RSS Feed
September 28th, 2023 
Awake Goy SEPTEMBER 22, 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.”
By Shabnam Palesa Mohamed
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.
The UN held its SDG Summit and its 78th General Assembly during the latter part of September 2023. 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.
This 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.
Note: For ease of understanding, this article follows the following order:
A. What is the diplomatic scandal about
B. What is the letter by eleven+ countries about
C. How has the UN and the WHO responded?
D. My analysis and conclusion
A. What is the diplomatic scandal about?
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 (related to the Agenda 2030 health and sustainable development documents) 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 the door to sanctions, which have a devastating impact on health and sovereignty.
On the fundamental subject of consensual language in UN facilitated documents, the 11 country letter confirms 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
B. What is the critical letter by eleven countries about?
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 violations of human rights and international law. The eleven countries argued (for readability, bold headers, italics emphasis, numbering and notes are mine):
- The UN ignored consent, there is 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.
- The UN engaged in 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.
- These countries also objected to forced consensus, bulldozing, and ignoring the 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.
- These developing countries took a stand against discrimination perpetrated through the United Nations
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.
- The eleven country 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”.
- The eleven countries oppose any attempt that formally adopts draft outcome documents, and reserve the right to take further actions
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
C. What was the response from the United Nations and World Health Organisation leadership?
• 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.
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, said the 11 nations’ objections should “prevent this declaration being adopted by consensus and thus arguably becoming part of customary international law, which is what those behind the declaration intend.” “They could not get it through the UNGA as a Consensus Resolution because of the 11 objecting states. They are trying to spin it and misrepresent it by having the UNGA president — not the UNGA — approve the declaration.”
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 – from your national budgets or country’s resources
- 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.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
