Investigating the WHO & Organizations with Legal Immunity
This is a proposal to authorize the use of national security laws to investigate international entities, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), which are shielded by immunity under international law. This authorization raises several complex legal and diplomatic issues. Here is a summary of the key points involved in this matter:
There have been instances where countries have taken steps to limit the immunity of international organizations or their officials.
There have been cases where the immunity of the UN and its agencies has been challenged, particularly in instances where gross misconduct or criminal activities are alleged. These cases often end up in national courts, which balance the principles of immunity with the need for accountability.
1. Haitian Cholera Outbreak
One of the most notable cases challenging UN immunity involves the cholera outbreak in Haiti, which was linked to UN peacekeepers from Nepal. The outbreak, which began in 2010, resulted in over 10,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of infections.
Legal Actions:
Victims and their families filed lawsuits in U.S. courts seeking compensation and accountability from the UN.
The UN invoked its immunity under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, and the U.S. courts upheld this immunity, dismissing the lawsuits on the grounds that the UN cannot be sued without explicitly waiving its immunity.
Outcome:
Although the courts upheld the UN’s immunity, the case led to significant public and diplomatic pressure.
In 2016, then-UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a public apology and the UN launched a new initiative to address the cholera outbreak in Haiti, including efforts to provide material assistance to the victims, though this was not framed as legal compensation.
2. Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by Peacekeepers
There have been numerous allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers in various missions around the world, including in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Haiti.
Legal Actions:
Victims and advocacy groups have sought to hold the UN accountable through various legal channels, but efforts to sue the UN directly have been impeded by the organization’s immunity.
In some instances, member states have prosecuted individual peacekeepers under their national laws, but systemic accountability within the UN framework remains a challenge.
Outcome:
The UN has implemented stricter policies and oversight mechanisms to address and prevent sexual exploitation and abuse.
There are ongoing efforts to improve accountability, including stronger enforcement of conduct standards and increased support for victims.
3. Bosnia and Herzegovina: Srebrenica Massacre
The 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in which Bosnian Serb forces killed more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys, involved allegations of UN failure to protect the civilian population despite the presence of UN peacekeepers.
Legal Actions:
Families of the victims have filed lawsuits against the Netherlands, alleging that Dutch peacekeepers under UN command failed to prevent the massacre.
Dutch courts have ruled in some instances that the Dutch state was partially liable for the deaths, but the UN’s immunity has generally protected the organization itself from being held accountable.
Outcome:
The rulings against the Dutch state have highlighted the challenges in holding international organizations accountable while respecting their immunities.
The case has spurred debate on the responsibilities of peacekeeping forces and the need for reforms in UN peacekeeping mandates and accountability mechanisms.
Legal Process for Treaty Withdrawal
The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies (1947) grants legal immunity to the WHO. This is a dangerous piece of legislation that hostile nation-state actors are using as a shield to commit bio-terrorism and other crimes against the people of Earth.
We call for the immediate withdrawal of the United States of America from this treaty and to begin an global process to investigate bio-terrorists embedded within the WHO.
The process of withdrawing from an international treaty involves several steps:
A. Executive Decision
Presidential Authority: The President of the United States typically has the authority to withdraw from international treaties. This decision can be initiated by the President and communicated to the relevant international body.
Consultation with Legal Advisors: The President would consult with the Department of State and legal advisors to ensure that the withdrawal process complies with both domestic and international law.
B. Congressional Involvement
Senate Approval: While the President can withdraw from treaties, some legal scholars argue that significant treaties require Senate involvement, particularly if the treaty was originally ratified with Senate consent.
Legislation: Congress could pass legislation directing the President to withdraw from the convention or to repeal domestic laws that implement the treaty’s provisions.
C. Notification
Formal Notification: The United States would need to formally notify the United Nations and the other parties to the convention of its intention to withdraw. This is typically done through diplomatic channels and involves submitting a formal notice of withdrawal.
After the COVID-19 Pandemic and the failed power grab from the Global Pandemic Treaty through IHR Amendment mechanisms, Heal Earth demands an investigation and reforms to the WHO.
Recommendation to Treat the WHO as a Hostile Actor Pending Structural Reforms
Recent actions and policies by the WHO have raised serious concerns regarding its operations and potential influence on the national security of the United States and all Allies. After careful consideration and analysis, we have determined that until comprehensive structural reforms within the WHO can be confirmed and verified, it is necessary to adopt a precautionary stance.
Recommended Actions
Immediate Reassessment of Engagements:
Conduct a thorough review of all ongoing projects and collaborations with the WHO.
Identify critical dependencies and develop contingency plans to mitigate potential disruptions in health services and programs.
Enhanced Security Measures:
Implement heightened security protocols for communications and data exchanges with the WHO.
Monitor and scrutinize interactions with WHO representatives to safeguard sensitive information.
Collaborative Vigilance:
Share intelligence and insights related to the WHO’s activities with allied nations to ensure a unified approach.
Establish a joint task force to oversee the monitoring of the WHO’s operations and to coordinate responses to any identified threats.
Promotion of Structural Reforms:
Advocate for specific reforms within the WHO that address governance, transparency, and accountability issues.
Engage with other member states to push for a comprehensive review of the WHO’s operational framework at the upcoming World Health Assembly.
Public Communication Strategy:
Prepare a clear and concise public statement outlining the reasons for this stance and the desired reforms.
Ensure that the messaging emphasizes the commitment to global health while underscoring the necessity of these measures for national security.
Updates on the IHR Amendments and Pandemic Treaty
By the Grace of the Most High Creator God, we have been granted the gift of time as WHO assets have failed to implement 453
Call for the Dissolution of the World Health Organization (WHO) Without Structural Reforms
The World Health Organization (WHO), entrusted with guiding global health initiatives, faces growing criticism for its structural inefficiencies, potential conflicts of interest, and underrepresentation of traditional and indigenous medical practices. This executive summary outlines the urgent need for the dissolution of the WHO unless substantial reforms are undertaken to address these issues comprehensively.
Key Issues and Proposed Reforms
Elimination of Private Funding:
Problem: The WHO’s reliance on private funding from organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the undue influence of private entities on global health policies.
Solution: Ban private funding to ensure the WHO operates independently and prioritizes public health over private interests.
Prioritization of Traditional Medicine:
Problem: The current structure of the WHO undervalues traditional and indigenous medical practices, which are vital to the health and well-being of many communities worldwide.
Solution: Recognize and integrate traditional medicine within the WHO’s framework, ensuring it receives the respect and resources it deserves.
Establishment of an Indigenous Medicine Organization:
Problem: Indigenous health voices are underrepresented in global health discussions and policymaking.
Solution: Create a dedicated Indigenous Medicine Organization to represent indigenous health perspectives and practices, ensuring their inclusion in global health strategies.
Legalization of Traditional Medicine:
Problem: Traditional medicine is often marginalized or illegal in many member nations, limiting its accessibility and potential benefits.
Solution: Mandate the legalization and recognition of traditional medicine across all member nations, providing a legal framework to support its practice and integration.
Qualified Administrative Staff:
Problem: Many administrative roles within the WHO are held by individuals without a medical background, potentially compromising the quality of health policies and initiatives.
Solution: Require that all administrative staff possess a medical degree or a certification in indigenous medicine to ensure informed decision-making.
Transparency in Treaty Language:
Problem: Lack of transparency in the drafting and amendment of WHO treaties undermines trust and accountability.
Solution: Require that all treaty language be posted online using version-control technology. This will allow for real-time tracking of changes and ensure transparency and public scrutiny of all amendments and agreements.
Investigation into WHO’s Pandemic Treaty and IHR Amendments
Concerns have been raised regarding the WHO’s handling of the pandemic treaty and the potential misuse of the International Health Regulations (IHR) amendment system. It is imperative to investigate these actions to ensure that the sovereignty of member states is not compromised. Transparency and accountability are crucial to maintaining trust in international health governance.
Support for Heal Earth's Advocacy
The advocacy campaign led by Heal Earth has played a pivotal role in challenging the WHO’s overreach and advocating for the decentralization of health authority. Their efforts to dilute the WHO’s power grab are commendable and essential in promoting a more balanced and representative global health governance structure.
Republican Governors Join Together to Oppose Proposals Granting World Health Organization Unprecedented Power Over U.S. 24 Republican governors have joined together, writing a letter to President Biden to state their united opposition to two proposals currently under negotiation that would grant the World Health Organization (WHO) unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people.
The governors state that “if adopted, these agreements would seek to elevate the WHO from an advisory body to a global authority in public health. Under the proposed amendments and treaty, the WHO’s Director- General would supposedly gain unilateral power to declare a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ (PHEIC) in member nations, extending beyond pandemics to include a range of perceived emergencies.”
The governors continued, “these proposals could erode state sovereignty by granting the WHO’s Director- General the authority to dictate responses to a declared PHEIC, stripping elected representatives of their role in setting public health policies and compelling citizens to comply with WHO directives, potentially including mandates regarding medical treatments.”
Notably, the most recent draft of the Pandemic Treaty would strip provisions that would allow for the WHO to have immediate access to outbreak sites through rapid response and expert teams, weaken intellectual property rights, and allow the WHO to use the treaty to call for parties to combat false, misleading, misinformation, or disinformation through effective international collaboration and cooperation.
Read the full letter here.
Conclusion
Without significant reforms addressing these critical issues, the dissolution of the WHO stands as a necessary measure to pave the way for a more transparent, equitable, and representative global health organization. It is time to prioritize the voices of traditional and indigenous medicine practitioners, ensure funding transparency, implement robust transparency measures for treaty languages, and safeguard the sovereignty of member states in health matters.
Last updated