Sovereignty Under Siege: The New World Order, the Pandemic Treaty, and the Fatal Consequences for National Sovereignty and Global Health

Sovereignty Under Siege: The New World Order, the Pandemic Treaty, and the Fatal Consequences for National Sovereignty and Global Health

The question really is; Will the New World Order prevail, or will humanity navigate these challenges and maintain a semblance of individual rights and national sovereignty?

In this dystopian world, the new pandemic treaty 2023 has sparked controversy, with concerns rising about its impact on national sovereignty and global health. As the world population struggles to recover from the plandemic, this one world umbrella treaty is offered up as hope for a unified and coordinated global response. However, as the details emerge, it becomes clearer that the treaty represents a grave threat to individual rights and the autonomy of nations and their ability to manage public health crises effectively.

Sign up for Prepper Daves Free Newsletter HERE

With the WHO’s Zero Draft, there is a stirring controversy and debate surrounding the pandemic treaty, especially regarding its implications for national sovereignty and global solidarity.

The WHO Zero Draft is a document that outlines the proposed framework for a global agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. It was developed by the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), which consists of representatives from WHO’s 194 Member States. The zero draft was released on December 7, 2022, and was discussed by Member States in February 2023. They claim the aim of the agreement is to protect nations and communities from future pandemic emergencies and ensure a better coordinated response and equal access to vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics.

If you are listening to this podcast or reading this post, I am sure you are like me – and you know we cannot take them at face value…especially knowing how we have seen the changing goal posts, the cozying up to the CCP, and the misinformation and disinformation coming from our **respected leaders and authorities**.

The Zero Draft has been welcomed by many experts and civil society organizations as a bold and comprehensive step towards strengthening global health security. However, it also faces some challenges and criticisms, such as: National sovereignty vs. global solidarity, the potential resistance from powerful countries and vested interests, implementation and enforcement of the agreement, and the “lack of transparency” in addressing the root causes and drivers of pandemics.

As always, the devil is in the details; So, how do they propose to balance national sovereignty and global solidarity?

That’s a good question. According to the Zero Draft, they claim to respect the **sovereign right** of States Parties to determine and manage their approach to public health, while also promoting **global cooperation** and **shared responsibility** for preventing and responding to pandemics.

On a sidenote, national sovereignty is important for countries to protect and exercise for the following reasons:

  • It reflects the principle of self-determination, which recognizes that a country’s people have the right to choose their own political system, form of government, and way of life.
  • It preserves the identity of a country’s culture, values, and traditions, which may be different from or incompatible with those of other countries or actors.
  • It enables a country to pursue its own goals and priorities, which may be unique or specific to its needs, circumstances, or preferences.
  • It protects a country from external threats or challenges, which may harm or undermine its security, stability, or prosperity.
  • It empowers a country to participate in and contribute to the international community, which may benefit from its perspectives, experiences, or resources.

Some of the ways that the WHO and the Zero Draft agreement proposes to balance national sovereignty and global solidarity are as follows:

By establishing a **global health security council** that would oversee the implementation of the agreement and facilitate dialogue and coordination among States Parties and other stakeholders.

The establishment of an independent review mechanism, global health security council, that would verify compliance and address disputes, which may be perceived as a challenge to their authority or autonomy.

By creating a **global health solidarity fund**, governed by a board composed of representatives from States Parties, WHO, other relevant international organizations, civil society, private sector and others, would mobilize and allocate resources for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, especially for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

This implies a direct redistribution of wealth or a loss of control over our own finances. Some countries may also question the fairness or effectiveness of the fund or its governance.

By developing a **global health emergency workforce** that would provide assistance to countries in need during a pandemic in accordance with international law.

This goes directly to our concerns about consent or sovereignty over our country. Some other countries may also prefer to rely on their own resources or allies, or reject any conditions or strings attached to the assistance.

By enhancing **transparency** and **accountability** by requiring States Parties to submit timely, accurate and disaggregated information and data on their pandemic capacities and activities with WHO and other countries. Together this will establish an **independent review mechanism** to verify compliance and address disputes based on the reports submitted by countries and other sources of information.

The requirement for States Parties to share, which may be seen as an intrusion into their internal affairs or a violation of their privacy. Some countries may also fear that their information and data may be used against them or leaked to others.

By strengthening **equity** and **access** by ensuring that vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics are treated as global public goods, and by supporting technology transfer, local production and intellectual property waivers for LMICs.

The obligation to ensure equitable and universal access to vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics, may conflict with national interests or priorities, especially if they have invested in or secured their own supplies.

Furthermore, the treaty obliges countries to contribute to global availability and affordability as well as measures that would affect their intellectual property rights or domestic production.

  • This treaty would undermine our sovereignty and ability to determine and manage our own approach to public health, especially during a pandemic. The treaty would impose a one-size-fits-all model that does not account for specific needs, circumstances, or preferences.
  • Facing legal or financial consequences: The treaty would expose us to legal or financial liabilities or sanctions if we fail to comply with obligations under the treaty. We would have to pay compensation, restitution, or fines for any harm or damage caused by actions or inactions related to pandemics.
  • Being exploited or coerced by other countries or actors: The treaty would be used as a tool or pretext by other countries or actors to advance their own agendas or interests at our expense. They may accuse us of using the treaty to interfere in their internal affairs, exert pressure or influence, gain access on resources or markets, or impose our values or norms.

Isn’t it funny that at the same time, the Zero Draft claims to reaffirm the sovereign right of States Parties to determine and manage their approach to public health, they must do so in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law.

Some countries may be reluctant to cede some of their sovereignty or share their resources with others, especially if they perceive a lack of trust or reciprocity. Some countries may also have different views or interests on how to define, measure or enforce pandemic preparedness and response.

What powers does the WHO have to enforce this pandemic treaty?

The treaty does not give the WHO any direct powers to enforce compliance or sanction non-compliance by countries. They claim the treaty is based on the principle of **sovereignty**, which means that countries have the right to determine and manage their approach to public health, in accordance with UN Charter and International Law. Furthermore, the treaty does provide mechanisms and incentives to “encourage and monitor compliance”.

They claim that these mechanisms are not intended to be coercive or punitive. They further claim that they are based on voluntary participation, mutual trust, dialogue, cooperation, and peer pressure and therefore, the treaty aims to balance national sovereignty and global solidarity, rather than undermine either one.

Is this WHO agreement a Treaty the United States will be bound to?

Yes, the proposal is a treaty, which is a type of international agreement that is legally binding for the parties that sign and ratify it. The pandemic treaty is intended to be adopted under the Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO), which gives the WHO the authority to negotiate and conclude treaties on matters within its competence.

The pandemic treaty is also known as the International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, or the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Accord. It has a specific definition of pandemic, which is the **global spread of a pathogen that overwhelms health systems with severe morbidity and high mortality, and causes social and economic disruptions**.

The pandemic treaty aims to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response by establishing a framework for cooperation and coordination among States Parties and other stakeholders, such as WHO, other international organizations, civil society, private sector, and others. It also seeks to promote key international principles that will guide the treaty, such as human rights, sovereignty, equity, solidarity, transparency, accountability and more.

Can the President of the United States make treaties with foreign nations without the advice and consent of the Senate?

The Senate must approve the treaty by a two-thirds vote for it to be ratified and become binding for the U.S.. Therefore, the pandemic treaty cannot be signed by executive order alone, but would require Senate approval.

There are some exceptions and alternatives to this process, such as:

  • Executive agreements: These are agreements between the President and a foreign government that do not require Senate approval, but may require congressional authorization or notification. They are usually based on existing treaties or laws, or on the President’s constitutional authority as the chief executive or commander-in-chief.
  • Congressional-executive agreements: These are agreements between the President and a foreign government that require a majority vote of both houses of Congress, rather than a two-thirds vote of the Senate. They are usually used for trade or economic issues, but may also cover other matters.
  • Treaty amendments: These are changes to existing treaties that may not require Senate approval, depending on their nature and scope. They may be adopted by a simple majority of the parties to the treaty, or by other procedures specified in the treaty.

The U.S. has used these exceptions and alternatives in some cases involving global health issues, such as:

  • The International Health Regulations (IHR): These are a set of rules and standards adopted by WHO to prevent and respond to public health emergencies of international concern. The U.S. founded the original IHR in 1969, but did not ratify the revised IHR in 2005. Instead, it accepted them as an executive agreement, based on its existing treaty obligations and domestic laws.
  • The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC): This is a treaty adopted by WHO to reduce tobacco consumption and its harmful effects. The U.S. signed the FCTC in 2004, but did not ratify it. Instead, it implemented some of its provisions through congressional-executive agreements, such as the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009.

These exceptions and alternatives are not without controversy or limitations. Some critics argue that they undermine the constitutional role of the Senate or the democratic process in treaty-making. Some also question their legal validity or effectiveness in addressing complex or sensitive issues that may require long-term commitment or cooperation.

Therefore, it is not clear whether the U.S. would use any of these exceptions or alternatives to join the pandemic treaty, or whether it would follow the traditional process of seeking Senate approval. This may depend on various factors.

Can the Executive Office use the NDAA to get around certain aspects of a treaty?

The NDAA, or the National Defense Authorization Act, is a bill that authorizes the budget and policies for the Department of Defense and other national security programs. The NDAA for fiscal year 2022 was signed into law by President Biden on December 27, 2021.

The NDAA does not directly address the pandemic treaty or its adoption by the U.S. However, it does contain some provisions that are related to global health security and pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, such as:

  • The Global Health Security and International Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response Act: This act enhances strategic planning, interagency coordination, diplomatic engagement, transparency, accountability, and long-term results for U.S. efforts to prevent and respond to pandemics.
  • The Global Health Security Strategy Implementation Plan: This plan requires the President to submit a report to Congress on the implementation of the Global Health Security Strategy, which outlines the U.S. vision and goals for strengthening global health security.
  • The Global Health Security Agenda: This agenda authorizes the Secretary of State to provide assistance to foreign countries and international organizations to advance the Global Health Security Agenda, which is a multilateral initiative to accelerate progress towards a world safe and secure from infectious disease threats.
  • The International Health Regulations (IHR): This section requires the Secretary of State to report to Congress on the status of U.S. compliance with the IHR, which are a set of rules and standards adopted by WHO to prevent and respond to public health emergencies of international concern.

The NDAA may have some implications for the U.S. position and participation in the pandemic treaty negotiations, but it does not allow for the signing or adoption of the treaty without congressional approval or ratification.

There is a bill introduced in the Senate that specifically addresses the pandemic treaty and its ratification by the U.S. It is called the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act (S.4343), and it was introduced by Senator Ron Johnson. This bill establishes that any convention or agreement on pandemic-related issues reached by the World Health Assembly (WHA) pursuant to a specified negotiating body shall be deemed to be a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the Senate.

On another scary sidenote; If they are telling us the truth about being voluntary and we will all be singing Kumbaya, then why is the word SHALL used so often?

The term “shall” indicates a mandatory obligation for the States Parties that sign and ratify the treaty. Examples of the use of the term “shall”:

Principles and objectives

  • States Parties shall respect, protect and fulfil human rights and fundamental freedoms in all aspects of pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery.
  • States Parties shall cooperate with each other and with other relevant stakeholders in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law.

Rights and obligations of States Parties

  • Each State Party shall share timely, accurate and disaggregated information and data on its capacities and activities related to pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery with WHO and other States Parties.
  • Each State Party shall provide or facilitate assistance to other States Parties in need during a pandemic, in accordance with its capacities and obligations under international law.

Mechanisms for monitoring, reporting and verification

WHO shall establish an independent review mechanism to verify compliance by States Parties with their obligations under this Agreement, based on the reports submitted by States Parties and other sources of information.

Modalities for financing, resource mobilization and allocation

  • States Parties shall provide adequate financial resources for the implementation of this Agreement at the national, regional and global levels.
  • Arrangements for cooperation, coordination and assistance
  • WHO shall develop a global health emergency workforce to provide rapid and effective assistance to States Parties in need during a pandemic, with their consent and in accordance with international law.

Provisions for dispute settlement, compliance and liability

  • States Parties shall settle any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement through peaceful means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law. This means that countries should try to resolve any disagreements or conflicts that may arise from the treaty through dialogue, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or judicial settlement, rather than resorting to violence or coercion.
  • The Conference of the Parties shall establish a compliance committee to address any cases of non-compliance by States Parties with their obligations under this Agreement. This means that there will be a body composed of representatives from countries that are parties to the treaty, which will monitor and review the implementation of the treaty and deal with any instances of non-compliance by countries. The compliance committee will have the authority to receive and consider reports, complaints, and requests from States Parties, WHO, or other stakeholders, and to make recommendations or take measures to ensure compliance.
  • The Conference of the Parties shall adopt rules and procedures on liability arising from acts or omissions related to pandemics. This means that there will be a set of rules and procedures that will determine the legal responsibility and consequences for any actions or inactions that may cause harm or damage to others in relation to pandemics. For example, these rules and procedures may address issues such as compensation, restitution, or sanctions for those who are liable.

Processes for amendment, withdrawal and termination

  • Any State Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notice to the Director-General of WHO.
  • Withdrawal shall take effect one year after receipt of the notice by the Director-General of WHO, unless the notice specifies a later date.

Final provisions

This Agreement shall be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States. Instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Director-General of WHO.

Final sidenote (and some more scary stuff), what is One Health?

One Health is a **collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach** that aims to achieve optimal health outcomes by recognizing the **interconnection** between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment. It involves working at the local, regional, national, and global levels with various stakeholders from different sectors, such as public health, animal health, environmental health, agriculture, wildlife, and others. Sounds like a one stop shop to control everything…but I digress…

They claim that One Health is important because many of the health challenges that we face today are influenced by the complex interactions among humans, animals, and ecosystems. For example, it’s claimed:

  • About 75% of new or emerging infectious diseases in humans are of animal origin (zoonotic), such as COVID-19, Ebola, SARS, MERS, avian influenza, and rabies.
  • Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global threat that affects both human and animal health and is driven by the misuse and overuse of antibiotics in humans, animals, and agriculture.
  • Environmental degradation, such as deforestation, habitat loss, pollution, and man-made climate change, can affect the health and well-being of humans and animals, as well as the functioning and resilience of ecosystems.
  • They want to put everything under one umbrella so this agreement can be implemented under the guise of addressing these challenges by promoting a holistic and integrated understanding of health issues, fostering cross-sectoral collaboration and coordination, enhancing surveillance and early detection of diseases and risks, improving prevention and control measures, and supporting research and innovation.
  • One Health is not a new concept, but it has gained more attention and recognition in recent years due to the increasing frequency and impact of zoonotic disease outbreaks and other global health threats. Several initiatives and platforms have been established to advance One Health at different levels.
  • The One Health Initiative: a global movement to promote One Health principles and practices among various disciplines and sectors.
  • The Tripartite Collaboration: a partnership among WHO, FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), and OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) to address zoonotic diseases and AMR.
  • The One Health Platform: a scientific reference network to unite researchers and experts to better understand and prepare for zoonotic disease outbreaks from animals to humans.

How about stopping Gain of Function Research… I digress…


While the proposed Zero Draft for a global agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response has been met with some (too much) optimism, it also faces considerable criticism and concerns. The balance between national sovereignty (and individual rights) versus global solidarity (the collective) remains a crucial issue with no clear solutions suggested so far. Implementation and enforcement of the agreement, as well as transparency and accountability, are major concerns that have not been adequately addressed. These challenges and criticisms make it crucial to address concerns promptly and find more effective ways to prioritize the health and well-being of all people while ensuring we are able to maintain what semblance of sovereignty and individual rights we have left…before it’s too late.

Contact Us

Please feel free to ⁠contact us⁠ if you have any specific topics in mind that you would like us to cover! We hope to provide you with the most up-to-date information, news, and resources to help prepare you for whatever lies ahead in our increasingly uncertain world. The threats of war, economic collapse and complete societal breakdown have never been closer than they are now, and it is our responsibility to ensure that we are prepared for whatever eventuality may come. Stay vigilant and stay safe- the future is in our hands.


This is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional, financial, medical, or legal advice. Please conduct your own research and consult with a qualified professional before relying on any information provided. We do not endorse any candidate or political party. Privacy Policy

#NewWorldOrder #SovereigntyUnderSiege #PrepperDaves #PandemicTreaty2023 #GlobalHealthThreat

Sources: Conversation with Bing, 4/29/2023

%d bloggers like this: