Our future?

A (last) letter to MPs

This is one of those ‘take a few deep breaths and get it done’ Substacks - a shorter piece than usual but also a more important one. It’s high summer and I’m getting out and about in the leafiness of England as much as possible. With the prospect of spending the best part of a month in a field, I’m mindful of how gathering on the land is what my ancestors have long done at the lightest part of the year. In northern Europe, we make our hay while the sun shines and even when it doesn’t.

But there’s something difficult that needs my attention before I go off to the festivals. It’s to do with the fact that my ancestors did not survive by ignoring clear and present danger or threats to their way of life, allied with the knowledge that indigenous peoples unprepared to deal with the forces of progress are today living in reservations.

This is the Janus-faced approach that many of us are now adopting: looking at the dark, difficult stuff and then turning away to envision brighter possibilities and take practical measures. Both are absolutely necessary in these strange times.

So, to the matter. This time next year – in fact, in ten months – it will have been decided. By ‘it’ I mean the amendments to the International Health Regulations and the Pandemic Treaty, two international legal instruments which will introduce a comprehensive, legally-binding set of obligations on the 194 member states of the World Health Organization. The UK government has taken a leading role in advocating these changes: you can find a letter signed by Boris Johnson here and a good briefing paper on what it’s all about here.

Meanwhile, Britain is finally starting to grapple with the consequences of the choices made in March 2020, with admissions in the mainstream media of the damage done to a generation of children, the economy and the fabric of society. Phrases such as ‘it must never happen again’ are becoming commonplace and many people seem to believe that Covid was an unfortunate one-off.

And yet, unless a significant change takes place, huge powers to impose the same kinds of measures, but with greater force and efficiency, on almost every country in the world are on the way. No signatures are required: the IHR amendments and treaty will be passed by a majority of whoever attends next year’s World Health Assembly. The consent of the people has been assumed. Do an internet search and you’ll find plenty of references to ‘countries reaching a deal’ and negotiations continuing ‘behind closed doors’.

It’s hard to believe. In this interview with Richard Vobes, Dr Tess Lawrie speaks of the common psychological response to the sheer preposterousness of the agreements underway: “People find it difficult to believe,” she says. “Well, it is true and in May this document will be passed.”

It is likely there will be some watering-down of the proposals but, because of the lack of public debate, there’s no way of knowing what our governments are agreeing to on our behalf. In the UK, there’s not even been any parliamentary scrutiny about changes which will put an end to our way of life. Before Covid, I would have imagined such a situation to be impossible, the WHO’s outrageous demands laughed out of the House by seasoned statesmen. But today our MPs are failing us. And if you’re reading this from another country, it’s likely that your politicians are failing you, too.

So by way of a citizen’s scrutiny, over the next couple of weeks I’ll be writing to every MP in the British Parliament. I’ve never done such a thing before and I don’t plan to ever do it again. It’s my way of doing due diligence as a member of a democratic society: regardless of what happens in the times-to-come, I want to know, deep within myself, that I did everything I could. And amid ever-mounting evidence that politicians are simply ignoring the people, I want to play my part in making sure “they can’t say they didn’t know”.

In the letter I’m sending, I’ve chosen a few questions concerned with fundamental principles and broad implications which I hope will remind parliamentarians of their duty of scrutiny. There are many issues which I haven’t gone into, such as the increased surveillance demanded by the WHO, greater powers in ‘infodemic management’ (censorship to you or me) and access to digital and genetic data. Link the latter with the UK government’s plan for public authorities to share our data with anyone they work with, and your or my medical records could end up anywhere. Some of this is already underway via a partnership between the WHO and the EU to create digital health certification, a comprehensive testing and vaccine passport regime.

The treaty strikes me as a highly commercial document. Described by WHO-watcher James Roguski as “a venture capital investment plan”, it contracts countries to put their intellectual, medical and financial resources at the disposal of the WHO. There’s a great focus on the "pandemic-related products" which member states will be obliged to purchase and prescribe to their populations – at special prices to the WHO!

Like the Joker in Batman, some of the phrases – "during inter-pandemic periods" – are almost comically giveaway. Whaddya mean,”between pandemics”? Are you planning to declare them regularly? The beginnings and ends of such crises will be decided by the Director General and between them, certain measures will be applied on a continuous basis: “The Parties agree to establish such a system(s), consistent with applicable and relevant national, regional and international laws and regulations, as well as existing international instruments, which is/are implementable at all times, both during and between pandemics.” (Treaty Article 12)

Certain clauses evoke images of government ministers being hauled up before the Director General to explain their failings like schoolboys. (Who else thinks men’s suits are too tight these days?) IHR Amendment Article 13.4 states that member states will have 48 hours to decide whether to accept the WHO’s offer of ‘international assistance’ to provide ‘on-site assistance’ (boots on the ground?) and if not, to give their reasons. Article 13.5 stipulates that if a country cannot provide WHO with the support it requires, it ‘shall inform the reasons to WHO’.

LOL!

My mood sobers when I read Article 18 of the amendments to the IHRs. Which, if any, of these requirements would you be happy to comply with? Mandatory vaccination? Isolation for ‘suspect persons? What, for you or your loved ones, would be a step too far? No doubt such choices would partly depend on the sanctions imposed by each government and how they affect each person. What kind of enforcement would there be? Would there be sufficient compliance to bring the WHO’s instructions into effect? What forms would non-compliance take? And what, in turn, would be the social consequences of diverse forms of non-compliance?

I don’t know. Such a level of control over human life has never before been attempted.

My letter to Britain’s MPs is below. I suspect that it will get no replies, or at most standard assertions that the WHO’s powers do not pose a threat to British sovereignty. If I do get any real engagement, I’ll let you know.

Dear MP,

I am writing to you about the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs) and the Pandemic Treaty (WHO CA+) which is currently being negotiated by the British government. Taken together, these two international legal instruments, due to be agreed at World Health Assembly in May 2024, have far-reaching implications for everyone in the United Kingdom.

I am taking the once-in-a-lifetime step of writing to every MP in the country to register my deep disquiet at the way decisions are being taken without parliamentary scrutiny or public debate. I have heard that people who write to their MPs about this matter receive only standard responses dismissive of their concerns. I am also aware of many more people who are worried about it but have become convinced it is futile to communicate with politicians. So please take this as a kind of citizen’s due diligence which reflects concerns that are held more widely.

Partly thanks to insights gained during a former career as a public policy journalist, I have noticed that a profound shift has taken place in Britain’s parliamentary democracy. It seems that decisions affecting the life of the nation are being taken behind closed doors by a small group at the heart of government, with no questions being asked by the Opposition or parliamentarians of any party. This unhealthy situation is particularly alarming with respect to the proposed health regulations and treaty which the UK has had a major role in supporting. I am aware of only a handful of MPs who have raised concerns about it.

So I invite you to consider the following questions. In recognition of the pressures on your time, they are short and selective and exclude a number of concerns about increased surveillance, the sharing of data, biological material and intellectual property. References to the relevant parts of the documents are included for your convenience.

- Are you fully aware of the changes being proposed in these two legal instruments?

- Are you comfortable with the speed at which negotiations about international agreements that normally take many years to conclude are proceeding?

- Do you consider that the level of debate about these changes is compatible with the Seven Principles of Public Life, particularly the requirement for transparency or ‘openness’?

Specifically:

- Are you content with the proposal to extend the powers of the WHO Director-General to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern for ‘potential’ as well as actual outbreaks of contagious disease, to wider health-related issues and to other crises involving animals, the environment and climate change? (IHRs Article 12, 15. WHO CA+ Article 15)

- Do you agree with the strengthening of the WHO’s recommendations for measures such as border closures and quarantines to become binding obligations on member states under international law? What implications do you see for primary legislation in the UK? (IHRs Article 13, 16, and 18, below:)

- How do you reconcile the principles of informed consent and individual patient care which have characterised western healthcare to date with the WHO’s One Health approach involving the mass administration of medical interventions?

- How confident are you, in the event of a difference in opinion between the WHO and the British government about how to proceed in a crisis, of your ability to protect the country against pressure from other member-states?

- Do you consider that the proposed new arrangements contain sufficient checks and balances to guard against conflicts of interest? Do you think it is appropriate that the arrangements include no means of reassessing the WHO’s recommendations or mechanism for oversight?

- Are you happy to commit the British taxpayer to significant, increased financial contributions to the WHO? What measures would you advocate to support businesses and individuals in the event of prolonged shutdowns?

- How would you explain to constituents who knew nothing about these changes that they were agreed without public debate while you were their elected representative in Parliament?

If you have got this far, thank you for reading this. You are not of course under any obligation to reply but any indication that these matters are, in fact, being taken seriously in Parliament would be most appreciated.

Yours

Dr Alex Klaushofer

“The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.” Robert M. Hutchins