Article 5: Surveillance
This section calls on each Member State to maintain capacity to “detect, assess, notify, and report events.” The U.S. amendments would add a “Universal Health Periodic Review” of Member States, and a mandate for the WHO to provide or facilitate support and funds to build this capacity upon the request of a State Party. When and where to complete a periodic review is completely up to the WHO. In short, this amendment would allow for completely subjective review of a country’s compliance with the IHR and then require the WHO to provide funding to build data collection infrastructures, vaccine acquisition and distribution nodes, and more.
More alarmingly, the U.S. calls for the WHO to “develop early warning criteria for assessing and progressively updating the national, regional, or global risk posed by an event of unknown causes or sources and shall convey this risk assessment to State Parties.” This is straight up constant medical surveillance.
Article 6: Notification
This section details how a Member State must notify the WHO about potential Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEICs). The U.S. amendments would require notification to the WHO within 48 hours of the receipt of knowledge by the state’s “National IHR Focal Point,” a designated contact person for these urgent communications between a member and the WHO. As it stands, states are required to be able to assess a threat within 48 hours as a “core capacity requirement,” but assessment and notification are two different animals. While it is certainly reasonable that the world would want to know of an emerging threat as quickly as possible, the addition of the specification of a 48-hour window lends itself to the possibility of an assessment that the Focal Point did not act in the mandated timeframe, which opens up an issue of noncompliance with the IHR. At this moment, there isn’t much consequence for not following the rules. But that could change at any moment, if the WHO is given more authority to enforce the regulations. The U.S. is going out of its way to add this language, although one could guess that in a true health emergency good actors would want to save as many lives as possible, rendering a timeframe in a regulation irrelevant for anything other than punishment for noncompliance later.
The U.S. amendments would also expand the group of international organizations privy to notification from only the International Atomic Agency to also the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), “or other relevant entities.” Let the data flow freely among any organization of your choosing!
Article 9: Other reports
This amendment is HUGE. Right now, if the World Health Organization wants to take an action, like declare a PHEIC, it must “consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring.” The U.S. wants to get rid of that requirement.
Article 10: Verification
This section details the way the WHO requests information and verification from a state where there’s a potential health concern. The amendments would require the WHO to offer collaboration with a state where there has been a report of a public health concern within 24 hours of getting a report and the state would be required accept the collaboration within 48 hours or be considered as rejecting the offer to work with the WHO. The amendment would further change the next action of the WHO from a choice to a mandate to immediately share the information with “other States Parties,” though the amendment does not specify which ones, nor require that all States Parties be notified.
Article 11: Provision of information by WHO
The WHO acts on reports from Member States, but the amendments would expand the trigger for action to include information “which is available in the public domain.” In other words, if all these amendments were to be adopted, it’s plausible to say there could be a scenario where the WHO declares a public health emergency based on social media reports, without verification from the leaders of the place the potential situation is happening, and it could all happen in 48 hours. The amendments would change the WHO’s decision to inform all members from a “should” to a “shall.” The amendments would escalate the verification and sharing of information from cautionary (not sharing information until conditions are met) to a mandate to share information when the “WHO determines it is necessary that such information be available.” Complete unilateral decision-making. And no longer would the WHO “consult with” the State Party, but instead assert its new authority by simply informing them. The WHO would be required to make an annual report to the Health Assembly about its activities, and specifically about States Parties who do not verify concerns.
Article 12: Determination of a public health emergency of international concern
The amendments would lower the threshold of when the Director General of the WHO can take action to include “potential” emergencies. The information does not need to be verified by the state in which the situation is allegedly happening, and can come from the public domain.
If the Emergency Committee does not agree there is a PHEIC, the DG may unilaterally at any time issue an “intermediate public health alert,” if he or she determines the situation requires “heightened international awareness.” International law generally looks toward minimizing impacts on trade and travel. This amendment would put the ability to affect the economy of a country in the hands of one, unelected and unaccountable person.
The amendments would add new possible determinations of a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern. The PHERC could be declared by an (unelected) regional director of the WHO.
It’s also of note that even though the regulations do include a provision for the Director General to unilaterally terminate a PHEIC, no such amendments are included for the PHERC or the intermediate public health alert.
Article 13: Public health response
The language of collaboration is removed from this section, which details how the WHO should proceed with the State Party where a PHEIC originates. No longer working together, the WHO must simply “offer assistance,” and the State Party must accept or reject the offer within 48 hours, and facilitate on-site access, or “provide its rationale for the denial of access.”
Article 15: Temporary recommendations
The amendment proposed to this section adds the ability to get boots on the ground, so to speak. The U.S. proposes the WHO may recommend “the deployment of expert teams” to a location experiencing a PHEIC. The amendment does not directly specify how those experts would be chosen, or what access they would claim to the state’s location, labs, or other public health infrastructure. It is proposed, however, that the DG “shall consult with relevant international agencies such as ICAO, IMO and WTO in order to avoid unnecessary interference with international travel and trade.” There are additional amendments proposed to exempt travel and trade restrictions on health workers and “essential medical products and supplies,” as well as repatriation of travelers.
Article 48: Terms of reference and composition & Article 49: Procedure
Reasonably, the U.S. proposes to add Regional Directors from impacted regions to the Emergency Committee considering whether there is a PHEIC, and that those serving be trained in the IHR. The amendments would define an “affected State Party” as one which “either geographically proximate or otherwise impacted by the event in question,” allowing any party to present their views to the Emergency Committee or propose a termination of the PHEIC or other recommendations. As the procedure stands now, only the State Party in which territory the emergency is situated may propose an end to the emergency. Any EC member who disagrees with the findings may present a dissent to be included with the final EC report.
NEW: Compliance Committee
The U.S. proposes a new Compliance Committee that would monitor, promote, and report on compliance with the IHR. It would be authorized to request information, undertake information-gathering in the territory of the State Party with consent, enlist NGOs or members of the public in considering compliance, and make recommendations regarding compliance or assistance that should come from the WHO. The Committee “shall strive to make its recommendations on the basis of consensus” (but there is no requirement for how many votes are required for consensus),and may request representatives from the United Nations or other organizations to attend sessions.
Article 59: Entry into force; period for rejection or reservations
Last, but not least by a long shot, the U.S. proposes to speed up the process for legally binding changes to the IHR to take effect on the Member States. The U.S. suggests reducing the time frame for rejecting or taking reservations to amendments from 18 months to 6 months.
How should Tennessee prepare for an unconstitutional treaty usurping national sovereignty by the WHO?
First, let’s take a look at what is happening. And let me set the record straight right off the bat. This is not conspiracy theory nonsense that you should ignore. This is real. It is happening right before our eyes. And Tennessee legislators need to prepare now to enact law that will shut this down at our sovereign state border.
This plan has been in the works for quite some time and the COVID scamdemic was the precursor to setting the stage. The ultimate goal is to have an international treaty in place by the year 2024 which will essentially remove United States sovereignty during a global health crisis and give the WHO international authority to create policy for American citizens in order to comply with global health measures. So, do you think we have flattened the curve yet?
On April 12, 2022, Illegitimate President Biden relayed to the WHO a set of proposed amendments to the pending treaty. Here is what Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman, Mat Staver, had to say on the topic:
Here is a great analysis of the US proposed amendments by Biden from our friends at Stand for Health Freedom. To see their complete post on the issue, visit their call to action to support HR419.
Article 5: Surveillance
This section calls on each Member State to maintain capacity to “detect, assess, notify, and report events.” The U.S. amendments would add a “Universal Health Periodic Review” of Member States, and a mandate for the WHO to provide or facilitate support and funds to build this capacity upon the request of a State Party. When and where to complete a periodic review is completely up to the WHO. In short, this amendment would allow for completely subjective review of a country’s compliance with the IHR and then require the WHO to provide funding to build data collection infrastructures, vaccine acquisition and distribution nodes, and more.
More alarmingly, the U.S. calls for the WHO to “develop early warning criteria for assessing and progressively updating the national, regional, or global risk posed by an event of unknown causes or sources and shall convey this risk assessment to State Parties.” This is straight up constant medical surveillance.
Article 6: Notification
This section details how a Member State must notify the WHO about potential Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEICs). The U.S. amendments would require notification to the WHO within 48 hours of the receipt of knowledge by the state’s “National IHR Focal Point,” a designated contact person for these urgent communications between a member and the WHO. As it stands, states are required to be able to assess a threat within 48 hours as a “core capacity requirement,” but assessment and notification are two different animals. While it is certainly reasonable that the world would want to know of an emerging threat as quickly as possible, the addition of the specification of a 48-hour window lends itself to the possibility of an assessment that the Focal Point did not act in the mandated timeframe, which opens up an issue of noncompliance with the IHR. At this moment, there isn’t much consequence for not following the rules. But that could change at any moment, if the WHO is given more authority to enforce the regulations. The U.S. is going out of its way to add this language, although one could guess that in a true health emergency good actors would want to save as many lives as possible, rendering a timeframe in a regulation irrelevant for anything other than punishment for noncompliance later.
The U.S. amendments would also expand the group of international organizations privy to notification from only the International Atomic Agency to also the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), “or other relevant entities.” Let the data flow freely among any organization of your choosing!
Article 9: Other reports
This amendment is HUGE. Right now, if the World Health Organization wants to take an action, like declare a PHEIC, it must “consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring.” The U.S. wants to get rid of that requirement.
Article 10: Verification
This section details the way the WHO requests information and verification from a state where there’s a potential health concern. The amendments would require the WHO to offer collaboration with a state where there has been a report of a public health concern within 24 hours of getting a report and the state would be required accept the collaboration within 48 hours or be considered as rejecting the offer to work with the WHO. The amendment would further change the next action of the WHO from a choice to a mandate to immediately share the information with “other States Parties,” though the amendment does not specify which ones, nor require that all States Parties be notified.
Article 11: Provision of information by WHO
The WHO acts on reports from Member States, but the amendments would expand the trigger for action to include information “which is available in the public domain.” In other words, if all these amendments were to be adopted, it’s plausible to say there could be a scenario where the WHO declares a public health emergency based on social media reports, without verification from the leaders of the place the potential situation is happening, and it could all happen in 48 hours. The amendments would change the WHO’s decision to inform all members from a “should” to a “shall.” The amendments would escalate the verification and sharing of information from cautionary (not sharing information until conditions are met) to a mandate to share information when the “WHO determines it is necessary that such information be available.” Complete unilateral decision-making. And no longer would the WHO “consult with” the State Party, but instead assert its new authority by simply informing them. The WHO would be required to make an annual report to the Health Assembly about its activities, and specifically about States Parties who do not verify concerns.
Article 12: Determination of a public health emergency of international concern
The amendments would lower the threshold of when the Director General of the WHO can take action to include “potential” emergencies. The information does not need to be verified by the state in which the situation is allegedly happening, and can come from the public domain.
If the Emergency Committee does not agree there is a PHEIC, the DG may unilaterally at any time issue an “intermediate public health alert,” if he or she determines the situation requires “heightened international awareness.” International law generally looks toward minimizing impacts on trade and travel. This amendment would put the ability to affect the economy of a country in the hands of one, unelected and unaccountable person.
The amendments would add new possible determinations of a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern. The PHERC could be declared by an (unelected) regional director of the WHO.
It’s also of note that even though the regulations do include a provision for the Director General to unilaterally terminate a PHEIC, no such amendments are included for the PHERC or the intermediate public health alert.
Article 13: Public health response
The language of collaboration is removed from this section, which details how the WHO should proceed with the State Party where a PHEIC originates. No longer working together, the WHO must simply “offer assistance,” and the State Party must accept or reject the offer within 48 hours, and facilitate on-site access, or “provide its rationale for the denial of access.”
Article 15: Temporary recommendations
The amendment proposed to this section adds the ability to get boots on the ground, so to speak. The U.S. proposes the WHO may recommend “the deployment of expert teams” to a location experiencing a PHEIC. The amendment does not directly specify how those experts would be chosen, or what access they would claim to the state’s location, labs, or other public health infrastructure. It is proposed, however, that the DG “shall consult with relevant international agencies such as ICAO, IMO and WTO in order to avoid unnecessary interference with international travel and trade.” There are additional amendments proposed to exempt travel and trade restrictions on health workers and “essential medical products and supplies,” as well as repatriation of travelers.
Article 48: Terms of reference and composition & Article 49: Procedure
Reasonably, the U.S. proposes to add Regional Directors from impacted regions to the Emergency Committee considering whether there is a PHEIC, and that those serving be trained in the IHR. The amendments would define an “affected State Party” as one which “either geographically proximate or otherwise impacted by the event in question,” allowing any party to present their views to the Emergency Committee or propose a termination of the PHEIC or other recommendations. As the procedure stands now, only the State Party in which territory the emergency is situated may propose an end to the emergency. Any EC member who disagrees with the findings may present a dissent to be included with the final EC report.
NEW: Compliance Committee
The U.S. proposes a new Compliance Committee that would monitor, promote, and report on compliance with the IHR. It would be authorized to request information, undertake information-gathering in the territory of the State Party with consent, enlist NGOs or members of the public in considering compliance, and make recommendations regarding compliance or assistance that should come from the WHO. The Committee “shall strive to make its recommendations on the basis of consensus” (but there is no requirement for how many votes are required for consensus),and may request representatives from the United Nations or other organizations to attend sessions.
Article 59: Entry into force; period for rejection or reservations
Last, but not least by a long shot, the U.S. proposes to speed up the process for legally binding changes to the IHR to take effect on the Member States. The U.S. suggests reducing the time frame for rejecting or taking reservations to amendments from 18 months to 6 months.
For a good soup to nuts explanation on what is happening, how did this WHO pandemic treaty come to be, and what are the plans moving forward, watch this video from The Corbett Report.
Is this constitutional and how will it affect Tennessee?
Let’s first understand that international treaties do not simply become law by the stroke of a pen. There is a bit more to it than that.
Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution contains the Treaty Clause which states:
It is important to understand that the President nor an administration cannot singularly bind the United States to an international treaty. However, it also does not take a full act of Congress. In fact, the House of Representatives in not involved in the process at all. A treaty must be ratified by a supermajority vote of the Senate.
The question is, would our current Senate vote to approve such a treaty with the WHO? I speculate that it is highly doubtful. And the hope would be that as this final vote would be expected to take place in 2024, perhaps we will have successfully taken back a conservative majority in the Senate and will have removed the Idiot in Chief from the White House. One can only hope.
But let’s not count on the sanity of the federal government. What if this treaty is indeed signed by a sitting President of the United States and then adopted by a 2/3’s majority of the Senate. What does that mean for Tennesseans? Are our rights to make our own medical decisions vanquished?
We must be ready to nullify the unconstitutional actions of the federal government, assert the sovereignty of the state of Tennessee and stand ready to defend the constitutional rights of our citizens.
Here is a note from the Heritage Foundation on the supremacy of treaties:
So, should this come to fruition, how must a state act?
There is only one answer in my humble opinion, and it is not through a dependency on corrupt courts bought into a global agenda, but through a People acting through their elected state representation: NULLIFICATION.
Just as Christians will never stop arguing about the tribulation and the return of Christ, so will constitutional scholars and legal minds continue to grapple with the idea of nullification. Quite simply, how else could a state stand up to the unconstitutional edicts of a tyrannical federal government? There has to be an additional check on that power. Some people argue that these checks and balances are given to the Court via Marbury v Madison (see my video on this HERE).
Fact is, that has NEVER been the case. The states themselves are a check to federal power and it is way past time that state legislatures be willing to stand and reassert those powers on behalf of the rights of its citizens.
Here is a statement from our friends at the John Birch Society on the powers of nullification:
Go HERE for more from the John Birch Society on this particular issue concerning the WHO Pandemic Treaty.
My fear, as always, is compliance.
It was unconstitutional for our Governor to sign numerous executive orders purporting to make law under an emergency powers statute. But…we complied.
It was unconstitutional for our Governor to give powers to county mayors across Tennessee to mandate masks. But…we complied.
School boards have no lawful authority to mandate the use of masks over a student population. But…we complied.
It is unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate a requirement for vaccines over healthcare workers. But…we complied.
My point?
The Biden administration may come out of this meeting with the WHO beginning on May 22nd and begin to implement the plan without even proceeding towards the treaty negotiation first. Will we comply? Will we simply allow globalist corporations to begin pushing these types of policies upon Tennesseans in the name of “private property rights?” (Which is how this will initially be done. Mark my words.)
Will a US President sign a treaty in 2024 and pretend that it is the law of the land regardless of a 2/3’s majority Senate ratification? And will we comply? Will we allow state legislatures to comply?
We must make a decision to stand firm NOW. We must insist that our Tennessee General Assembly enact law now to effectively nullify any of these actions that may come from an illegitimate and unconstitutional international treaty with the World Health Organization.
And we must take this information with us to the polls in 2022. You had better elect fighters who have the will to stand firm.
Like this article?
Gary Humble
Gary Humble