An Update on the WHO Negotiations These negotiations must be terminated NOW. NO votes may be held at the World Health Assembly. THIS FRAUD MUST BE STOPPED NOW. James Roguski May 3   READ IN APP   Share Leave a comment Subscribed The Co-Chairs of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body held a press conference on May 3, 2024. The window of opportunity is closing. -INB CoChair Precious Matsoso Please watch the video of the press briefing below: https://rumble.com/v4t1rz3-official-press-briefing-for-the-pandemic-treaty-may-3-2024.html Have you been misinformed? Have you been duped? As I have said many times, these negotiations are NOT about what many people have been saying they are about. https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/red-herrings https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/quarantine https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/barking-up-the-wrong-tree https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/greed Article 24. Secretariat 3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic laws, as appropriate, or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns. https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb9/A_inb9_3Rev1-en.pdf Below are some excerpts from a very informative article by the Third World Network. I strongly encourage everyone to read the entire article. Discussions on the pathogen access and benefit-sharing (PABS) system were often tense, on at least on two occasions, when the Co-chair of the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) tried to shut down the Africa Group’s proposals on the matter. On the third day of the meeting (1st May) , discussions began on Article 12 of the Bureau’s text on the PABS system. Most of the discussion was moderated by the Bureau Co-chair Roland Driece of Netherlands. According to sources, on two occasions, the Co-chair intervened as the Africa Group was making proposals on the PABS system, attempting to cut short the interventions. Co-chair Driece also attempted to defer discussion on Article 12 by indicating that the rest of the day would be spent discussing other articles in the draft Pandemic Agreement. However, members of the Africa Group objected to the insufficient time allocated for this crucial aspect of the Pandemic Agreement. Egypt argued that Article 12 is the starting point for facilitating other articles stating that until Article 12 is cleared, progress cannot be achieved. WHO’s legal office shared a white paper on Friday morning (3rd), on how the new instruments being considered, PABS and a One Health instrument proposed by the Bureau, will be established and how existing and future instruments (the International Health Regulations, the Pandemic Agreement, the PABS System and One Health Instrument (which is strongly opposed by many countries) will interact with each other given their different mandates, governance and financial structures. The paper does not provide clear options to WHO member States how fragmentation of the health emergency can be avoided. In the corridors, among developing countries there is significant opposition to such an instrument. Certain developed countries have also privately expressed concern about this new instrument. The scope and content of such an instrument is also unclear. The EU said an element should be: “The benefit sharing shall be implemented by legally binding contracts between the PABS system and private entities”. This proposal, however, is an attempt to sneak in its proposal on the development of the PABS system, an approach that is flawed and has been rejected by developing countries. Some developed countries proposed replacing “access to” with “commercial use”. The United States, which is not Party to either instrument, is clearly seeking to undermine the core principles of the Convention for Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol. https://twn.my/title2/health.info/2024/hi240505.htm Below are some excerpts from an open letter published by a large number of Civil Society Organizations: We, the undersigned civil society organizations, are reaching out to you to underscore our grave concerns regarding the negotiation process of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) for the Pandemic Agreement. The resumed 9 th session of the INB is the last round of negotiation prior to the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA). The INB Bureau and the WHO Secretariat are pushing hard for acceptance of the draft Pandemic Agreement as proposed by the Bureau and the Secretariat with minimal changes, at the resumed session, setting the stage for its adoption at the 77 th WHA. While we acknowledge the importance of adopting a Pandemic Agreement earliest possible, such an Agreement must contain concrete measures and mechanisms that change the status quo, operationalize equity and foster international solidarity for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR). The approach taken by the Bureau and WHO Secretariat can be seen as coercive, effectively pressuring Member States into accepting a deeply unbalanced legal instrument. This instrument does little more than legitimize an inequitable regime for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPPR). We therefore call on you to take measures: To refrain from advocating or pressuring Member States to accept the draft Pandemic Agreement as proposed by the Bureau and WHO Secretariat; To ensure that resumed INB9 allows for effective Member State-led text-based negotiations i.e. to allow Member states to insert and delete text into the proposed draft text and to continue negotiations among Member States until they reach consensus. The role of the Bureau and the Co-chairs should be limited to moderating the negotiations, and from time to time suggesting text to bridge differences between Members. However at no time should Members be negotiating with the Bureau and the Secretariat, and neither should the Bureau and Secretariat text be considered the default text. There should also be advance notice and clarity on the type, timings and topics of the formal and informal meetings that will be held. Multiple parallel informal or formal working groups should be avoided. https://twn.my/announcement/20240428_Open-Letter-to-the-Director-General-of-the-World-Health-Organization_FINAL.pdf Below are some excerpts from an excellent article by Geneva Health Files: WHO member states finally began text-based negotiations on a new Pandemic Agreement at WHO this week after more than two years since the process commenced. This comes far too late, with just over a handful of negotiating days left to conclude this process. As a result, the risk of a weak text emerging out of this process is nearly certain now. This week, discussions on PABS began with a fundamental disagreement between countries on whether pathogen access should be linked to benefit-sharing. This is significant, because the recognition of this principle is central to the tenets of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the subsequent Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing. Developed countries including the EU, and other stakeholders have called against making such a link. (The industry has called monetizing access as a “no-go”.) So essentially, developed countries want a SII [Specialized International Instrument] that promises legal certainty, but appear unwilling to agree on the terms of benefits as articulated by developing countries. Officials described the PABS discussions this week as “difficult”. The UK is not in favor of specifying a percentage of sharing real-time production with the PABS system. (This ranges from 10% as proposed in text on the table, with Africa Group pushing for 40%.) A developed country said, “A PABS system will not deliver equitable access. We will end up interfering with free access and innovation.” “We are less concerned about the percentage figures. What is more important for us is mandatory tech transfer in the context of PABS. That is the only way you can diversify production at the height of a health emergency”, a developing country delegate explained to us. Without consensus on this basic principle, the details will not matter. QUALIFIERS WORK BOTH WAYS Many developed and developing countries seem to agree that the proposed text on the table is weak – not strong enough on surveillance for the former, and not [strong] enough on equity provisions for the latter. Both are unhappy about the use of qualifiers to weaken the text including terms like, “as appropriate”, “as per national circumstances”, “to the extent” among others. But both are using them. So, while qualifiers are being deployed skillfully by developed countries to weaken commitments on equity including across provisions on research and development, production, technology transfer, PABS, supply chain; developing countries are pushing for tempering down obligations on surveillance and One Health with the use of qualifiers. While PABS could hold the key to unlock the impasse facing countries, without consensus on principles, it could potentially bring this whole edifice down at this stage. “There are text-based negotiations on some of the provisions,” a senior official who is a part of the process said this week. On certain less contentious provisions, countries proceeded through grading some of the text with yellow, indicating that there has been some level of consideration. Greening of text would indicate full consensus. So far, we understand that no text has been greened yet. The One Health Gauntlet        A proposed new One Health instrument as articulated in the Bureau’s proposal last month, is significant not only for this negotiation, but also for its potential implications in other fora. While no member states had formally proposed for a separate track on One Health, it is not immediately clear why the Bureau proposed to do so. (This is part of a draft resolution proposed by the Bureau.) While this came as a surprise to many, for some countries they had factored this in. “We knew this was coming. Now we will have to make a determination whether we are willing to agree to One Health provisions in return for PABS,” a developing country negotiator told us this week. Civil Society including Third World Network, have been of the view that surveillance obligations will farm out commercially attractive data – a factor, that they say, is driving the One Health agenda in the context of the Pandemic Agreement. “A One Health instrument was never discussed, we cannot agree to this at the last minute”, another developing country negotiator said. “We are close to a tipping point, and they should not push it further” a developed country negotiator told us. This could likely be read as a warning that any potential failure of the process could be directed on the inflexible positions of the Africa Group. Efforts have been on to bring the Africa Group closer to the positions of developed countries, notably the EU. We learned of informal discussions between the EU and Africa Group in a bid to discuss key differences on financing, PABS, One Health and technology transfer. In addition to the agreement itself, countries will also negotiate a resolution on the process that will be considered by the World Health Assembly in three weeks’ time. “The rate at which we are going, we will be unable to agree on even a resolution. In my view these discussions are in a deep quagmire. What is needed is a change of heart and mind, not text”, a developing country negotiator told us this week. There is no time left within existing timelines to do this well. https://genevahealthfiles.substack.com/p/pabs-onehealth-inb-geneva-pandemic-agreement-who Please watch the videos below: by James Roguski The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly. If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime. JamesRoguski.com JamesRoguski.substack.com/about JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive 310-619-3055 All content is free to all readers. All support is deeply appreciated. CLICK HERE TO DONATE Share Leave a comment James Roguski’s newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribed This post is public, so feel free to share it. Share James Roguski   Like Comment Restack   © 2024 James Roguski 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe