has accomplished the reverse and Zelensky returned home with little or nothing accomplished.
Zelensky must also confront back home a war that he is decisively losing and a country in ruins. And Joe Biden made clear in his speech addressing the UN General Assembly that negotiations with Russia to end the Ukraine fighting would not be considered. Joe included a pledge to support the conflict until it is Russia that is doing the surrendering: “The United States, together with our allies and partners around the world, will continue to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity and their freedom… Russia alone bears responsibility for [the war]. Russia alone has the power to end this war immediately. And it is Russia alone that stands in the way of peace, because Russia’s price for peace is Ukraine’s capitulation, Ukraine’s territory, and Ukraine’s children.” In short, the speech was a lot like Joe Biden and the band of scoundrels and grifters that he has gathered around him in the White House, heavy on bellicosity but short on any serious planning or strategies to make the world and this country a better place. Joe would like to see the war continue to bring its eventual end a lot closer to the US elections, where he hopes to self-identify as a strong leader and a “winner” taking on America’s enemies. Good luck Joe.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Ambassador of Israeli Crimes: This is How Gilad Erdan Become a Defender of Women’s Rights in Iran
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | October 1, 2023
United Nations faces power grab resistance from countries refusing to be bulldozed
By Shabnam Palesa Mohamed | Take Back Power | September 23, 2023
“Regardless, acting as the UN’s general assembly, its 78th president Dennis Francis tried to irregularly and unlawfully approve a ‘historic’ but currently non-binding political declaration on pandemics and other areas related to health, free speech and national sovereignty”. International renowned law professor Francis Boyle said “This is very dangerous. We cannot underestimate its significance. It’s like a stick of dynamite ready to be exploded.”
The United Nations is facing one of the worst scandals in its controversial history, caused by its brazen tendency to defy democratic principles and disrespect national sovereignty. This time, given significant socio-political developments, the world is paying attention.
During the latter part of this September, the UN held its SDG Summit and its 78th General Assembly. At the top of its agenda for the 19th and 20th, was, inter alia, the adoption of a high level political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.
The declaration was due to be adopted via ‘silence procedure’: If a country’s delegate did not object to the declaration, they would be deemed to accept it in full. This silent procedure was a Covid-era tool that outlived its utility and is clearly a dangerous practice.
The PPPR declaration is being strongly criticised as text that is political theatre, without real commitments, except for the promise to hold another high-level meeting in 2026. During the member state comments session, many heads of state were glaringly absent.
Eleven countries wrote a compelling letter detailing the discriminatory attitudes, unlawful procedures and veto threats forcing compulsion on critical agenda items in high level meetings at the 78th UN General Assembly. The meetings include the following:
1. High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, 18 and 19 September
2. High-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, 20 September
3. High-level meeting on universal health coverage, 21 September
4. High-level meeting on the fight against tuberculosis, 22 September
These countries, represented by delegates, include two from Africa: Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Eritrea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, the Syrian Arab Republic, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.
One of the key issues that lead to the revolt by these eleven countries is apparently that earlier drafts of the Agenda 2030 health and sustainable development declarations included language calling on countries to refrain “from promulgating and applying any unilateral, economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law”. Unsurprisingly, this paragraph was summarily removed from the final drafts and opens up sanctions which have a devastating impact on health and sovereignty.
On the fundamental subject of consensual language in UN facilitations, the letter affirms support from the Group of the 77 and China, and from the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, consisting of 19 countries, among others. The Group of 77 is the largest intergovernmental organization of developing countries in the United Nations, comprising of 135 countries.
UN General Assembly 78 president Dennis Francis with WHO’s Adhenom Tedros Ghebreyseus
Dated 17 September 2023, the three page letter to the UN GA president Dennis Francis (Trinidad and Tobago) and UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres (Portugal), objected to unilateral coercive measures and other glaring issues in international law. The eleven countries stated (for readability, bold headers, italics emphasis, numbering and notes are mine):
No consent, lack of transparency and illegal unilateral coercive measures
1. It is regrettable that it has not been possible to find a political solution to the current stalemate, created, not only due to the lack of will of some developed countries to engage in true and meaningful negotiations to have balanced and acceptable outcomes for all, but also due to the lack of transparency and poor handling of your predecessor’s team of all these processes.
2. As you are aware, the issue of the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures (UCMs) is an existential one for our peoples. A third of the world’s population is affected by these illegal measures. There is ample evidence, including from UN sources, of the heavy toll caused by UCMs on targeted countries’ capacities to achieve sustainable development and to make further progress in protecting the right to health of their respective populations. Regardless of these facts, we have engaged in the negotiations of these draft outcomes in good faith, with a spirit of compromise and a constructive approach, in order to reach consensus.
3. Since the beginning of these processes, we have insisted on the need to include our concerns in these important political documents, on the basis of consensual language, as reflected in paragraph 30 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This request has been echoed by a large number of delegations, including from the Group of the 77 and China, and from the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, among others.
SPM note: The delegates’ critical concerns are completely ignored by the United Nations leadership, confirming that the multilateralism motto touted often by the United Nations is sloganeering on empty rhetoric. The letter continues to lay bare:
Unfair practices including veto, lack of inclusion, absence of balance, and neglect
4. The legitimate concerns of a large number of developing countries have been ignored. Hence, it is our duty to express our strong concerns on the unacceptable way in which this situation unfolded, running in clear contradiction with the spirit of multilateralism and the overall goal of “leaving no one behind”.
5. First, there has been no real willingness from a small group of developed countries to engage in meaningful negotiations to find compromises, forcing unfair practices which pretend to impose a kind of “veto” on certain issues, and pretending to even prevent their discussion within the framework of intergovernmental negotiations.
6. Second, in some cases, negotiations were not conducted in a truly inclusive, fair and balanced way. Our delegations had to witness how, in some cases, even single delegations were accommodated a great deal in their concerns, while others’ priorities, including ours, were bluntly neglected.
Objections includes forced consensus, bulldozing, and ignoring repeated breaking of silence
7. For example, the draft outcome of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development under the auspices of the General Assembly – SDGs Summit, was reopened with the purpose of exclusively accommodating the priorities of a few delegations from developed countries, while, in this very same process, and in the three (03) health-related negotiations, nothing was done to reflect and accommodate the legitimate concerns of delegations from developing countries that, in addition had broken silence repeatedly, including the Group of 77 and China.
8. Third, the attempt to ignore formal communications of delegations from developing countries, including from the Group of 77 and China, on behalf of its 134 Member States, indicating strong reservations and objections.
9. Fourth, the attempt to force consensus by your predecessor’s team, and now by your Office, when it is evident that no consensus has been reached on any of these processes; as well as the lack of transparency, inclusiveness and efficient use of the limited time available then to find compromises.
Developing countries take a stand against discrimination perpetrated through the United Nations
SPM: The clear, well-reasoned and articulate letter continues, setting a precedent in protecting national sovereignty:
10. Our delegations are convinced that this is no way to handle multilateral and intergovernmental negotiations on issues of great relevance for the international community, particularly for developing countries. Thus, we would like to put on record that we do not condone, nor accept, this practice, and that it does not set any precedent for the work of the United Nations and its General Assembly.
11. This is particularly relevant, as we look forward to future negotiation processes on fundamental matters, in which we will continue engaging with great determination, flexibility and constructiveness.
Delegations call for a recall of the nature and legal standing of UN meetings
12. Our delegations would also like to recall the nature and legal standing of the meetings in which the SDGs Summit, the High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, the High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, and the High-Level Meeting on the Fight against Tuberculosis, will take place.
13. In relation to the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable Development under the auspices of the General Assembly, SDGs Summit, and in accordance with General Assembly resolution 67/290, in its operative paragraph 9, “all meetings convened under the auspices of the General Assembly shall operate under the rules of procedure of the main committees of the Assembly, as applicable, unless otherwise provided in the present resolution”.
14. Also, operative paragraph 4 of that very same resolution clearly states that the Forum “shall result in a concise negotiated political declaration to be submitted for the consideration of the Assembly”.
15. Hence, we expect a process to take place at a later stage, where the General Assembly will formally consider the adoption of the draft Political Declaration, under Chapter XII of the Rules of Procedures of the General Assembly.
16. Similarly, General Assembly resolutions 75/315, 77/274 and 77/275, are clear in indicating that the political declarations of the three health-related High-Level Meetings should “be submitted by the President of the General Assembly for adoption by the Assembly”.
Opposition to any attempt that formally adopts draft outcome documents, and the right to take action
SPM: The ground breaking letter against illegitimate operations by the UN, continues:
17. In that sense, our delegations oppose any attempt to pretend to formally adopt any of the draft outcome documents in question, during the meetings scheduled for 18, 20, 21 and 22 September 2023, respectively.
18. In addition, we reserve the right to take appropriate action upon the formal consideration of these four (04) draft outcome documents in the coming weeks, after the conclusion of the High-Level Segment of the 78th Session of the General Assembly, when they must all be considered by the General Assembly in accordance with its rules of procedures.
19. In that spirit and in the interest of transparency, we respectfully request hereby your good offices for circulating as soon as possible this letter as an official document of the General Assembly, under agenda items 19 and 127, entitled “Sustainable development” and “Global health and foreign policy”, respectively.
SPM: The letter ends.
UN SG Guterres and WHO DG Tedros at a WHO meeting
• Blatantly ignoring the official letter to the UN, the WHO Director-General Adhenom Tedros Ghebreyesus incorrectly said “As you know, this morning, the 193 Member States of the United Nations approved the political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The declaration is a strong signal from countries that they are committed to learning the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to strengthening the world’s defences against pandemics.”
• He continued with almost delusional dishonesty “In the declaration approved today, Member States have demonstrated that even at this time of division and polarisation, it’s still possible for countries to come together to agree on a shared response to shared threats. It is that same spirit of collaboration that we urge countries to demonstrate as they continue their negotiations on the Pandemic Accord and the amendments to the International Health Regulations.”
• Displaying his complicity in violating international law, he said “The political declaration, approved by Mr Dennis Francis, President of the 78th United Nations General Assembly, and the result of negotiations under the able leadership of Ambassadors Gilad Erdan of Israel and Omar Hilale of Morocco, underscored the pivotal role played by WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority on international health,” and the need to “commit further to sustainable financing that provides adequate and predictable funding to the World Health Organization, which enables it to have the resources needed to fulfil its core functions.”
• Meanwhile, unperturbed by what member states delegates communicated days before, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, in a message delivered by Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohamed (Britain-Nigeria): “By next year’s World Health Assembly in May, I urge all countries to deliver a strong, comprehensive pandemic accord, focused on equity; as well as amendments to strengthen the International Health Regulations. And I urge you to support the World Health Organization, including by honouring the commitment to increase assessed contributions to half of its budget, and supporting the proposed investment round.
• Unconcerned with the diplomatic fallout and failing in his duty to abide by international law, Guterres continued to outline three key priorities: First, Sustainable Development Goals Stimulus (read debt slavery). Next, countering what it defines as misinformation – which will lead to the suppression of critical thinking and free speech. Third, responding to complex global shocks via a UN emergency platform – that will make national governments and the will of the people they serve irrelevant.
On reading this article, Professor Boyle replied to me: “Right! This is a great Defeat for the Globalists. The International Court of Justice has ruled that some types of UN General Assembly Resolutions Adopted by Consensus can become Customary International Law, and the Globalists Lawyers know that. So from my perspective what happened was an Historic Defeat for the Globalists. Tedros and the WHO are trying to turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse. In fact, this was an historic failure. The Globalists tried and failed to get their Declaration adopted by Consensus by the UN General Assembly, thus preventing it from arguably becoming Customary International Law, which is what they intended to do in the first place. But they will try again.”
He continued “The danger here is that this is a Statement by Heads of State and Heads of Government, either one of whom can bind their states under international law and all of whom together could arguably create customary international law. That is what the Drafters of this Statement intended. This is very dangerous. We cannot underestimate its significance. It’s like a stick of dynamite ready to be exploded. This is all part of the Globalists Strategy to create a Worldwide Totalitarian Medical and Scientific Police State under the guise of the WHO. Thanks. Then if the 11 vote this way against it, then that will prevent this Declaration being adopted by Consensus and thus arguably becoming part of customary international law, which is what those behind the Declaration intend.”
Financing the supranationals’ ambitions – $500 billion per year, minimum
About $2 billion has already been collated for a new World Bank managed Pandemic Fund. It is said to be insufficient, compared to the amounts required, especially for debt-burdened countries, to comply with UN and WHO expectations and improve their health systems and prepare hospitals, data surveillance systems and laboratory facilities to meet potential pandemic needs.
A Sustainable Development Goals “stimulus” package in addition to “deep” reforms to the international financial architecture is required, according to UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed. “Many developing countries are drowning in debt,” Mohammed told the high level meeting, echoing views expressed at the UN’s SDG Summit. She called for long-term financing of at least $500 billion annually as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) recovery plan.
Although Africa is not actually poor, “Today Africa spends more on debt service costs than on health care and education. We need a finance boost so that countries can invest in universal, resilient health care; their populations have a right to [access]. “We’re calling on countries to support the stimulus to scale up affordable long-term financing by at least $500 billion per year, and to support the development of an effective debt-relief mechanism that supports payments, suspensions, longer lending terms and lower rates for developing countries that are drowning in debt – and create the fiscal space to spend on the health that people have a right to [enjoy].”
Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of UNAIDS agrees, saying that future pandemic responses need to be based on technology-sharing to facilitate more equitable access to pharmaceutical and other medical products. Byanyima also expressed that many countries were disempowered to invest adequately in health and pandemic preparedness as they were paying debts that were larger than their health budgets.
World Bank Senior Managing Director Axel Van Trotsenburg welcomed the first anniversary of the pandemic fund, which received pledges from 133 countries worth $2 billion. Despite this “very good starting point”, Mr. Trotsenburg warned that $10 billion should be allocated to pandemic preparedness and called on Member States to provide the necessary resources.
In my view, it is accurate to call what is going on under the rule of the United Nations diplomatic fraud and an act of aggression. It is also accurate to have predicted that the United Nations will be the real power driving the WHO’s ambitions, or substitute itself.
Global Threats Council – another One World Government Toolbox
“Critics have also expressed misgivings about the ability of WHO, representing politically weak health ministries, to oversee and enforce the kinds of tough, binding commitments that would be needed for effective pandemic response. Those concerns have been behind the push to make UN fora platforms for pandemic debate and decisions.
Advocates for more UN-centred action have proposed the creation of an independent pandemic governance mechanism in the office of the UN Secretary-General, and/or a UN Global Threats Council, to oversee the implementation of any pandemic accord approved by WHO member states.
“I continue to believe that action at the head of state and government level is so needed to help break the cycle of panic and neglect, which sets in around pandemics and to sustain political momentum around preparedness and response,” said Clark, who has called for the creation of a UN-hosted Global Threats Council. “And then on accountability, independent monitoring of country preparedness is needed to guarantee our mutual assurance, compliance and accountability with international agreements.”
Juan Manuel Santos, former President of Colombia and a member of The Elders, believes that the UN may be the better forum as “pandemic preparedness encompasses far more than health”. Santos told a UN side meeting on Tuesday hosted by the Pandemic Action Network (PAN) that if the pandemic accord negotiations are still “mired in confusion” by the time the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) meets for the seventh time later this year, “someone has to say, enough, we need to shift it back to New York.”
“The world is inching closer to “a great fracture”, UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned as leaders converged in New York for #UNGA78. “It’s reform or rupture,” he said. I agree on the great fracture framing. The united front developed by these eleven countries – with a combined 154 other countries that also have objections about UN documents and processes – has cataclysmic implications for the United Nations – far too long a well oiled front for corporate colonialism and violent peace-making.
I am aptly reminded of the trailblazing stand that the 47 nation African bloc took at the World Health Organisation’s World Health Assembly 75 last year, where they raised objections to controversial International Health Regulation amendments, on the basis that they were rushed, and that they threaten national sovereignty – the WHO, unconvincingly, often denies any such threat.
At UN General Assembly 78, at least two presidents made compelling statements I find relevant to the seismic shift:
• Algeria’s president, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, called for reform and transparency in UN organs, particularly in reforming the Security Council. “Any effort to strengthen joint international action forces us to respond to the constant appeals to strengthen the multilateral system by reforming the main organs of our organisation in order to make them more transparent and ensure the necessary balance among the main organs and ensure equitable geographical distribution. This should be an absolute priority for the international community in order to find a consensus.”
• Paraguay’s President Santiago Peña, has called for reforms to strengthen the UN and bolster its ability to respond to global crises. “The lack of tangible results, inefficacy perceived in multilateral institutions and difficulties in addressing global problems in an effective manner have led to frustration and have led to an increase in the sense that national interests should prevail over multilateral cooperation,” he said from the podium.
Exclusive article written in July 2023, which you can read and share here
Sanctions: inhumane unilateral coercive measures impacting health and sovereignty
Seismic shifts in geopolitics are leading to so-called LMICS (low to middle income countries) or EMDC’s (emerging and developing countries) to consider their cooperation options at a national, regional and inter-regional level. Emerging countries represent 80 percent of the world’s population, while billionaires own more wealth than the majority of their fellow citizens, and corporations can own more than the GDP of countries.
The threat of sanctions through the United Nations, influenced partly by the World Health Organisation as detailed in my July article, is one these countries have a lived experience of, and which seems to weighing in its overall fear factor, evidenced by multiple revolts.
The latest report of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights clearly says: “Unilateral sanctions and over-compliance have a detrimental impact on implementation of all aspects of the right to health of all people in the countries under sanctions, including access to adequate medicine, healthcare facilities, medical equipment, access to qualified medical assistance, prevention and control of deceases, scarcity of health professionals, access to health facilities, training and access to up-to-date scientific knowledge, technologies, research, exchange of good practices.”
The UN and WHO have gone too far in their diabolical attempts to engineer a one world government. In weeks and months ahead, I anticipate more countries joining this coalition and asking themselves why they should remain members of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. They will have growing support from their peoples, desperate to avoid further indignity, discrimination, exclusion, sanctions, lockdowns, censorship, coerced vaccines, digital ID’s, CBDC’s, and the erasure of the sovereignty we value.
Call to Action:
1. Raise your voice against the UN – WHO power grab. CHD Africa will deliver names and countries (only) to UN and WHO leaders (1 minute)
2. Share this article with your family, community, organisations, and media on all sides of the fence (as often as you can)
3. Share this article with your country’s political and diplomatic representatives (with urgency and please follow up)
4. Sign up to CHD Africa’s newsletter for news, analysis, updates and calls to action (immediately for full access)
5. Follow CHD Africa on Telegram and X (Twitter) for information, updates and calls to action (beat censorship!)
Author: Shabnam Palesa Mohamed is an award-winning activist, journalist, lawyer, mediator and socio-political analyst with combined experience of over 20 years. She is based in South Africa and serves as the executive director of Children’s Health Defense Africa.
Canada Launches UN Declaration Pledging Restrictions On Online “Disinformation”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 22, 2023
A “global” declaration – that only manages to garner the support of 27 out of 193 UN member countries. How dreadfully humiliating – some might say.
But rest assured, Canada’s government will find a way to spin this abysmal result of its effort to use this year’s (likely, as ever, a waste of time and taxpayer money) UN General Assembly gathering in NYC to push some of its own agenda – or the agenda it’s tasked to push.
First, what is this yet another “global declaration” – and why has it failed so spectacularly? (The answer may in fact be the same.)
According to an announcement by the Canadian government, cited by the press, the purpose of the “global” declaration is to combat “disinformation.”
“Global Declaration on Information Integrity Online,” is what it’s called, and besides the “trusty” Canadians, the Dutch were also seemingly randomly thrown (an EU country, one or the other) into drafting it.
And look who was readily on the side, to sign it: the US, the UK, Germany, Australia, Japan, Korea, etc.
There are (not many, though) more countries here, but their alignment on “issues” was never in question; and now, instead of a UN General Assembly as a place of the meeting of the minds and meaningful discussions, we have it as a showdown for a world aligning into different, this time huge and truly global blocs, to showcase their different allegiances.
How dreadful – for world peace, going forward.
Meanwhile – what does the Canadian document that only managed a meager backing at the UN have in mind?
It’s “necessary and appropriate measures, including legislation, to address information integrity and platform governance.”
If any of us tried to make the Canadian proposal more ludicrously broad-worded than this is, I’m sure we’d not succeed. But there is an attempt to narrow the “declaration” down. If suitable, “we” go back to “international human rights law.”
So – those who sign the document will do so in a way that complies “with international human rights law.” (?)
Problem: a number of full-fledged UN members are saying, the very UN founding Charter really any longer means anything – having been broken by the likes of Canada, time and time again.
There’s other usual declarative tosh as you might see from these governments’ daily briefings – the only time they ever try to narrow down or clearly define any of the “definitions” is when they mention the tech they’d like to better control – such as ChatGTP.
The UN’s New Political Declaration on Pandemics
By David Bell | Brownstone Institute | September 15, 2023
On September 20th our representatives meeting at the United Nations (UN) will sign off on a ‘Declaration’ titled: “Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.”
This was announced as a ‘silence procedure,’ meaning that States not responding will be deemed supporters of the text. The document expresses a new policy pathway for managing populations when the World Health Organization (WHO), the health arm of the UN, declares a future viral variant to be a ‘public health emergency of international concern.’
The WHO noted in 2019 that pandemics are rare, and insignificant in terms of overall mortality over the last century. Since then, it decided that the 2019 old-normal population were simply oblivious to impending annihilation. The WHO and the entire UN system now consider pandemics an existential and imminent threat. This matters, because:
- They are asking for far more money than is spent on any other international health program (your money),
- This will deliver great wealth to some people who now work closely with the WHO and the UN,
- The powers being sought from your government will reimpose the very responses that have just caused the largest growth in poverty and disease in our lifetimes, and
- Logically, pandemics will only become more frequent if someone intends to make them so (so we should wonder what is going on).
Staff who drafted this Declaration did so because it is their job. They were paid to write a text that is clearly contradictory, sometimes fallacious, and often quite meaningless. They are part of a rapidly growing industry, and the Declaration is intended to justify this growth and the centralization of power that goes with it. The document will almost certainly be agreed by your governments because, frankly, this is where the momentum and money are.
Whilst the Declaration’s thirteen pages are all over the place in terms of reality and farce, they are not atypical of recent UN output. People are trained to use trigger words, slogans, and propaganda themes (e.g., “equity,” “empowerment of all women and girls,” “access to education,” “technology transfer hubs”) that no one could oppose without risking being labeled a denier, far-right, or colonialist.
The Declaration should be read in the context of what these institutions, and their staff, have just done. It is difficult to summarize such a compendium of right-speak intended to veil reality, but it is hoped this short summary will prompt some thought. Wickedness is not a mistake but an intended deception, so we need to distinguish these clearly.
Doing Darkness Behind a Veil of Light
Put together, the following two extracts summarize the internal contradiction of the Declaration’s agenda and its staggering shamelessness and lack of empathy:
“In this regard, we:
PP3: Recognize also the need to tackle health inequities and inequalities, within and among countries, …
PP5: “Recognize that the illness, death, socio-economic disruption and devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, …”
‘Recognition’ of devastation is important. SARS-COV-2 was associated with mortality predominantly within wealthy countries, where the median age of Covid-associated death was between 75 and 85 years. Nearly all of these people had significant comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, meaning their life expectancy was already restricted. People contributing significantly to economic health were at very low risk, a profile known in early 2020.
These three years of socio-economic devastation must, therefore, be overwhelmingly due to the response. The virus did not starve people, as the Declaration’s writers would like us to believe. Deteriorating disease control was predicted by the WHO and others in early 2020, increasing malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and malnutrition. Economic disruption in low-income countries specifically results in more infant and child deaths.
In Western countries, adult mortality has risen as expected when screening for cancer and heart disease are reduced and poverty and stress increase. Knowing this, the WHO advised in late 2019 to ”not under any circumstances” impose the lockdown-like measures for pandemic influenza. In early 2020, under the influence of their sponsors, they advocated for them for Covid-19. The Declaration, however, carries no note of contrition or repentance.
Undeterred by incongruity, the Declaration goes on to describe Covid-19 as “one of the greatest challenges” in UN history (PP6), noting that somehow this outbreak resulted in “exacerbation of poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty…”. In fact, it acknowledges that this caused:
“… (a) negative impact on equity, human and economic development across all spheres of society, as well as on global humanitarian needs, gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, the enjoyment of human rights, livelihoods, food security and nutrition, education, its disruption to economies, supply chains, trade, societies and the environment, within and among countries, which is reversing hard-won development gains and hampering progress…” (PP6)
To restate the obvious, this does not happen due to a virus targeting sick elderly people. It occurs when children and productive adults are barred from school, work, healthcare, and participation in markets for goods and services. Economic, social, and health catastrophe inevitably results, disproportionately harming poorer people and low-income countries, conveniently far indeed from the halls of Geneva and New York.
No, we were not all in this together.
Not all were negatively impacted by this catastrophe. People and corporations who sponsor much of the WHO’s health emergency work, and that of its sister organizations such as CEPI, Gavi, and Unitaid, did very well from the policies they advocated so strongly for. Software and Pharma companies made unprecedently high profits, while this mass impoverishment played out. The international agencies have also gained; construction and recruitment are strong in Geneva. Philanthro-capitalism is good for some.
The main aim of the Declaration is to back the proposed WHO international health regulation (IHR) amendments and treaty (PP26), key to ensuring that viral outbreaks that have such a small impact can remain highly profitable. An additional $10 billion per year in new financing is requested to support this (PP29). There is a reason why most countries have laws against scams. The UN and its agencies, fortunately for its staff, are outside of any national jurisdiction.
Based on their sponsors’ assessments, the staff of these agencies are doing their job well. For the rest of humanity, their work is an unmitigated disaster. In 2019 they said never lock down, then spent 2020 defending top-down lockdowns and mandates. For three years, they theatrically pretended that decades of knowledge on immunity, disease burden, and the association of poverty with mortality did not exist.
Now they write this UN Declaration to fund their industry further through taxpayers they so recently impoverished. Once tasked to serve the world’s vast populations, particularly the poor and vulnerable, the UN vision has been consumed by public-private partnerships, the allure of Davos, and a fascination with high-net-worth individuals.
When Words are Used to Obscure Actions
While the Declaration underlines the importance of educating children during pandemics (PP23), these same organizations backed school closures for hundreds of millions of children at minimal risk from Covid-19. Among them, several million more girls are now being farmed off to nightly rape as child brides, others in child labor. Women and girls were disproportionately removed from education and from employment. They weren’t asked if they supported these policies!
The girls are being raped because the people paid to implement these policies did so. They know the contradiction, and the harm. But this is a job like many others. The only unusual aspects, from a business standpoint, are the sheer amorality and lack of empathy that must be engaged to excel in it.
To justify wrecking African children’s lives, the UN claims that the continent has “over 100 major public health emergencies annually” (OP4). Africa has a rising burden of endemic diseases that dwarfs mortality from such outbreaks – over half a million children die every year from malaria (increased through the Covid-19 lockdowns) and similar burdens from tuberculosis and HIV. By contrast, total Covid-19 deaths recorded in Africa over the past 3 years are just 256,000. The 2015 West African Ebola outbreak, the largest such recent emergency pre-Covid, killed 11,300 people. MERS and SARS1 killed less than 1,000 each globally. However, induced poverty does cause famine, raises child mortality, and wrecks health systems – is this the health emergency that the UN is referring to? Or are they simply making things up?
Through the IHR amendments, these agencies will coordinate the locking down, border closures, mandated medical examinations, and vaccination of you and your family. Their Pharma sponsors reasonably expect to make several hundred billion more dollars from these actions, so we can be confident that emergencies will be declared. By claiming 100 such events annually in Africa alone, they are signaling how these new powers will be used. We are to believe the world is such that only the abandonment of our rights and sovereignty, for the enrichment of others, can save us.
The UN and the WHO do recognize that some will question this illogic. In PP35, they characterize such skepticism as:
“health-related misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and stigmatization.”
The WHO recently publicly characterized people who discuss adverse effects of Covid vaccines and question WHO policies as “far-right,” “anti-science aggressors,” and “a killing force.” This is unhinged. It is the denigration and hate speech that fascist regimes use. The reader must decide whether such an organization should control their freedom of expression and decide what constitutes truth.
It is not helpful here to give details of all 13 pages of right-speak, contradiction, and fallacy. You will find similar rhetoric in other UN and WHO documents, particularly on pandemic preparedness. Straight talk is contrary to business requirements. However, the first paragraph in the Declaration’s ‘Call to Action’ sets the tone:
“We therefore commit to scale up our efforts to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and further implement the following actions and express our strong resolve to:
OP1. Strengthen regional and international cooperation, multilateralism, global solidarity, coordination and governance at the highest political levels and across all relevant sectors, with the determination to overcome inequities and ensure the sustainable, affordable, fair, equitable, effective, efficient and timely access to medical countermeasures including vaccines, diagnostics, therapeutics and other health products to ensure high-level attention through a multisectoral approach to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics and other health emergencies, particularly in developing countries;”
There are 48 more. You paid taxes so that someone could write that!
Those millions of girls suffering at night, the hundreds of millions of children who had their futures stolen, the mothers of those malaria-killed children, and all suffering under the increasing burden of poverty and inequality unleashed by this farce are watching. The Declaration, like the WHO IHR and treaty it supports, awaits the signatures of the governments that purport to represent us.
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.
UN Human Rights Chief Criticizes Elon Musk For Pushing Back Against ADL Censorship Demands
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | September 15, 2023
The UN human rights chief Volker Turk rallied against criticism of attempts by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to suppress online speech, particularly on X.
Turk took the bull by the horns in his fervent appeal on Wednesday, levelling sharp criticism at tech tycoon, Elon Musk, who has rebranded Twitter as X, demanding a stauncher response to rampaging so-called “hate speech.”
Turk expressed concern over the criticism leveled against the ADL after the group campaigned for advertisers to pause spending on the platform.
Turk alluded to Musk’s criticism of the ADL’s tactics without explicitly dropping names, although it was clear he placed Musk’s platform X near the heart of his grievance.
Musk, who has painted the ADL in a harsh light, accusing it of pushing baseless claims which have frightened advertisers and inflicted financial damage, is currently in the eye of the media.
Turk made no bones about drawing attention to this matter, as he urged online media behemoths to step up the crackdown on the blitzkrieg of “offensive” language and “disinformation.”
Transparency over policies dealing with “hate speech,” their effective implementation, and accessible ways for average users to report such abuse were among Turk’s key demands.
“Social media platforms have played a terrible role in metastasizing of hatred from limited backwaters into multi-current mainstream trends,” he complained.
Turk demanded that social media platforms increase transparency about their hate speech policy.
“And they must much more effectively put these policies into practice, including by ensuring that people can report hate speech easily and that those reports will swiftly lead to appropriate action,” he added.
UN Publishes Final Draft of Declaration That Targets “Misinformation,” Backs WHO Pandemic Treaty
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | August 31, 2023
The United Nations (UN) is no fan of free speech and one of its plans to “address” so-called “misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and stigmatization” is on the verge of being finalized.
This unelected intergovernmental organization, which wields significant influence over its 193 member states, recently published the final draft of its Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.
The final draft contains several agreements from heads of state and government to crack down on lawful speech. Additionally, it contains pledges from these heads of state and government to back two instruments that will give the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) enhanced powers to target “misinformation” and build out its surveillance networks.
These instruments, the international pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), have been in the works since 2021 and despite facing major pushback, are on track to be completed by May 2024.
The final draft of this political declaration is being developed for the UN’s High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response which will take place on September 20, 2023 in New York. The political declaration outlined in this draft will be finalized at this meeting.
While UN political declarations aren’t usually legally binding, they do wield significant legal influence. According to the UN, declarations “represent the dynamic development of international legal norms and reflect the commitment of states to move in certain directions, abiding by certain principles.”
The proposed speech crackdowns are outlined in several sections of the final draft of this political declaration.
In section OP35, the heads of state and government agree to “take measures to counter and address the negative impacts of health-related misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and stigmatization, especially on social media platforms” and counter “vaccine hesitancy in the context of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” Additionally, section OP42 includes an agreement to combat “misinformation.”
The UN member states back the pandemic treaty in section OP15 and agree to encourage the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (the group that’s responsible for drafting and negotiating the pandemic treaty) to conclude their negotiations on the “WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response” (the full name of the WHO’s pandemic treaty).
Not only do UN member states give explicit backing to the pandemic treaty and push for it to be finalized but they also encourage the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to prioritize the “need for equity.” Equity is framed by its proponents as something that encourages fairness but critics have warned that equity policies can lead to bias and the injection of “radical ideology.”
The support for the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) is contained in section OP16 of the final draft. This section encourages the working group that’s focused on these amendments to continue its work with respect to the intended finalization date of May 2024.
This political declaration is one of the many ways the UN is tightening its grip on speech. This year alone, it has started building a “digital army” to fight against “deadly disinformation”, encouraged people to snitch on each other for “hate speech”, and claimed that censoring “disinformation” and “hate speech” will protect “free speech.”
The UN has also consulted with several governments and blocs on their censorship work. Specifically, it has attended multiple “disinformation sessions” with a UK government censorship agency and held discussions with the European Union on how to address “disinformation” on digital platforms.
Related:
UK slammed for opposing ICJ ruling on Israel Occupation of Palestine
MEMO | August 26, 2023
The UK has come under scrutiny for reportedly attempting to hinder the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from issuing a legal opinion on Israel’s occupation of Palestine. The UK’s alleged move came to light through a 43-page legal opinion submitted to the ICJ, which is currently in the fact-finding stage before an expected advisory opinion from the Court on the legal consequences of the “occupation, settlement and annexation” of Palestinian land.
The UK’s objection submitted in the “amicus brief” has been met with dismay as it not only seeks to derail the work of the ICJ, it also goes against the grain of other member states and non-governmental organisations by opposing the hearing of the case entirely.
Critics argue that the UK’s stance ignores the entrenched nature of Israel’s occupation and the deteriorating situation on the ground. Palestinian diplomats and international humanitarian law experts have expressed dismay at the UK’s submission. The ICJ, based in The Hague, is the top United Nations Court for resolving disputes between nations; its decisions are binding, although it lacks enforcement powers.
“[Assuming that the document is authentic] … this is a rather weak and uninformed document that portrays Israel’s longstanding occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and its annexation of East Jerusalem, as a bilateral dispute between two states,” Dr Victor Kattan, an assistant professor in public international law at the University of Nottingham is reported saying in the Guardian.
Kattan stressed that the ICJ can issue an opinion on any legal question arising from the work of the UN, and the General Assembly does not need Israel’s consent to refer a request to the Court. The ICJ’s 2004 opinion on “The Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, for example, was issued without the consent of the occupation state. The UN Court found that the barrier violates international law and should be torn down. The vote of the justices was 14 to 1.
The latest attempt to obtain an ICJ opinion holds significance for Israel and the Palestinians, as it addresses the legality of Israel’s occupation – a matter that has not been conclusively judged in the 56 years of its existence. Legal experts have judged the occupation to be illegal due to its length and also because of Israel’s de-facto annexation, which has made occupation a permanent reality.
The UK’s position contrasts with the UN General Assembly resolution, which sought an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the “legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” The UK, along with Israel and other Western states, voted against the resolution.
The ICJ’s deliberations on this matter are anticipated to last at least a year, and the question of whether the occupation is still temporary will be a central point of discussion. The ICJ’s potential findings could influence recognition, aid and obligations related to the occupation. Israel has criticised the referral to the ICJ, with its envoy to the UN describing the General Assembly vote as delegitimising, a term that is often used to label critics of the occupation state as anti-Semitic.
Members have until 25 October to make comments on statements to the ICJ submitted by others. If the Court accepts the request for an advisory opinion, as is expected, deliberations will last at least a year.
The UN is Building a “Digital Army” To Fight What it Calls “Deadly Disinformation”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | August 21, 2023
The UN is tripling down on its role as an important global player in the “fight against online misinformation” and amplification of the narrative of a supposedly serious threat this allegedly new phenomenon brings to humankind.
Thus UN peacekeepers are adding another task to the duties the member-states fund when they approve their missions meant to help people and countries devastated by war and other disasters: they are now also “building a digital army.”
And according to a writeup on the UN website, “misinformation” is viewed by the world organization in exceedingly alarmist terms as, “deadly,” and posing “existential” risk to such core building blocks of modern societies as democratic institutions and fundamental human rights.
They really do make that connection, verbatim. And they now use the term “war” and “battlefield” to describe (mis)information and other goings on in the media, too.
We’ve heard this before, of course, from the Biden administration regarding the Covid vaccines/pandemic – but the identical wording may or may not be a coincidence.
In order to justify as much as it can this considerable shift in policy and focus from UN’s traditional operations and purpose, the UN article doesn’t talk only about things like undermining epidemic(s)-containing efforts, protecting scientific truths and facts (and, as recent experience has shown, “facts” as well ), and the like.
To prop up the argument, it is claimed that the peacekeeping work itself, and the safety and lives of peacekeepers are also falling victim to “large scale misinformation.”
The UN’s solutions: effectively testing “proactive” approaches to the problem they defined, and doing this in a number of war-torn African countries.
Leading the charge seems to be the UN mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, known as MONUSCO (a French-language acronym).
Then there’s something called the UN Verified initiative, which offers a course free of charge that is supposed to “educate” people in these physically dangerous places on how to keep themselves safe from – online “misinformation.”
This effort expands on several basic topics, including how to recognize “disinformation,” and the UN will also tell you why it is being spread.
Another one is to be able to discern emotional, dramatic, and provocative content (some might say the article from the UN site referenced here might easily qualify.)
‘Health Program or Military Program’? White House Taps Military Official to Lead New Pandemic Policy Office
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 26, 2023
Just weeks after ending the COVID-19 national and public health emergencies and the resignation of COVID-19 Response Coordinator Ashish Jha, the White House launched its Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy (OPPR).
Retired Major General Paul Friedrichs, a military combat surgeon, will lead the office, the White House said.
According to the White House, the OPPR will be “a permanent office in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) charged with leading, coordinating, and implementing actions related to preparedness for, and response to, known and unknown biological threats or pathogens that could lead to a pandemic or to significant public health-related disruptions in the United States.”
The OPPR will take over the duties of President Biden’s COVID-19 and monkeypox response teams, including “ongoing work to address potential public health outbreaks and threats from COVID-19, Mpox, polio, avian and human influenza, and RSV [respiratory syncytial virus],” the announcement stated.
The OPPR also will oversee efforts to “develop, manufacture, and procure the next generation of medical countermeasures, including leveraging emerging technologies and working with HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] on next generation vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 and other public health threats.”
According to The New York Times, Friedrichs, set to take office Aug. 7, will have the authority to “oversee domestic biosecurity preparedness.” He will work on the development of next-generation vaccines, ensure adequate supplies in the Strategic National Stockpile and “ramp up surveillance to monitor for new biological threats.”
Several medical, biosecurity and civil liberties experts questioned the selection of a career military and biosecurity individual to head a new office charged with pandemic preparedness.
They also told The Defender they saw parallels between the White House’s establishment of the OPPR and ongoing United Nations (U.N.) efforts to draft a global declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response (PPPR).
‘Is OPPR a health program or a military program?’
Friedrichs, a board-certified physician, is currently a special assistant to the president and senior director for Global Health Security and Biodefense at the National Security Council.
He previously served as joint staff surgeon at the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and as medical adviser to the Pentagon’s COVID-19 task force.
Throughout his career, the White House said, Friedrichs worked closely with federal, state, tribal, local and territorial government partners, as well as industry and academic counterparts.
According to the White House:
“As the United States’ representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Committee of Military Medical Chiefs, he worked closely with many of America’s closest allies and partners throughout the pandemic and in developing medical support to the Ukrainian military.”
In his previous roles at the National Security Council and DOD, Friedrichs was a strong proponent of COVID-19 vaccines and countermeasures.
The Times reported that, in a February speech, Friedrichs said, “The military health system became the pinch-hitter that stepped in to help our civilian partners as we collectively struggled to work through that pandemic.”
In a February 2022 podcast, Friedrichs praised the COVID-19 vaccines and also appeared to blame those who were unvaccinated for placing “stress on our system.”
And in remarks shared in January 2022 with the Association of the United States Army, Friedrichs asked military families to continue holding off on gatherings so that service members are “able to do the things that our nation depends on them to do.”
Does Friedrichs’ appointment signal more vaccine mandates?
Describing Friedrichs’ appointment as “a joke and a fraud,” Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert and professor of international law at the University of Illinois who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, told The Defender :
“DOD has routinely enforced experimental medical vaccines on U.S. Armed Forces, in gross violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation — that is, a Nuremberg crime against humanity — from today’s COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and going all the way back in recent history to the ‘vaccines’ that produced Gulf War sickness starting in 1990-1991, when Friedrichs was a U.S. Military medical doctor.
“Of 500,000 U.S. troops inoculated, 11,000 died and 100,000 were disabled. I do not recall that Friedrichs was among the handful of courageous and principled military medical doctors who refused, as a matter of principle, to inflict Nuremberg crimes on our own troops. Did he? That needs to be investigated.”
Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom,” said the selection of Friedrichs, who supported military vaccine mandates, may signal similar future mandates for the general public.
“We should not forget that the DOD mandated the COVID-19 vaccine for service members,” Rectenwald said. “The OPPR will mandate vaccines for the nation.”
And writing on her blog, Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist, biological warfare epidemiologist and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, questioned if the OPPR plans “to use the military’s OTA [other transaction] authority again to bypass the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and vaccinate us with untested junk that turned out to be poison, like it did for COVID.”
Is OPPR “a health program or a military program?” Nass wrote.
Nass told The Defender that if the main purpose of the OPPR was to respond to pandemics and pandemic threats, an epidemiologist or infectious disease doctor would have been tapped to head the office instead of a military general.
Similarly, Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, biotech consultant and former director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, told The Defender :
“COVID-19 demonstrated that the sort of interventions envisioned by the pandemic preparedness lobby such as lockdowns and coerced mass vaccination, have poor public health outcomes.
“Public health should be concentrated on informing the public to make personal decisions about health, rather than the population-control approaches we saw for COVID-19 that are most profitable to the corporate world. We must hope this new health bureaucracy is more independent of vested interests, and will take an evidence-based approach.”
Nass suggested that Friedrich’s selection belies a broadly encompassing biosecurity agenda, which would include censorship of non-establishment medical information, surveillance and mass, or mandatory, vaccination, tied to U.N. and World Health Organization (WHO) “pandemic preparedness and response” efforts.
A ‘WHO globalist worldwide medical and scientific police state’ here in the U.S.?
Other experts also noted the similarities between the name of the OPPR, the U.N.’s draft PPPR and a similar recent agreement among WHO member states.
Still in “zero draft” form, the PPPR is scheduled to be discussed by the U.N. General Assembly in September 2023. It would also be tied to the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations.
Similarly, a June 28 document from the WHO said, “Member States … have agreed to a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”
And a separate but similar set of proposals — part of the U.N.’s “Pact for the Future” and “Our Common Agenda” — would give the U.N. secretary-general unprecedented emergency powers not only for pandemics but seemingly for an unlimited range of other potential crises. The U.N. will discuss these proposals in September 2024.
Boyle told The Defender the OPPR is “obviously being coordinated with the U.N. [and] the Biden administration to establish the effective functioning of a WHO globalist worldwide medical and scientific police state here in the United States.”
“You need the mentality of an unprincipled military medical major general to do that,” Boyle said. “All the trains will run on time.”
Rectenwald drew similar connections, telling The Defender the OPPR and Friedrichs’ selection:
“Signifies the militarization of pandemic responses in the U.S., in line with the ‘global governance’ measures outlined by the U.N.’s Pandemic Preparedness, Prevention and Response declaration.
“This new wing of the executive branch is the means by which this ‘global governance’ (read: one-world totalitarian system) is being introduced to the U.S., using pandemic preparedness as the pretext.”
Notably, proposals for a government “pandemic preparedness” office date at least as far back as October 2020, when the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) issued an extensive set of recommendations calling upon the U.S. government to “adopt a robust strategy for domestic and global pandemic preparedness.”
The report recommended that the U.S. “finally treat pandemics as a serious national security threat, translating its rhetorical support for pandemic preparedness into concrete action.”
According to the CFR, this would entail “bolstering the White House’s leadership role in preparing for and responding to pandemics, improving congressional input into and oversight over executive branch efforts, reforming the CDC so that it can perform more effectively, and clarifying the often confused division of labor across federal, state, and local governments in pandemic preparedness and response.”
“The president should designate a focal point within the White House for global health security, including pandemic preparedness and response,” the report added. “This office would have lead responsibility for coordinating the multiple federal departments and agencies in anticipating, preventing, and responding quickly to major disease outbreaks.”
OPPR reports to Congress required only every 5 years, not annually
The establishment of the OPPR resulted from the passage of the PREVENT Pandemics Act in December 2022.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and the now-retired Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), passed as part of an omnibus spending bill, contained a requirement for the creation of a White House pandemic preparedness and response office.
Though the bill was passed in December 2022, the White House was unable to immediately establish a pandemic preparedness office and name a director.
A Politico report in May said these efforts were “hindered by concerns over whether [the office] will have the influence within the administration and the financial resources needed to fulfill its broad mission — especially as COVID plummets down the list of political priorities.”
According to the White House announcement, OPPR will “Develop and provide periodic reports to Congress” as required by law, including drafting and delivering to Congress “a biennial Preparedness Review and Report and Preparedness Outlook Report every five years.”
On her blog, Nass wrote, “Instead of the more customary yearly reports, the reporting to Congress is being delayed considerably, perhaps until after many of us have died from the countermeasures — a great way to evade oversight.”
In a separate blog post, Nass also observed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requested $20 billion for “pandemic preparedness” in its fiscal year 2024 budget.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Blueprint for the New World Order
MERYL NASS | JULY 10, 2023
The UN has put out a number of concerning policy briefs and documents in the past 2 years and I will share them with you. This is the first :
First, now is the time to re-embrace global solidarity and find new ways to work together for the common good. This must include a global vaccination plan to deliver vaccines against COVID-19 into the arms ofthe millions of people who are still denied this basic lifesaving measure. Moreover, it must include urgentand bold steps to address the triple crisis of climate disruption, biodiversity loss and pollution destroying our planet.
Second, now is the time to renew the social contract between Governments and their people and within societies, so as to rebuild trust and embrace a comprehensive vision of human rights. People need to see results reflected in their daily lives. This must include the active and equal participation of women and girls, without whom no meaningful social contract is possible. It should also include updated governance arrangements to deliver better public goods and usher in a new era of universal social protection, health coverage, education, skills, decent work and housing, as well as universal access to the Internet by 2030 as a basic human right. I invite all countries to conduct inclusive and meaningful national listening consultations so all citizens have a say in envisioning their countries’ futures.
Third, now is the time to end the “infodemic” plaguing our world by defending a common, empirically backed consensus around facts, science and knowledge. The “war on science” must end. All policy and budget decisions should be backed by science and expertise, and I am calling for a global code of conduct that promotes integrity in public information.
Fourth, now is the time to correct a glaring blind spot in how we measure economic prosperity and progress. When profits come at the expense of people and our planet, we are left with an incomplete picture of the true cost of economic growth. As currently measured, gross domestic product (GDP) fails to capture the human and environmental destruction of some business activities. I call for new measures to complement GDP, so that people can gain a full understanding of the impacts of business activities and how we can and must do better to support people and our planet. [So clever how the wordsmiths portray the globalists’ desire to get rid of measures of economic activity as if this is linked to preventing environmental destruction!—Nass ]
Fifth, now is the time to think for the long term, to deliver more for young people and succeeding generations and to be better prepared for the challenges ahead. Our Common Agenda includes recommendations for meaningful, diverse and effective youth engagement both within and outside the United Nations, including through better political representation and by transforming education, skills training and lifelong learning. I am also making proposals, such as a repurposed Trusteeship Council, a Futures Lab, a Declaration on Future Generations and a United Nations Special Envoy to ensure that policy and budget decisions take into account their impact on future generations. We also need to be better prepared to prevent and respond to major global risks. It will be important for the United Nations to issue a Strategic Foresight and Global Risk Report on a regular basis, and I also propose an Emergency Platform, to be convened in response to complex global crises.
Sixth, now is the time for a stronger, more networked and inclusive multilateral system, anchored within the United Nations. Effective multilateralism depends on an effective United Nations, one able to adapt to global challenges while living up to the purposes and principles of its Charter. For example, I am proposing a new agenda for peace, multi-stakeholder dialogues on outer space and a Global Digital Compact, as well as a Biennial Summit between the members of the Group of 20 and of the Economic and Social Council, the Secretary-General and the heads of the international financial institutions. Throughout, we need stronger involvement of all relevant stakeholders, and we will seek to have an Advisory Group on Local and Regional Governments.
For 75 years, the United Nations has gathered the world around addressing global challenges: from conflicts and hunger, to ending disease, to outer space and the digital world, to human rights and disarmament. In this time of division, fracture and mistrust, this space is needed more than ever if we are to secure a better, greener, more peaceful future for all people. Based on this report, I will ask a High-level Advisory Board, led by former Heads of State and Government, to identify global public goods and other areas of common interest where governance improvements are most needed, and to propose options for how this could be achieved…
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Israel Set a Trap for Total War in the Region
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archive
Zionism’s Violent Legacy
By Donald Neff | Washington Report On Middle East Affairs | January 1996
On January 4, 1948, Jewish terrorists drove a truck loaded with explosives into the center of the all Arab city of Jaffa and detonated it, killing 26 and wounding around 100 Palestinian men, women and children.[1] The attack was the work of the Irgun Zvai Leumi – the “National Military Organization,” also known by the Hebrew letters Etzel – the largest Jewish terrorist group in Palestine. The Irgun was headed by Revisionist Zionist Menachem Begin and had been killing and maiming Arabs, Britons and even Jews for the previous ten years in its efforts to establish a Jewish state.
This terror campaign meant that at the core of Revisionist Zionism there existed a philosophical embrace of violence. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Trita Parsi: Israel Set a Trap for Total War in the Region
- Trump’s Iran war is on an Israeli leash
- Saudi oil boss issues global supply warning
- Riyadh Says Its Oil System Is Intact. The Numbers Say Otherwise.
- Trump and Netanyahu Want to “Finish the Job” on Iran
- US ‘one-sided dictation’ not Iran’s beliefs makes rational talks impossible: Baghaei
- Iran’s Next Strike May Not Explode. It Could Shut You Down /Col Doug Macgregor
- Iran: US political targets legitimate if assassinations return
- Iraq shuts key border crossing with Iran under US pressure: Report
- Undersea Internet cables could be targeted in retaliation for attacks on Iran: IRGC deputy chief
- If Americans Knew
- The Israel Lobby’s Changing Fortunes
- AIPAC has become such a political liability that it’s shifting to a more “nimble” approach to buying politicians
- At least 160 Israeli settler attacks in 2 weeks
- Will Gaza’s Ancient Christian Community Disappear Forever?
- Israel’s vision of regional security rests on keeping Arab states weak
- Heidi Levine recounts how Palestinian youths helped save her in settler attack
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- Trump’s Intensifying Sabotage of the ICC, for Israel’s Sake
- Israeli military detain US and UK volunteers in West Bank including Democratic NY politician Brad Lander
- Americans at National Conservatism Conference held in Israel this year criticize Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
