Author Topic: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law  (Read 133752 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16142
    • View Profile
United Nations, WHO: Yes, Dr Tedros previously covered up epidemics
« Reply #300 on: May 18, 2020, 11:11:26 PM »
Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/health/candidate-who-director-general-ethiopia-cholera-outbreaks.html

[2017]  “A leading candidate to head the World Health Organization was accused this week of covering up three cholera epidemics in his home country, Ethiopia, when he was health minister — a charge that could seriously undermine his campaign to run the agency. The accusation against Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was made by a prominent global health expert who is also an informal adviser to Dr. David Nabarro, a rival candidate in the race for W.H.O. director general.”
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 05:47:06 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile
WSJ: Trump vs ICC
« Reply #301 on: June 12, 2020, 05:45:17 AM »
Warning a Rogue Court
A Trump order defends the U.S. and Israel against foreign prosecutors.
By The Editorial Board
June 11, 2020 7:46 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
27

The International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
President Trump takes a lot of flak for his blunderbuss hostility to international organizations, but he’s aiming for the right target with the new sanctions he threatened Thursday against the International Criminal Court. Someone needs to rein in the ICC and it might as well be Washington.

The order allows the Justice, State and Treasury departments to impose financial sanctions or travel bans on any ICC officials who attempt to prosecute Americans. It expands on a previous round of travel restrictions on some ICC officials introduced last year. The immediate goal is to block an investigation the ICC started in 2017 into supposed war crimes in Afghanistan. That investigation is both vexatious and silly. U.S. officials accused of crimes already are subject to American law, while the ICC somehow thinks the Taliban will care if officials in the Hague prosecute the terrorists for genocide.

The bigger aim of Thursday’s sanctions is to defend American sovereignty, and that of allies such as Israel that are also targeted by the court. The U.S. is not a party to the ICC, and both Republican and Democratic administrations have long worried the court would expose American officials to politicized lawfare investigations.

Sure enough, Attorney General William Barr said Thursday the Administration believes Russia may be exerting undue influence on the court to tie down American officials in a long, costly and pointless Afghanistan prosecution. Mr. Barr also said he’s seen evidence of financial improprieties by court officials. If that’s true, the lack of effective accountability counts as another strike against the court’s legitimacy.

The Trump Administration would perform a public service by releasing whatever evidence it has of alleged wrongdoing at the court. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump’s order is a vital defense of the constitutional rights of American citizens to have criminal complaints against them adjudicated in impartial, democratically legitimate courts.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile
Globalist Joe at the UN
« Reply #306 on: February 08, 2021, 05:31:54 PM »
Hope Over Experience at the U.N.
Biden ‘reengages’ with a dictators’ club called the Human Rights Council.
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 8, 2021 6:42 pm ET



Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday announced the U.S. would rejoin the United Nations Human Rights Council, vowing to reform the body “so it can achieve its potential.” We suggest the White House aim for a more realistic goal—like attaining world peace or establishing a self-sustaining Martian colony.

The U.S. is joining the council as an observer immediately and will seek full membership when possible. It shouldn’t be hard to meet the organization’s expectations. Well over half of its members “fail to meet the minimal standards of a free democracy,” according to UN Watch.

Last fall Cuba, Russia and China were elected to the 47-seat body. Moscow won its seat after poisoning opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who has since been imprisoned on trumped-up charges. The Chinese Communist Party-sponsored genocide in Xinjiang wasn’t enough to stop its accession, though its margin of victory narrowed from previous years. Cuba’s long history of repression didn’t matter.


Like so many other U.N. institutions, the council also has a malign obsession with Israel. It has condemned the Jewish state some 90 times since its founding in 2006. No other country comes close. By UN Watch’s count, Syria and North Korea earned 13 and 35 condemnations. Russia and China? Zero.



Mr. Blinken at least acknowledged “that the Human Rights Council is a flawed body, in need of reform to its agenda, membership, and focus, including its disproportionate focus on Israel.” But these problems are endemic and predictable: Membership is based on a vote in the General Assembly, not on real standards of human dignity or freedom.

Knowing that Norway and North Korea get an equal say, George W. Bush didn’t bother seeking a seat. Then Barack Obama joined with no real results. After the Trump Administration’s attempts at reform failed, the U.S. withdrew.

Mr. Blinken argues “our withdrawal in June 2018 did nothing to encourage meaningful change, but instead created a vacuum of U.S. leadership, which countries with authoritarian agendas have used to their advantage.” This might be credible if countries like Cuba, China and Russia also weren’t members during the Obama years. Mr. Blinken doesn’t explain why this time is different.

A leading conceit of Joe Biden’s foreign policy is that the U.S. can reform international organizations—and make them live up to their ostensibly noble purposes—simply by showing up. History shows that America’s involvement condones the farce rather than ending it.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile
Stratfor: How many countries are there in the world?
« Reply #307 on: March 03, 2021, 05:00:01 AM »
How Many Countries Are There in the World?

undefined and Director of Analytic Client Solutions
Amelia Harnagel
Director of Analytic Client Solutions, Stratfor
4 MIN READMar 2, 2021 | 22:22 GMT





People stand over a world map at the Monument to the Discoveries in the Belem parish of Lisbon, Portugal, on Aug. 21, 2014.
People stand over a world map at the Monument to the Discoveries in the Belem parish of Lisbon, Portugal, on Aug. 21, 2014.
(Frederic Soltan/Corbis via Getty Images)

How many countries are there in the world? It’s a seemingly simple question. But like so many things in geopolitics, the answer is, well...complicated.

The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States listed four requirements for statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The issue, however, is defining who meets that criteria, which varies depending on who you ask.

The Common Standards
United Nations: Since the middle of the 20th century, U.N. membership has largely been seen as the standard for what makes a country a country. South Sudan was the last new member to join the United Nations in 2011, bringing the total number of U.N. member-states (and some would say recognized countries) to 193.

Admission of new members is managed by the U.N. Secretary-General with approval from the General Assembly, based on whether the applicant is deemed a “peace-loving” state that is “able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the [U.N.] Charter.”
The United Nations also allows for non-member states to serve as “permanent observers” in the General Assembly, which currently includes The Holy See (commonly known as Vatican City) and the Palestinian territories.
Nation-State vs. Country
For the purposes of this analysis, we’ve opted to stick with the common vernacular that uses “nation-state” and “country”  interchangeably. Technically, however, there’s a difference. The United Kingdom, for example, is a single nation-state made up of four countries. And while a country, Libya is not a formal nation-state since it currently lacks a unified government that’s recognized both at home and abroad. 

The World Bank: Another large global body that we reference often in our work here at Stratfor is the World Bank. While World Bank and U.N. membership overlaps significantly, they have different missions and different criteria for admission. Andorra, Cuba, Liechtenstein, Monaco and North Korea are U.N. members but not World Bank members, whereas Kosovo is a World Bank member but not a U.N. member.

The Olympics: Of course, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is another large international organization with a global membership and reach. The number of countries competing changes slightly each time the events are held, as well as between the summer and winter games. But for our purposes here, we’ll consider the 2016 Summer Olympics, which saw athletes from a whopping 205 countries compete. This included all 193 U.N. countries except Kuwait (whose athletes competed under the banner of Independent Olympic Athletes), along with 12 other countries.


The Gray Areas
It is worth noting that there are dozens of areas around the world that are not formal members of these international organizations, but meet the 1933 criteria for statehood listed above (i.e. permanent population, defined borders, a government and capacity for international relations). This includes:

Self-proclaimed states like Liberland, located between Croatia and Serbia.
Partially recognized states like Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus.
Politically ambiguous states like Palestine and Taiwan, which are both recognized by some U.N. member states and not others.
“De-facto” states like Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, which operate mostly independently but are still widely recognized as part of another nation-state. Other breakaway territories that fall into this category include Somaliland, Tibet, Abkhazia and Transnistria.
Our Definition

As for our analysts and experts here at Stratfor and RANE, we use our own standard for defining countries based on geopolitical realities. We started with the U.N. list (including the permanent observers), and then added Greenland, Hong Kong, Kosovo and Taiwan. All four of these added states operate independently in the world system, at least geopolitically, which we deemed distinct enough to warrant them being treated as individual actors. While bound to spark some controversy, our standard should not be construed as taking a side in the quest for independence in these disputed regions, but rather a necessary framework for us to do our jobs.

And that, there, is why there is no one “right” answer to how many countries there are in the world, as the definition of country will always depend on the context in which it’s being used. For us, it’s outlining the constraints and compulsions within states’ (sometimes disputed) borders. But for others, it may have nothing to do with geopolitics and everything to do with what is “home.” And neither one of us is more right than the other.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14809
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #312 on: April 05, 2021, 02:18:39 PM »
Yellen to call for global minimum corporate tax rate

Vladimir Lenin, 1917 ,
on return to Petrograd from exile and

on top of a tank to cheering soldiers and sailors screamed :

"  long live the world wide socialist revolution !  "

[notice he did not say Russian]

the goal today is the same

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #313 on: April 09, 2021, 06:57:55 AM »
April 9, 2021
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
The Myth of a Rules-Based World
Thoughts in and around geopolitics.
By: George Friedman


Two concepts have been constantly used in discussions of international relations of late. One is a liberal international order and the second is a rules-based system. In the former, the term “liberal” does not have much to do with what Americans call liberalism. Rather, it describes an international system that is committed to human rights, free trade and related principles. The second is the idea that there is an agreed-upon system of rules governing the relationship between nations. Together, these notions are thought to create predictability and decency in the way nations interact with each other.

This issue came up during the administration of former President Donald Trump, who was accused of undermining these principles by, for example, imposing tariffs on China and questioning the value of NATO. The question is emerging again because the Biden administration, having come to power criticizing the policies of its predecessor, has made it clear that it intends to return to these principles.

The most important question is whether there ever was a rules-based international order or whether it was an illusion. There has long been a vision that the relationship between nations should not be a war of everyone against each other, but rather harmonious cooperation between states. Philosophers and theologians have dreamt of bringing this vision to life, and at various times attempts were made to institutionalize it.

In the 20th century, two attempts were made to create a rules-based, liberal system of international governance. The first was the League of Nations, which was founded after World War I and became defunct well before World War II broke out. It had rules, but no way to enforce them, both because the very nations violating its rules were members and, more important, because there were no means of enforcement. Adolf Hitler was not created by the liberal and rules-based order, but neither was he in any way inconvenienced by it.

The second attempt was the United Nations, which was created to be a more forceful League of Nations. The major powers that won World War II were recognized to be a special class of nations and given special powers on the Security Council. The problem with the Security Council was that both the United States and Soviet Union were permanent members, and the Soviet Union demanded that permanent members be allowed to veto actions that they opposed. As the world was then divided between the United States and the Soviet Union, opposed to each other in every way possible, the result was that nothing could get done. The United Nations was unable to enforce rules and sank into a complex bureaucracy of humanitarian actions designed to mitigate the pain caused by its failure to fulfill its mission. That mitigation was not trivial, but it did not constitute a rules-based system.

The Cold War was a chaotic mixture of subversion, civil wars, interventions and threats of nuclear exchange. The world was hardly liberal, with Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and China living under communist rules, and the Third World, freeing itself from European imperialism, caught between U.S. and Soviet manipulation.

It is difficult to understand what rules-based liberal system we are expected to return to. After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a momentary thrill that we were seeing the age of Aquarius rising. But it was the same illusion that followed the Napoleonic wars, World War I and World War II. The Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations and the United Nations all had rules but few of them were followed. The Maastricht Treaty was signed as the Soviet Union collapsed, and it did bring the rule of law to what had been one of the most lawless places in the world: Europe. But the rule of law was for Europe, and the rules were never as clear as was the sheer power of some of its members – namely, Germany. It’s liberal but not liberal enough to encompass the whole of European experience. The European Union has rules galore and some liberalism to boot, but Europe is just an idiosyncratic fragment of a global system it once ruled.

The post-Cold War era gave rise to Islamic radicalism, endless American wars and the rise of China, which had long followed its own rules, only some of which could be considered liberal. Accompanying this era was a sense that what mattered was the interests of the nation-state. What a state needed was its primary consideration, how to get it its obsession. Each nation determined how much liberalism it tolerated, and when instructed by outsiders as to how they should live, they often answered with insurrections.

There can be no rule of law, as the philosopher Thomas Hobbes said, without a Leviathan, an overwhelming power imposing it and administering it. For a time after the Soviet collapse, there was hope that the U.S. would helm a multilateral order rather than become the Leviathan. The U.S. had neither the interest nor the ability to rule the world, but right or wrong, it couldn't always escape trying – dominant powers tend to act in certain ways if they want to continue to be dominant powers.

And without the rule of law, liberalism was always impossible. There were international agreements followed to the extent it benefited nations, and there were some international organizations that were useful to be a part of. But the rule of law was invoked when the law supported a nation’s position, and liberalism could not rule a world that was a vast mixture of beliefs, all passionately embraced as the only truth. The liberal international order, in other words, existed when it was convenient. In some places, it never existed at all.

The idea that we must return to a glorious age in which nations were ruled by laws and liberalism is a fantasy, a fantasy that allows us to believe that we can return to it. It is a nostalgia for things that never were. The human condition binds humans to communities large and small that think of themselves as free. They do not submit to rules they have not made, nor to political principles they did not craft. The Greeks did not accept the rules of the Persians or their political order. So it was then, and so it is now. The world doesn’t change that much, and the only place we can return to is ourselves.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile
WSJ: Yellen, Biden & Congress trying to give away American sovereignty
« Reply #315 on: July 16, 2021, 03:14:02 PM »
The Biden Administration is planning the biggest overhaul to American taxation in decades, and you’d think members of Congress might have something to say about it. But no, for the most part a strange silence has greeted Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s bid to rope the United States into a revamp of global tax rules that by design robs Congress of its sovereignty over tax matters.

We’ve described the details of global tax rules being negotiated at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The plan would create a new method for other countries to tax American tech companies (although this is billed as a tax on any big, global firm), and also would establish a global minimum corporate-tax rate of 15%. As the New York Sun reminds us, this is a fundamental affront to American constitutional governance.

A bedrock principle since the country’s beginning has been that the power to tax must rest with the representatives elected by the people who pay the tax. Washington has always sought to defend this principle in the international sphere. The Senate has ratified dozens of tax treaties with foreign governments. These agreements try to ensure that a foreign government won’t impose taxes on income Congress already has taxed within the U.S., or to which Congress might lay claim because the company is headquartered in America.

Constitutional principles aside, this is good economic policy. Despite their flaws, current global rules broadly try to hand taxing authority to the jurisdiction where a company’s investors and managers have taken risks, engaged in product development or research and the like. This arrangement lets Congress experiment with tax laws it believes are best suited to the U.S. economy, and allows voters to pass judgment on lawmakers’ successes and failures.


***
The tax rules the OECD contemplates and Ms. Yellen supports are very different. The tech tax is an immediate threat to Congress’s constitutional power. Foreign leaders admit the point of the proposals is to redistribute to them some of the corporate revenue the U.S. Congress now taxes (or not).


This would allow sclerotic European countries to tax successful U.S. firms solely by dint of housing consumers rather than encouraging investment and risk-taking—while blunting the benefit of any incentives Congress wants to provide. There’s a reason French and German officials favor this approach over economic reforms to encourage the development of their own tech companies. They can piggyback off the work U.S. lawmakers have done to foster a vibrant economy in America.

The global minimum tax might seem like less of a threat to Congress’s prerogatives only because the OECD’s proposed rate of 15% is lower than the rate Congress might impose. But here too Ms. Yellen wants to encroach on Capitol Hill’s constitutional authority.

By binding the U.S. to the OECD’s complex system for calculating a minimum tax, Ms. Yellen is limiting the ability of a future Congress to change tax rates and the exemptions, deductions and other rules of the U.S. code. Meanwhile, she’s signaling U.S. assent to a system that might allow foreign governments to tax corporate revenue Congress deliberately chose not to tax, in order to “top up” corporate taxes to some desired minimum.

***
If this sounds familiar, it’s because the Obama-Biden Administration attempted the same gambit with the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. The idea there was to sign the U.S. up to agreements that would create facts on the ground that Congress would find hard to reverse. Something similar is underway as John Kerry jets around the world negotiating American commitments ahead of another global climate summit later this year.

When will Congress stand up for itself? Sen. Mike Crapo and Rep. Kevin Brady, ranking Republicans on Congress’s tax-writing committees, warned Ms. Yellen in a letter last week not to surrender any part of the U.S. tax base to foreign governments. They also requested closer consultation between Treasury and Congress before Ms. Yellen goes any further in global negotiations. Other Republicans should awake from their slumbers and fight too.

As for Democrats, they’re either silent or supportive of Ms. Yellen’s global gambit. Some may underestimate the threat OECD proposals pose to their own power as lawmakers. Others, especially progressives, may welcome the opportunity to insulate their high-tax policies from future Republican Congresses.

Either way they’re making an historic mistake. Congress’s constitutional role in setting tax policy for the U.S. and its citizens is central to self-government. No taxation without representation. The French helped America win the revolution under that banner, but that doesn’t mean Emmanuel Macron should be able to write U.S. tax policy.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16142
    • View Profile
W. H. O. is in bed with WHOM?
« Reply #318 on: November 28, 2021, 06:59:14 AM »
WHO Skips ‘Xi’ in Greek Alphabet for Naming Coronavirus Variants ‘to Avoid Stigma’





DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16142
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine
« Reply #323 on: February 24, 2022, 11:57:20 AM »
Who could have predicted that weakness invites aggression?

How come we can't have 100% unanimity on that?

Weakness invites aggression.

Peace through Strength.

Guns deter crime.

If you want peace, prepare for war.

Does a bully pick on the strongest or the weakest he encounters?

This stuff isn't that complicated, doesn't take second level thinking, even a Biden voter should be able to see it - now.

But no.  We will learn nothing from this.  Trump's fault.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16142
    • View Profile
Disband UN United Nations Now
« Reply #324 on: March 08, 2022, 11:21:13 AM »
United Nations advises staff against using ‘war’ or ‘invasion’ regarding Ukraine
Email on communications policy reminds worker of responsibility to ‘be impartial’
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/united-nations-advises-staff-against-using-war-or-invasion-regarding-ukraine-1.4821438

First spell it out, it's evil you are impartial about.
-----------------------------------------------------

UN Security Council Action on Ukraine?

Russia is blocking Security Council action on the Ukraine war – but the UN is still the only international peace forum
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Russia-is-blocking-Security-Council-action-on-the-16982938.php
-----------------------------------------------------
Permanent members (P5) of the Security Council are China, France, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia.  Any of the five permanent members can veto a resolution to prevent its adoption by the council regardless of the level of support.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-five-permanent-members-of-the-un-security-council.html

Well that's (in)convenient.  How come Russia doesn't have a veto vote on the board of NATO?  Wait, they're the ones we pay a this money all these decades to defend against.

These 5 were allies at the end of WWII and are nuclear powers.

Time to disband this evil outfit, set some new criteria, and form a new band.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2022, 12:17:48 PM by DougMacG »



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16142
    • View Profile
Re: UN General Assembly votes to suspend Russia from Human Rights Council
« Reply #327 on: April 07, 2022, 10:15:39 AM »
Good symbolic step but they should be removed from the US security council, 'permanent' member status - if anyone over there was even a little bit serious.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile
Biden handing US sovereignty over to the WHO.
« Reply #329 on: May 15, 2022, 12:30:13 PM »
DANGER: The WHO's Death Trap for the US
Act Fast: They Vote Next Week
by Pete Hoekstra  •  May 15, 2022 at 5:00 am


This is a plan that Congress and the public need to fight vigorously.

The Biden administration, it appears, unless stopped immediately, is tee-ing up America to make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to defeat it, and other nations, through biological warfare.

"On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America's healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization's governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA)." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.

"This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO's International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as 'Provisional agenda item 16.2' at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.

"These amendments will empower WHO's Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.

"The targeted nation is also required to send WHO any relevant genetic sequence data." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.

"Under the new regulations, WHO will not be required to consult with the identified nation beforehand to "verify" the event before taking action." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.

Unfortunately, this "next pandemic" is neither far off nor a hypothetical "conspiracy theory." According to multiple credible reports from the U.S. Department of State, to the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Peter Jennings, China has been preparing for bio-warfare using pathogens for more than six years.

A WHO with expanded authority is a terrifying concept. Can you envision providing an international organization with the power to dictate how the U.S. should respond to a future pandemic? Perhaps by forcing the U.S. to turn over supplies and equipment to China because of its larger population? How about an international organization that would have the power to mandate whether we should be required to be vaccinated with a particular vaccine, say China's inferior SINOVAC vaccine? Or imagine a WHO that has the power to impose what mandates or lockdowns a country would be required to impose, say like China's current lockdown of Shanghai? Unfortunately, the WHO already has proven itself to be a willing organ of China's Communist leaders. Providing it with international, legal binding authority over global pandemic response must never be allowed to happen.


A World Health Organization with expanded authority is a terrifying concept. Can you envision providing an international organization with the power to dictate how the U.S. should respond to a future pandemic? The WHO already has proven itself to be a willing organ of China's Communist leaders. Providing it with international, legal binding authority over global pandemic response must never be allowed to happen. Pictured: WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pays a visit to Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on January 28, 2020. (Photo by Naohiko Hatta/AFP via Getty Images)
The Biden administration, it appears, unless stopped immediately, is tee-ing up America to make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to defeat it, and other nations, through biological warfare.

The World Health Organization (WHO), the organization that has unhesitatingly been doing China's bidding during the COVID pandemic, is reportedly now planning to orchestrate a massive new power grab to internationally control the response to any future global pandemic. The plan is apparently to make the health of Americans dependent on the whims of China -- which is both actively seeking to displace the US as the world's leading superpower and has for years been working on new means of bio-warfare.

It is a plan that is being voted on next week: Congress and the American public need to fight vigorously -- and FAST.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile
Monkeypox games could lay groundwork for WHO pandemic response takeover
« Reply #333 on: May 30, 2022, 03:19:41 AM »

President Biden is trying to hand over American health sovereignty to the WHO-- time to block this is very short:
======================

Monkeypox ‘Games’ Could Lay Groundwork for WHO Pandemic Response Takeover
Joshua Philipp
 May 24, 2022

The World Health Organization (WHO) is responding to a string of monkeypox outbreaks, and will be convening an emergency meeting on the virus and its global spread.

In terms of government power, the timing of this outbreak couldn’t be better for the WHO—which may soon be granted powers to manage laws on global health outbreaks, and which is oddly well-positioned for a monkeypox outbreak following a recent “germ-games” call, and recent incidents tied to figures who include Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates.

The New York Post declared, “The World Health Organization is reportedly convening an emergency meeting into the alarming spread of monkeypox around the world—including a possible case in the Big Apple.” The Telegraph reports that the United Nations health authority will be bringing together “a group of leading experts” in the meeting, which is believed to be focused on how the virus is suddenly spreading so widely. It also allegedly will look into the virus’s prevalence among homosexual men and on the “vaccination situation.”

The numbers of infections are by no means high. By May 23, the University of Oxford and Harvard Medical School recorded 245 either confirmed or suspected cases in the entire world. Sajid Javid, the UK health secretary, wrote on Twitter: “Most cases are mild …”

Epoch Times Photo
A woman is seen cycling in a completely empty Navona Square in Rome, on March 13, 2020. The city’s streets were eerily quiet on the second day of a nationwide shuttering of schools, shops, and other public places. (Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images)
The timing of all of this is important. It gives the WHO a chance to show its worth, since it’s in the process of trying to get new and expansive powers—under the banner of governing global health emergencies.

The United Nations is considering various amendments to the WHO at its 75th World Health Assembly in Geneva, that could give its director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the unilateral authority to declare a public health emergency with far-reaching powers over the laws of sovereign nations.

Not only would this give Tedros the ability to declare a public health emergency in any nation he wants—using whatever evidence he wants—but it would also allow him to dictate policies that the target country should adopt to respond to the U.N.’s declared emergency. If a country refuses, a proposed amendment could give the WHO the ability to sanction that country.

If you’re wondering whether giving such powers to a U.N. agency that couldn’t demonstrate its independence from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) could fly in the face of U.S. law, it seems that President Joe Biden has the answer. Not only is the Biden administration allowing this shift in power to the WHO, but it’s also helping advance it.

The United States proposed amendments to the WHO in January, which will be considered at the U.N. meeting in Geneva, The Epoch Times reports. These included an amendment that would allow the WHO to make public declarations on a health crisis without needing to consult with the target country, and without needing to get verification from local officials. The Biden administration’s proposals would also give $2.47 billion in funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for things including “enhancements to domestic sentinel surveillance programs,” “investments in global genomic surveillance approaches,” and other systems.

As The Epoch Times reports, “Respiratory surveillance platforms include video cameras and recorders that alert authorities when members of the public are seen coughing or otherwise acting in a manner that could indicate the presence of an infectious disease or help spread one already present in a population. Such equipment is widely used in China.”

Epoch Times Photo
A man wearing a protective face mask walks under surveillance cameras as China is hit by an outbreak of the novel coronavirus, in Shanghai, on March 4, 2020. (Aly Song/Reuters)
Whether or not monkeypox poses a large threat to public health, it presents a serious threat to public freedom. The virus could act as a Trojan horse, carrying inside it all the justifications to grant the WHO a dictator’s dream of global power, and give the CDC a system of surveillance beyond anything Orwell could have conceived.

Under normal circumstances, monkeypox wouldn’t be a large viral risk. The CDC states that it can be transmitted human-to-human mainly by respiratory droplets that typically don’t travel more than a few feet, and so it notes that “prolonged face-to-face contact is required.”

Even Biden is walking back his statements that people should be concerned about monkeypox, and is clarifying that it’s not as serious of a threat as COVID-19.

Regardless of its inability to spread widely under normal circumstances, a global discussion on monkeypox vaccines started in 2021 after Gates warned of a smallpox bioterrorist attack as a potential next pandemic. He called on world leaders to hold “germ games” and give the WHO new powers—similar to the ones they may soon receive—under a new WHO “Pandemic Task Force.”

Gates also called for pandemic surveillance systems, which seem eerily similar to what the Biden administration submitted in its proposed amendments for the WHO’s new powers.

“It’ll take probably about $1 billion a year for a pandemic Task Force at the WHO level, which is doing the surveillance and actually doing what I call ‘germ games’ where you practice.” Gates said in 2021, Sky News reported. “You say, OK, what if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports? You know, how would the world respond to that?”

Even though the mention of smallpox by Gates was minor, it purportedly was used to justify new discussions on a smallpox vaccine that could also treat monkeypox. Just several days later, on Nov. 8, 2021, Precision Vaccinations reported, “Gates Germ-Game Warning Motivates Smallpox Vaccine Discussions.”

The “discussions” in question were about a Jynneos Smallpox and Monkeypox Vaccine—approved in 2019. Precision Vaccinations noted that it’s “the only FDA-approved non-replicating smallpox vaccine and the only FDA-approved monkeypox vaccine for non-military use.”

Movement within the CDC began a few days earlier, on Nov. 3, 2021. It says that “the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices reviewed the two presentations focused on the smallpox vaccine Jynneos.”

And then, just several days later, an even stranger occurrence took place—carrying out the idea of a “germ game” similar to what Gates proposed.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) partnered with the Munich Security Conference to imagine a pandemic scenario with monkeypox. Following the hypothetical warning from Gates, the germ game imagined a strain of monkeypox, released through a bioterrorist attack, that had been altered to be resistant to vaccines.

On Nov. 23, 2021, the NTI published its results from the tabletop game, which showed the spread of the virus over the course of 18 months.

“By the end of the exercise, the fictional pandemic resulted in more than 3 billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide,” it states.

In an incredible act of foresight, the exercise from last year imagined that monkeypox would appear almost exactly when it did: in mid-May this year.

The NTI also published a detailed report on its results. According to a timeline on page 12 of the report, it imagined that in May 2022, the initial outbreak of monkeypox would infect 1,421 people and kill four people. By January 2023, it would spread to 83 countries, infect 70 million, and kill 1.3 million. At that point, it would be discovered that monkeypox had been engineered to be vaccine-resistant, and supply chain challenges would make a response more difficult.

After one year, on May 10, 2023, it was predicted to infect 480 million people and kill 27 million, and it would be revealed that a bioterror attack on a civilian biolab had been the origin. Then, by Dec. 1, 2023, the virus would be estimated to infect 3.2 billion people and kill 271 million.

Of course, the important caveat with their estimates is that the monkeypox strain they imagined was one that had been engineered to be vaccine-resistant. Accurate or not, the exercise gives authorities a predictive scenario to justify “pandemic response” policies. And we’ve seen this happen before.

Epoch Times Photo
Vials of smallpox vaccine sit on a counter at a vaccination facility in Altamonte Springs, Fla., on Dec. 16, 2002. (Chris Livingston/Getty Images)
A very similar “germ game” was held just before the outbreak of COVID-19, with many of the same figures involved now making noise about monkeypox and a new “pandemic.”

New York Magazine reported in February 2020 that “two months before the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 emerged in central China, a group of public-health experts gathered in New York City for a simulation.” It also noted, “The characteristics of the virus currently causing global havoc are remarkably similar to the one proposed in the simulation, dubbed ‘Event 201.’”

Partners in the exercise included the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Similar to the monkeypox “germ game” before the monkeypox outbreak, the coronavirus “germ game” before the coronavirus outbreak made predictions of a mass fatality scenario. It estimated that 65 million people would die.

The Center for Health Security issued a statement on its coronavirus exercise on Jan. 24, 2020. It stated that they weren’t predicting that COVID-19 would kill 65 million people, as the simulated virus was different from the CCP virus.

Yet the important thing wasn’t the specifics of the “germ game,” but instead, how the game and its participants went on to inform government policy.

And now, with monkeypox, we’ve arrived at a similar impasse. A “germ game” imagined the potential effect of the virus, and produced inflated numbers of deaths and infections by an imaginary version of monkeypox as the model, which was resistant to vaccines. Most importantly, this also coincides with the international community weighing whether the WHO should be granted powers to govern global health emergencies.

Among the trends of COVID-19 is that governments may now be more inclined to use a seasonal virus, already declared as endemic, to justify an indefinite global emergency. Additionally, small outbreaks can also be used to justify deeply authoritarian policies that aren’t limited to health care.

The worst example of this is the CCP, which is claiming to use single-digit infections to lock down entire megacities. And remember that under the Trump administration, the WHO was shown to be unable to demonstrate its independence from the CCP.

Health emergency response is also no longer limited to just medicine. The COVID-19 model included mass changes to election systems that undermined the basic integrity of elected government, and widespread censorship under the narrative of fighting “disinformation” and “misinformation.” Remember that at the beginning of the pandemic, the WHO and various U.N. agencies declared an “infodemic” that required controls and censorship of public information.

In the backdrop of the monkeypox scare, the world is preparing to hand the keys to the kingdom to the WHO. And with the strange track of “germ games” and overblown numbers by the so-called experts pulling the strings, the groundwork for this public takeover has already been laid.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile
WTO deal enables Chinese theft of US vax technology
« Reply #334 on: June 18, 2022, 03:13:30 PM »
Ambassadors discuss before the opening ceremony of the 12th Ministerial Conference at the headquarters of the World Trade Organization in Geneva, June 12.
PHOTO: MARTIAL TREZZINI/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

The World Trade Organization was created to protect free-trade rules to spread prosperity. Now it’s becoming a vehicle to raid U.S. innovation. See Friday’s agreement by the WTO’s 164 members that lets developing countries, including China, steal intellectual property for Covid vaccines.

The White House is flogging the deal as a diplomatic victory. But it’s an enormous defeat for U.S. national interests that will benefit China and set a precedent that erodes intellectual property protection. This won’t be the last time global grifters seek to pilfer U.S. technology.

The WTO fight began in fall 2020 when India and South Africa submitted a resolution to suspend IP protection for Covid vaccines, therapeutics and tests. They quickly rallied support from low-income countries and progressives who complained about a lack of “equity.” Never mind that the U.S. and Europe financed the development of these technologies.

Succumbing to pressure from the left, President Biden endorsed an IP waiver. He also undercut European allies who opposed the patent giveaway. And for what? Vaccine makers had already committed billions of doses to developing countries. Now the world is awash in vaccine doses and tens of millions are thrown out because low-income countries lack the healthcare infrastructure to distribute them. This makes the WTO agreement all the more perplexing.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion
Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.

PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
WTO rules already set out a process for compulsory patent licensing of drugs in developing countries during public-health emergencies. These rules require some due process and fair compensation for drug makers. They also protect against public disclosure of clinical trial data that include trade secrets. The new agreement overrides these rules.

An earlier draft of the compromise would have prevented China from taking advantage of the waiver. Friday’s agreement doesn’t. It merely says that developing countries such as China “with existing capacity to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines are encouraged to make a binding commitment not to avail themselves of this Decision” (our emphasis).

In short, there’s nothing legally binding to stop China from stealing U.S. mRNA technology, using it to develop its own vaccines including for other diseases, and then selling the shots under their own brands. The agreement lasts five years so it could potentially cover a future combined mRNA vaccine for Covid, flu and respiratory syncytial virus.

Despite their victory, waiver advocates aren’t satisfied. “Vaccines have already lost relevance,” India’s Minister of Commerce and Industry Shri Piyush Goyal said. The West’s “hope is to unburden their chest of any guilt today, show the world that we have been so magnanimous today, kick the can down the road for therapeutics and diagnostics which are really now essential.”

Guilt for what? Saving millions of lives through biotech innovation?

The only silver lining is the agreement doesn’t extend to Covid testing technologies and therapeutics, at least for now. But it requires WTO members to decide within six months whether to do so. Will the Biden Administration rush to the ramparts to defend Pfizer’s Paxlovid patents this fall? Don’t bet on it.

Why did the Biden Administration and Europeans go along with the deal? Maybe they figure countries won’t take advantage of it because Covid vaccines are plentiful. But this is short-sighted. Now that the WTO has set the precedent of breaking patents during emergencies, there will surely be more demands to do for other “essential” technologies.

Lo, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently proclaimed that “renewable energy technologies, such as battery storage, must be treated as essential and freely-available global public goods” and “removing obstacles to knowledge sharing and technological transfer—including intellectual property constraints—is crucial for a rapid and fair renewable energy transition.”

Semiconductors and genetically engineered crops could become fair game too. IP protection encourages companies to invest in new technology. It is a major reason the U.S. is more innovative than China. By undermining the incentives that underpin innovation, the WTO agreement will hurt America, and that means the world too.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile
UN 2030 Agenda behind Farming Restrictions
« Reply #337 on: July 21, 2022, 02:15:37 PM »
Alex Newman Explains UN Agenda 2030 Behind Farming Restrictions
By Ella Kietlinska and Joshua Philipp July 20, 2022 Updated: July 20, 2022 biggersmaller Print


The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development informs government policies to restrict farming and transform the food systems in different parts of the world, said Alex Newman, an award-winning international journalist who has covered this issue for over a decade.

The 2030 Agenda is a plan of action devised by the United Nations (U.N.) to achieve 17 sustainable development goals (SDG). The goals and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development were adopted by all UN member states in 2015.

Then-Secretary General of the U.N. Ban Ki-moon called the 2030 Agenda “the global declaration of interdependence,” (pdf) Newman said in a recent interview on EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program.

“In my opinion, [it] was a direct swipe at our Declaration of Independence … So instead of being independent nations, we will all be now interdependent.”

The 2030 Agenda “covers every element of human life, every element of the economy,” including global wealth redistribution not only within the nations but also among the nations, Newman commented. The Agenda “specifically says that we need to change the way that we consume and produce goods,” he added.

Goal number two on the 2030 Agenda deals specifically with food, Newman said.

In September 2021, the U.N. held the Food Systems Summit, which emphasized the need “to leverage the power of food systems” for the purpose of achieving all 17 sustainable development goals by 2030, according to a U.N. statement.

“Everyone, everywhere, must take action and work together to transform the way the world produces, consumes, and thinks about food,” the statement said.

Taking Over Farmland
The sustainable development agenda emerged in the 1970s when the United Nations tried to define it at a conference in Vancouver, Canada, in 1976. Newman said.

The conference, which was the first U.N. Conference on Human Settlements known as Habitat I, adopted the Vancouver Declaration (pdf), a report that provided recommendations for U.N. member states.

Newman quoted an excerpt from this report: “Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”

Newman said that, in his view, the U.N. ultimately wants to get rid of private land ownership. “We see this all over the world. This is not just happening in the Netherlands.”

He thinks that a war is taking place against farmers and ranchers, especially those who are independent or those who are not part of the system. “They want to remove small farmers, even medium farmers, from their land, and they want to bring it all under the control of these—I think there’s no other term to describe it—fascistic public-private partnerships.”

Newman noted some examples to illustrate his opinion: The Chinese regime forces peasants to move to megacities, farmers are killed in South Africa, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States proposed a new rule that could bankrupt small and medium farmers.

In March 2022, the SEC proposed a regulation that “would mandate publicly traded companies to report on their carbon emissions and other climate-related information,” as well as report similar information from any companies with which they do business, according to an SEC statement.

As a consequence, all companies in the business supply chain of a publicly traded entity would have to report their carbon emission and climate-related data.

U.S. Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) led 30 lawmakers to urge SEC to repeal its proposal, calling it a “regulatory overreach.”

”Imposing regulatory overreach on farmers and ranchers falls outside of the SEC’s congressionally provided authority,” the senators said in a statement. “This substantial reporting requirement would significantly burden small, family-owned farms.”

The American Farm Bureau Federation said in a statement that the proposed rule could create “substantial costs” for farmers because they do not have teams of compliance officers or attorneys like large corporations. Moreover, it may push out of business small and medium-sized farmers and force food-processing companies to look for agricultural raw products outside of the United States, the statement asserted.

Centralizing Food Supply
1.tagreuters.com2022binary_LYNXMPEI6B10I-FILEDIMAGE
People shop in a supermarket as inflation affects consumer prices in New York on June 10, 2022. (Andrew Kelly/Reuters)
 “If you control the food supply, you control everything,” Newman said.

“One of the things that the communists loved to do is create scarcity and create dependents. As long as you have independent people who are able to take care of themselves, there really is no need for the government to run your life and to control everything that you do,” Newman said.

“Americans are good examples,” Newman continued. “As long as the food production is widely diffused, and it’s in the hands of independent producers, it becomes very difficult to get people to bend to your will.”

The whole idea of using food as a weapon has been a hallmark of communist regimes for 100 years, Newman explained. “It’s also been a hallmark of the very same people who are openly promoting the U.N. Agenda 2030, the sustainable development goals, and even the World Economic Forum.”

Those who contrived “the controlled demolition of our food supply … want to completely restructure it,” in order to gain total centralized control of that because it gives them absolute power over everybody under their jurisdiction, Newman said.

For example, the Chinese regime and the mega-corporations formed a public-private partnership to centralize control of the food supply, Newman said.

It’s similar to what occurred in Nazi Germany, where on paper private companies own the business and ostensibly manage their businesses, but, ultimately, the private companies will be taking their orders from the government, Newman explained.

In the United States, the ESG metrics are used to “hijack control of the business sector, of the individual companies, and put them at the service of the goals of what I call the predator class—the people behind the World Economic Forum, behind the United Nations,” Newman said. (ESG stands for environmental, social, and governance criteria that are used to evaluate companies on how compliant they are with sustainability.)

The food supply centralization is just one component of their agenda, but it is a very critical one, which along with energy and other things, allows them to control humanity, he added.

In January 2021, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the government of the Netherlands launched a new initiative called Food Innovation Hub, according to a WEF statement. The Hub, joined by several public and private sector partners, is a key platform that will use technology and innovations for food systems transformation, the statement said.

The Food Innovation Hub secured “multiyear funding “ from the Netherlands’ government and established its Global Coordinating Secretariat that would coordinate the efforts of the regional food hubs as well as align with global food processes and initiatives such as the UN Food Systems Summit, the statement read.

The global food Secretariat would be located in Wageningen, Netherlands, at the heart of the Dutch agrifood ecosystem, and would direct the development of global, regional Food Innovation Hubs, according to the “Invest in Holland” website.

“The work of these regional hubs is already underway, with more than 20 organizations leading the initiative across Africa, ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations], Colombia, and India, and the European hub,” the website said.

Ramon Laguarta, CEO of PepsiCo, said in the WEF statement: “Food is one of the main levers we can pull to improve environmental and societal health. With the right investment, innovation, and robust collaboration, agriculture could become the world’s first sector to become carbon negative. … Unlocking this potential will take ambitious multi-stakeholder, pre-competitive collaborations to transform the food system—exactly what these Hubs are designed to cultivate.”

Among the solutions advocated by the WEF to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions is replacing livestock-derived foods with alternative forms of protein, such as insects, and lab-cultured proteins, according to a 2019 white paper (pdf) commissioned by the WEF.


In response to this recommendation, several indoor agriculture start-ups have emerged, including Ÿnsect, “the first fully automated vertical insect farm in the world, able to produce 100,000 tons of insect products a year,” a WEF report said.

In March, France-based Ÿnsect acquired Jord Producers, a U.S. mealworm manufacturer, to expand its operations in the United States by entering the American chicken feed market, said a company statement.

How People Can Stop Food Takeover

If people want to prevent food supply from being used as a tool to control them, they need to find alternative sources of food locally, Newman said. “You need to have a relationship with the local farmers in your community, get to the local farmers market, deal with the local farmers, come up with some agreement,” such as getting delivery of fresh, seasonal produce from the local farms for 100 bucks a week, he said.

“We need to really start providing an alternative economic structure, because if we let them get control of the entire food supply, I guarantee you, it will be used as a weapon to take your freedom, to get you to do things you otherwise wouldn’t want to do, to undermine the sovereignty of your nation, whether you’re in the United States or another country, and ultimately to dispossess people of their private land and of their freedom.”

“If you have agricultural land, do not sell out to these people. They’re trying to bribe the farmers to leave their land.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #338 on: July 29, 2022, 09:19:12 PM »
ttt

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60866
    • View Profile
How to fight the WHO power grab!
« Reply #339 on: September 06, 2022, 02:46:21 AM »
Dear Friends,

Today and until 13 September, the World Health Organization has opened public comment on the extreme power grab they are attempting via their international pandemic treaty and via the legally binding amendments to the International Health Regulations, originally proposed by the US. Details, including contact email addresses, can be found here: https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/stopthewhocom?utm_source=email.

If ratified, these changes would hand over national self-determination in public health issues, resulting in globalist interference in personal healthcare sovereignty and bodily autonomy for people of all nations. The WHO is an unelected, unaccountable body with no oversight, checks or balances. It must not be allowed to dictate global healthcare policy. Although no one can predict what is to come, if we allow our governments to lay our sovereign self-determination at the feet of the WHO/UN, we run the risk of a technocratic, totalitarian future of forced drug treatments and injections, vaccine passports, restricted assembly, travel and commerce, quarantine camps, and constant surveillance.

Regardless of which country you live in, would you take some time to read the above link, submit an email or video comment to the WHO, and encourage friends and family to do the same? It is my sincere hope that, together, we can put a stop to this madness.

Also, US citizens, please take a moment to send this pre-written letter (https://alignact.com/go/stop-the-who-from-taking-away-our-national-sovereignty) to Congressional representatives around the country (not just your state's elected reps), alerting them to the extra-governmental activities being orchestrated by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services to surrender sovereignty in matters of public health to the WHO without Congressional approval.

If you have doubts or questions about these matters, please don't hesitate to contact me.

With love and hopeful aspirations,
Ari

===========================

https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/stopthewhocom?utm_source=email
« Last Edit: September 06, 2022, 02:53:15 AM by Crafty_Dog »