Did We Really Just Turn Over Our Ability to Travel to the WHO?

We all want to feel safe against diseases while traveling. Certainly, we don’t want to bring some nasty bug home with us. But it appears the World Health Organization (WHO) has more on its mind than offering mere COVID-19 recommendations.

Might this entity wish to control our very movements?

It would appear so. The role that the WHO once held as an informing and recommending body has morphed into one of a governing and enforcing body.

This should cause us to reconsider their place with some alarm.

For context, the WHO works in tandem with the International Health Regulations (IHR). An organization comprised of 194 member states, the WHO elects one “Director-General.” Right now, 196 countries subscribe to their regulations (two non-member states beyond the 194 abide by them as well). Participants of the WHO and IHR agree to legally binding laws set up by these organizations.

Already, this seems like too much authority.

But then on May 22-28, 2022, at the 75th World Health Assembly in Geneva, member countries gave over their sovereignty to the WHO. Liberty Counsel reports:

The U.S. amendments delete a critical existing restriction in the regulations: “WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring…” This enables the Director-General to declare health emergencies at will and can be used to justify ostracism and economic or financial actions against the targeted nation by other nations aligned with WHO or who wish to harm and control the accused nation. 

Not only did the U.S. just allow the Director-General of the WHO to enforce travel restrictions—with national penalties, but all countries participating necessarily acquiesced to their stipulations.

But why?

Apparently, the United Nations believes if the WHO had even more power to act faster and on its own, more lives could have been saved during the plandemic. They go on to say the WHO must be “empowered financially and politically, [giving] economic sanctions or denial of benefits.”

If you sleepwalked through 2020-2023 this might seem like a good idea. To anyone else, it’s a recipe for centralized control—a nightmare in the making.

So, what will happen if the WHO amasses that much power?

We may soon find out. An international meeting, set for May 2024, will discuss amendments to current IHR guidelines, including expedience of power. Unchecked, one Director-General will soon make health decisions for us all, including if we are allowed to travel the next time the powers-that-shouldn’t-be decide we need to lockdown.

This presents a danger of unprecedented proportions to sovereign nations. Perhaps British sociologist Robert Dingwall explains this best:

The changes to regulations only require a simple majority and become effective more or less immediately. It is these changes that represent a significant shift of power from nation-states to the person of the director-general, without any provision for a transparent appointment process or for that person to be accountable to any representative body or international legal tribunal. They are a recipe for autocracy.

Of course, when it comes to autocracies, no one remembers the benevolent emperor Ashoka of India, or King Fredrick the II of Prussia, or Qaboos bin Said of Oman. Instead, we recall authorities who managed affairs with an iron fist: Hitler, Stalin, Franco.

Why is this so? As we know from history, power rarely stays benevolent, no matter how innocent its origin. And already we are ceding way too much power to one organization headed by one individual.

The way out?

Countries, especially our own, must retain their own sovereignty. Otherwise, we will soon be at the mercy of another autocrat—this time with more power over more nations than any previous dictator could ever imagine.