Pre-emptive Nuclear War: The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran Chapter III of "The Globalization of War" by Michel Chossudovsky Firmly All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name. To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. Author’s Introduction and Update In a recent article entitled “A Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran is Contemplated” I focussed on how Israel’s criminal attack on the People of Palestine could evolve towards an extended Middle East War. At the time of writing, US-NATO war ships –including two aircraft carriers, combat planes, not to mention a nuclear submarine– are deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea, all of which are intended to confront what both Western politicians and the media casually describe as “Palestine’s Aggression against the Jewish State”. “Israel ranks” as “the 4th strongest military” after Russia, the U.S and China. Ask yourself: Why on earth would Israel need the support of U.S. aircraft carriers to lead a genocide against the Palestinians who are fighting for their lives with limited military capabilities. Is the U.S. intent upon triggering a broader war? “U.S. Warns Hezbollah, Iran. It Will intervene if they Escalate” Who is “Escalating”? The Pentagon has already intimated that it will attack Iran and Lebanon, “If they Escalate”. Is the Pentagon Seeking to Trigger one or more “False Flags”? Times of Israel, November 9, 2023 Also of significance (less than 4 months prior to October 7, 2023) is the adoption on June 27, 2023 of the US Congress Resolution (H. RES. 559) which Accuses Iran of Possessing Nuclear Weapons. H.RES 559 allows the use of force against Iran, intimating that Iran has Nuclear Weapons. Whereas Iran is tagged (without a shred of evidence) as a Nuclear Power by the U.S. Congress, Washington fails to acknowledge that Israel is an undeclared nuclear power. The article below was first published in my book entitled “The Globalization of War. America’s Long War against Humanity” (2015). I remain indebted to the former Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad who took the initiative of launching my book in Kuala Lumpur. (image right). Firmly committed to “the criminalization of war”, Tun Mahathir is a powerful voice in support of Palestine. The article below (Chapter III of “Globalization of War”) provides analysis in a historical perspective of U.S. war plans directed against Iran. Numerous “war theater scenarios” for an all-out attack on Iran have been contemplated. Dangerous Crossroads in our History The current and ongoing US-NATO military deployment in The Middle East — casually presented by the media as a means to coming to the rescue of Israel– is the pinnacle of U.S. war preparations extending over a period of more than 20 years. Contemplated by the Pentagon in 2005 was a scenario whereby an attack by Israel would be conducted on behalf of Washington: “An attack by Israel could, however, be used as “the trigger mechanism” which would unleash an all-out war against Iran, as well as retaliation by Iran directed against Israel.” (quoted from text below) At the outset of Bush’s second term “Vice President Dick Cheney had hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the “rogue enemies” of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us” (Ibid) The article also focusses on the dangers of a US-Israel nuclear attack against Iran which has been contemplated by the Pentagon since 2004. The US Israel “Partnership”: “Signed” Military Agreement Amply documented, the U.S. Military and Intelligence apparatus is firmly behind Israel’s genocide. In the words of Lt General Richard Clark: Americans Troops are “prepared to die for the Jewish State”. What should be understood by this statement is that the US and Israel have a longstanding Military “Partnership” as well as (Jerusalem Post) a “Signed” Military Agreement (classified) regarding Israel’s attack on Gaza. Lt. General Richard Clark is U.S. Third Air Force Commander, among the highest-ranking military officers in the U.S. Armed Forces. While he refers to Juniper Cobra, “a joint military exercise that has been conducted for almost a decade”, his statement points to a much broader “signed” military-intelligence agreement (classified) with Israel which no doubt includes the extension of the Israeli-US bombing of Gaza to the broader Middle East. While this so-called “signed” military agreement remains classified (not in the public domain), it would appear that Biden is obeying the orders of the perpetrators of this diabolical military agenda. Does President Biden have the authority (under this “Signed” Agreement with Israel) to save the lives of innocent civilians including the children of Palestine: Q (Inaudible) Gaza ceasefire, Mr. President? THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me? Q What are the chances of a Gaza ceasefire? THE PRESIDENT: None. No possibility. White House Press Conference, November 9, 2023 Lt. General Clark confirms that: “U.S. troops could be put under Israeli commanders in the battlefield”, which suggests that the genocide is implemented by Netanyahu on behalf of the United States. Everything indicates that the US military and intelligence apparatus are behind Israel’s criminal bombing and invasion of Gaza. We stand firmly in Solidarity with Palestine and the People of the Middle East. It is my intent and sincere hope that my writings (including the text below) will contribute to “Revealing the Truth” as well “Reversing the Tide of Global Warfare”. Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 17, 2023, March 10, 2024 Pre-emptive Nuclear War: The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran by Michel Chossudovsky Introduction While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.” The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From the outset, these war plans were led by the U.S. in liaison with NATO and Israel. Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. U.S. military sources intimated at the time that an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the U.S. “shock and awe” bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003: American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq.1 “Theater Iran Near Term” (TIRANNT) Code named by U.S. military planners as TIRANNT, “Theater Iran Near Term”, simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 “when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran.”2 The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a “Shock and Awe” Blitzkrieg: The analysis, called TIRANNT, for “Theater Iran Near Term,” was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for “major combat operations” against Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in draft form. … Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change.3 Different “theater scenarios” for an all-out attack on Iran had been contemplated: The U.S. army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for “Operation Iranian Freedom”. Admiral Fallon, the new head of U.S. Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).4 In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President Dick Cheney instructed U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM) to draw up a “contingency plan” of a large scale military operation directed against Iran “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States” on the presumption that the government in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state: The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than four hundred fifty major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program develop- ment sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of ter- rorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing –that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack– but no one is prepared to dam- age his career by posing any objections.5 The Military Road Map: “First Iraq, then Iran” The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader process of military planning and sequencing of military operations. Already under the Clinton administration (1995), U.S. Central Command (U.S.CENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade first Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the stated strategic objective: The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. U.S.CENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.6 The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military operations. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consisted of a sequence of countries: [The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.6 (For further details, see Chapter I) The Role of Israel There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack against Iran. Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does not have a separate and distinct military agenda. Israel is integrated into the “war plan for major combat operations” against Iran formulated in 2006 by U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM). In the context of large scale military operations, an uncoordinated unilateral military action by one coalition partner, namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost an impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel would require a “green light” from Washington. An attack by Israel could, however, be used as “the trigger mechanism” which would unleash an all-out war against Iran, as well as retaliation by Iran directed against Israel. In this regard, there are indications going back to the Bush administration that Washington had indeed contemplated the option of an initial (U.S. backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright U.S.-led military operation directed against Iran. The Israeli attack –although led in close liaison with the Pentagon and NATO– would have been presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It would then have been used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of World opinion, a military intervention of the U.S. and NATO with a view to “defending Israel”, rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military cooperation agreements, both the U.S. and NATO would be “obligated” to “defend Israel” against Iran and Syria. It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush’s second term, (former) Vice President Dick Cheney had hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the “rogue enemies” of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without U.S. military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it.”8 According to Cheney: One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked. …Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.9 Commenting the Vice President’s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America’s behalf and “do it” for us: Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it.10 What we are dealing with is a process of joint U.S.-NATO-Israel military planning. An operation to bomb Iran has been in the active planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Defense Department, under Bush and Obama, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran. In practical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be planned and coordinated at the highest levels of the U.S. led coalition. Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Vice President Dick Cheney discuss a vision of peace for Israel and Palestine as they conduct a press briefing in Jerusalem, Israel, March 19, 2002. Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Vice President Dick Cheney discuss a vision of peace for Israel and Palestine as they conduct a press briefing in Jerusalem, Israel, March 19, 2002. “It is our hope that the current violence and terrorism will be replaced by reconciliation and the rebuilding of mutual trust,” said the Vice President. (Source) An attack by Israel against Iran would also require coordinated U.S.-NATO logistical support, particularly with regard to Israel’s air defense system, which since January 2009 is fully integrated into that of the U.S. and NATO.11 Israel’s X band radar system established in early 2009 with U.S. technical support has “integrate[d] Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile [Space-based] detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.”12 What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The U.S. rather than Israel controls the air defense system: This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. ‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.13 The U.S. military oversees Israel’s Air Defense system, which is integrated into the Pentagon’s global system. In other words, Israel cannot launch a war against Iran without Washington’s consent. Hence the importance of the so-called “Green Light” legislation in the U.S. Congress sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution 1553, which explicitly supported an Israeli attack on Iran: The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46 of his colleagues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of military force.” … “We’ve got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israel. We need to quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult area”.14 In practice, the proposed legislation serves as a “Green Light” to the White House and the Pentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a rubber stamp to a U.S. sponsored war on Iran which uses Israel as a convenient military launch pad. It also serves as a justification to wage war with a view to defending Israel. In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war, in response to alleged Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering of hostilities on the border of Israel with Lebanon. What is crucial to understand is that a minor “incident” could be used as a pretext to spark off a major military operation against Iran. Known to U.S. military planners, Israel (rather than the U.S.A) would be the first target of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly speaking, Israelis would be the victims of the machinations of both Washington and their own government. It is, in this regard, absolutely crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by the Netanyahu government to attack Iran. Global Warfare: The Role of U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM) In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and build-up directed against Iran, U.S.STRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.”15 What this means is that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, including the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle East Central Asian region would be coordinated by U.S.STRATCOM. (See Chapter I). Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the U.S. and Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran. In 2006, U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM) announced it had achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons. This announcement was made after the conduct of military simulations pertaining to a U.S. led nuclear attack against a fictional country.16 Continuity in Relation to the Bush-Cheney Era President Obama has largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previous administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administration confirmed “that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran” for its non-compliance with U.S. demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program.17 The Obama administration has also intimated that it would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Iran. Israel has also drawn up its own “secret plans” to bomb Iran with tactical nuclear weapons: Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.18 Obama’s statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea are consistent with post-9/11 U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater. Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a means to combating “Islamic terrorism” and instating Western style “democracy” in Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for “battlefield use”. They are slated to be used against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America’s “War on Terrorism” alongside conventional weapons: Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent.19 The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapons (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (for example, B61-11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. or Guided Bomb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb.20 While the U.S. does not contemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel’s nuclear arsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel’s Jericho III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be within reach. Radioactive Fallout The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually dismissed by U.S.-NATO military analysts, would be devastating, potentially affecting a large area of the broader Middle East (including Israel) and Central Asian region. In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”. Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons are a threat to global security, whereas those of the U.S. and Israel are instruments of peace “harmless to the surrounding civilian population.” “The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used against Iran? Of military significance within the U.S. conventional weapons arsenal is the 21,500-pound “monster weapon” nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” The GBU-43/B or Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was categorized “as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed” with the the largest yield in the U.S. conventional arsenal. The MOAB was tested in early March 2003 before being deployed to the Iraq war theater. According to U.S. military sources, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had advised the government of Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003 that the “mother of all bombs” was to be used against Iraq. (There were unconfirmed reports that it had been used in Iraq). The U.S. Department of Defense already confirmed in 2009 that it intends to use the “Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) against Iran. The MOAB is said to be ”ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran”21. The truth of the matter is that the MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would result in significant civilian casualties. It is a conventional “killing machine” with a nuclear type mushroom cloud. The procurement of four MOABs was commissioned in October 2009 at the hefty cost of $58.4 million, ($14.6 million for each bomb). This amount includes the costs of development and testing as well as integration of the MOAB bombs onto B-2 stealth bombers. This procurement is directly linked to war preparations in relation to Iran. The notification was contained in a ninety-three-page “reprograming memo” which included the following instructions: “The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOAB [Mother of All Bombs] is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent Operational Need].” It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).23 The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of Iran’s infrastructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined use of tactical nukes and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs, including the MOAB and the larger GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms of explosive capacity. The MOP is described as “a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the underground nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan bomb–longer than eleven persons standing shoulder-to-shoulder or more than twenty feet base to nose”.24 These are WMDs in the true sense of the word. The not so hidden objective of the MOAB and MOP, including the American nickname used to casually describe the MOAB (“Mother of all Bombs”), is “mass destruction” and mass civilian casualties with a view to instilling fear and despair. State of the Art Weaponry: “War Made Possible Through New Technologies” The process of U.S. military decision making in relation to Iran is supported by Star Wars, the militarization of outer space and the revolution in communications and information systems. Given the advances in military technology and the development of new weapons systems, an attack on Iran could be significantly different in terms of the mix of weapons systems, when compared to the March 2003 Blitzkrieg launched against Iraq. The Iran operation is slated to use the most advanced weapons systems in support of its aerial attacks. In all likelihood, new weapons systems will be tested. The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC) document entitled Rebuilding American Defenses, outlined the mandate of the U.S. military in terms of large scale theater wars, to be waged simultaneously in different regions of the World: “Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”. (See Chapter I) This formulation is tantamount to a global war of conquest by a single imperial superpower. The PNAC document also called for the transformation of U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”, namely the implementation of “war made possible through new technologies”.25 The latter consists in developing and perfecting a state of the art global killing machine based on an arsenal of sophisticated new weaponry, which would eventually replace the existing paradigms. Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The breakpoint will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs –tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example– that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come.26 The war on Iran could indeed mark this crucial break-point, with new space-based weapons systems being applied with a view to disabling an enemy which has significant conventional military capabilities including more than half a million ground forces. Electromagnetic Weapons Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran’s communications systems, disable electric power generation, undermine and destabilize command and control, government infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc. Within the same family of weapons, environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare) developed under the HAARP program could also be applied.27 These weapons systems are fully operational. In this context, the U.S. Air Force document AF 2025 explicitly acknowledged the military applications of weather modification technologies: Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally. … It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, improve communications through ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in U.S., or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power.28 Electromagnetic radiation enabling “remote health impairment” might also be envisaged in the war theater.29 In turn, new uses of biological weapons by the U.S. military might also be envisaged as suggested by the PNAC: “[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”30 Iran’s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long-range Missiles Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf States. Hence the emphasis by the U.S.-NATO Israel alliance on the use of nuclear weapons, which are slated to be used either pre-emptively or in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile attack. In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles two were marked by precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile expert, “the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to possess.”31 Israel acknowledged that “the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach”.32 According to Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel’s anti-ballistic missile program, “the intensity of the military exercise was unprecedented… It was meant to make an impression – and it made an impression.”33 The 2006 exercises, while creating a political stir in the U.S. and Israel, did not in any way modify U.S.-NATO-Israeli resolve to wage war on Iran. Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it will respond if it is attacked. Israel would be the immediate object of Iranian missile attacks as confirmed by the Iranian government. The issue of Israel’s air defense system is therefore crucial. U.S. and allied military facilities in the Gulf states, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq could also be targeted by Iran. Iran’s Ground Forces While Iran is encircled by U.S. and allied military bases, the Islamic Republic has significant military capabilities. What is important to acknowledge is the sheer size of Iranian forces in terms of personnel (army, navy, air force) when compared to U.S. and NATO forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Confronted with a well-organized insurgency, coalition forces are already overstretched in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces be able to cope if Iranian ground forces were to enter the existing battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? The potential of the Resistance movement to U.S. and allied occupation would inevitably be affected. Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000 are professional soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are reservists.34 There are 18,000 personnel in Iran’s Navy and 52,000 in the Air Force. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “the Revolutionary Guards has an estimated 125,000 personnel in five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds Force (Special Forces).” According to the CISS, Iran’s Basij paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Revolu- tionary Guards “has an estimated 90,000 active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be”35, In other words, Iran can mobilize up to half a million regular troops and several million militia. Its Quds special forces are already operating inside Iraq. U.S. Military and Allied Facilities Surrounding Iran For several years now, Iran has been conducting its own war drills and exercises. While its Air Force has weaknesses, its intermediate and long-range missiles are fully operational. Iran’s military is in a state of readiness. Iranian troop concentrations are currently within a few kilometers of the Iraqi and Afghan borders, and within proximity of Kuwait. The Iranian Navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf within proximity of U.S. and allied military facilities in the United Arab Emirates. It is worth noting that in response to Iran’s military build-up, the U.S. has been transferring large amounts of weapons to its non-NATO allies in the Persian Gulf including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. While Iran’s advanced weapons do not measure up to those of the U.S. and NATO, Iranian forces would be in a position to inflict substantial losses to coalition forces in a conventional war theater, on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iranian ground troops and tanks in December 2009 crossed the border into Iraq without being confronted or challenged by allied forces and occupied a disputed territory in the East Maysan oil field. Even in the event of an effective Blitzkrieg, which targets Iran’s military facilities, its communications systems etc., through massive aerial bombing, using cruise missiles, conventional bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons, a war with Iran, once initiated, could eventually lead into a ground war. This is something which U.S. military planners have no doubt contemplated in their simulated war scenarios. An operation of this nature would result in significant military and civilian casualties, particularly if nuclear weapons are used. Within a scenario of escalation, Iranian troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan. In turn, military escalation using nuclear weapons could lead us into a World War III scenario, extending beyond the Middle-East – Central Asian region. In a very real sense, this military project, which has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board for more than ten years, threatens the future of humanity. Our focus in this chapter has been on war preparations. The fact that war preparations are in an advanced state of readiness does not imply that these war plans will be carried out. The U.S.-NATO-Israel alliance realizes that the enemy has significant capabilities to respond and retaliate. This factor in itself has been crucial in the decision by the U.S. and its allies to postpone an attack on Iran. Another crucial factor is the structure of military alliances. Whereas NATO has become a formidable force, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which constitutes an alliance between Russia and China and a number of former Soviet Republics has been significantly weakened. The ongoing U.S. military threats directed against China and Russia are intended to weaken the SCO and discourage any form of military action on the part of Iran’s allies in the case of a U.S. NATO Israeli attack. Video Interview: Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux November 2023 Interview Notes 1. See Target Iran – Air Strikes, Globalsecurity.org, undated. 2. William Arkin, Washington Post, April 16, 2006. 3. Ibid. 4. New Statesman, February 19, 2007. 5. Philip Giraldi, Deep Background,The American Conservative August 2005. 6. U.S.CENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#U.S.Policy, link no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.com/37gafu9. 7. General Wesley Clark, for further details see Chapter I. 8. See Michel Chossudovsky, Planned U.S.-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005. 9. Dick Cheney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview, January 2005. 10. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski. 11. Michel Chossudovsky, Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the U.S. and Israel Planning a Broader Middle East War? Global Research, January 11, 2009. 12. Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009. 13. Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009. 14. Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mullen Threatens Iran; U.S.-Israel versus Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds On, Global Research, August 10, 2010. 15. Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 3, 2006. 16. David Ruppe, Pre-emptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Ca- pability, Global Security Newswire, December 2, 2005. 17. U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat – IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010. 18. Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran – Times Online, January 7, 2007. 19. Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds, Defense News, November 29, 2004. 20. See Michel Chossudovsky, “Tactical Nuclear Weapons” against Afghanistan?, Global Research, December 5, 2001. See also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris. 21. Jonathan Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? ABC News, October 9, 2009. 22. Ibid. 23. ABC News, op cit, emphasis added. To consult the reprogramming request (pdf) click here. 24. See Edwin Black, “Super Bunker-Buster Bombs Fast-Tracked for Possible Use Against Iran and North Korea Nuclear Programs”, Cutting Edge, September 21, 2009. 25. See Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses Washington DC, September 2000, pdf. 26. Ibid, emphasis added. 27. See Michel Chossudovsky, “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004. 28. Air Force 2025 Final Report, See also U.S. Air Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, AF2025 v3c15-1. 29. See Mojmir Babacek, Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons:, Global Research, August 6, 2004. 30. Project for a New American Century, op cit., p. 60. 31. See Michel Chossudovsky, Iran’s “Power of Deterrence” Global Research, November 5, 2006. 32. Debka, November 5, 2006. 33. www.cnsnews.com November 3, 2006. 34. See Islamic Republic of Iran Army – Wikipedia. Featured image is from The Libertarian Institute The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity Michel Chossudovsky The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states. ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-0-9 Year: 2015 Pages: 240 Pages Price: $9.40 Click here to order. Related Articles from our Archives https://www.globalresearch.ca/pre-emptive-nuclear-war-the-role-of-israel-in-triggering-an-attack-on-iran/5840256 https://telegra.ph/Nuclear-war-03-10

The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed. One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva. A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella. The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant. Historical Perspective These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing. In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others. The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat. With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations. As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context. Why May 2024? The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place. They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years.. A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions. The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations. This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO. The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva. Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent. Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different. The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm. To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below. The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement. REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024 Preamble Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work. This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm. Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed. Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness. In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes. Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services, As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations. These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective. Chapter I. Introduction Article 1. Use of terms (i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern. This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022. (j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality. This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response. “Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship. While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people. Article 2. Objective This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern. Article 3. Principles 2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary. 3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people. This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda). Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact. 5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes. The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity. Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these. In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events. Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance 2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate: (b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential. (c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.] The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations. The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work. 6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article. Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs. Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?) Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new). Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery 2. Each Party commits…[to] : (a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations (b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure (c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies (d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking. (e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision. Article 7. Health and care workforce This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for: 4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment… Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so. Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews 1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system. 2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels. Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries. Article 9. Research and development Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?). Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations. Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc. Article 12. Access and benefit sharing This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials. 3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]: (a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party; (b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs), Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this. The article then becomes yet more concerning: 6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer: (a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties; (b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, … It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight. The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment. 8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible. The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit. 10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality. The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine. The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products. It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity. Article 13. Supply chain and logistics The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products. Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it). For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase. Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing. Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort. Article 15. Liability and compensation management 1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms… 2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations. This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does. This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm. Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk. These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak. Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement. Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries). However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed). Article 18. Communication and public awareness 1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation… 2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies. The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss. As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement. Article 19. Implementation and support 3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005). As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other. Article 20. Sustainable financing 1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall: (a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);… This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it. 3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005) This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva. It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking. Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions Article 21. Conference of the Parties 1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established. 2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation. This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion. Articles 22 – 37 These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues. Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU). The WHO will provide the secretariat. Under Article 24 is noted: 3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws 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. These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement. As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.” Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public. Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time. Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it. Further reading: WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website: https://inb.who.int/ International Health Regulations Working Group website: https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html On background to the WHO texts: Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations On urgency and burden of pandemics: https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement: Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Authors David Bell David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA. View all posts Thi Thuy Van Dinh Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/ https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077

Dissecting “Disease X” And The Pandemic Agreement Derrick Broze (TLAV) At the World Economic Forum‘s recent annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, a panel called “Preparing for Disease X” caught the eyes of researchers who are skeptical of the organization and their claimed mission of helping humanity and the planet. The panel included the World Health Organization’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus; Shyam Bishen, member of the WEF Executive Committee; and Nisia Trindade Lima, Brazil’s Minister of Health, among others. “‘Disease X’ is a placeholder for unknown disease,” Tedros explained to the panel. “You may even call COVID as the first Disease X, and it may happen again.” WHO Director-General Tedros referenced the WHO’s Pandemic agreement discussions, stating that countries need to unite against a “common enemy”. “This is a common global interest, and very narrow national interest can get in the way,” Tedro stated. “Of course, national interest is natural, but it’s the narrow national interest that can be difficult and is affecting the negotiations even as we speak.” The WHO’s 194 member nations are slated to meet in May to adopt some version of the WHO’s pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulations (IHR). Recent drafts of the proposed treaty indicate that it poses a threat to national sovereignty and decision making. Fears of loss of sovereignty have led some nations to push back against the agreement. On Monday the United Nations noted that the Pandemic Agreement may not be finalized in May as planned. The news came from a WHO “Informal Session” on the agreement and IHR. During the session Tedros stated that time was “very short” to find consensus. Tedros specifically blamed “conspiracy theories” for the lack of progress on the agreement. “The IHR working group are operating amidst a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories. There are those who claim the pandemic agreement and IHR will cede sovereignty to WHO and give the WHO Secretary the power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries,” Tedros stated. “You know this is fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories. You know these claims are completely false. You know the agreement will give the WHO no such powers. We cannot allow this historic agreement, this milestone in global health, to be sabotaged by those who spread lies.” Tedros claimed the agreement “will not and can not” cede the sovereignty of member states over to the WHO. However, the language of the most recent draft makes it clear that member nations are expected to be bound by the provisions within the agreement. As you will see in a moment, documents from the 2017 G20 meeting make it clear the IHR are intended to be followed by member nations of the WHO. What is Disease X? The phrase “Disease X” has been going viral since the announcement of the WEF panel. The corporate media and the fact checkers have already done their part to assure the masses that it’s only “right wing extremists” who are worried about the talk of this unknown pathogen that could allegedly be “20 times” more deadly than the COVID-19 panic. One of the reasons the internet is ablaze with talk of “Disease X” is because the public remembers the Event 201 exercise which took place in October 2019 and simulated a coronavirus pandemic sweeping the world 5 months before the world learned of what they would later call COVID-19. As TLAV has extensively reported, many elements of the Event 201 exercise became reality in 2020. Between 2020 and 2022, many people were banned from social media platforms for asking questions about Event 201. Interestingly, Event 201 is also considered to be a test for “Disease X”, and, as noted by WHO Secretary Tedros, COVID-19 could be considered the first Disease X. Now, after the WEF panel discussing the allegedly upcoming “Disease X”, onlookers are wondering if the world should be prepared for another scamdemic. So, where did the use of this phrase begin and what does it mean for 2024? This is a brief rundown of some of the various discussions of “Disease X”. WEF 2017 In January 2017, the World Economic Forum announced the creation of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, or CEPI. The launch of CEPI at the 2017 WEF meeting involved the Wellcome Trust, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — both of whom had major roles in the response to COVID-19, providing hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. At the WEF 2019 meeting — one year before COVID-19 emerged — there was also discussion of “Disease X” on a panel titled “Disease X: Confronting a New Era of Biological Threats”. The panel was moderated by Jeffrey M. Drazen, Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, and included panelists Seth F. Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and Jeremy Farrar, Director of Wellcome Trust, with closing remarks by Wang Chen, President of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. G20 2017: 5C Health Emergency Simulation Exercise The G20 held a pandemic simulation exercise known as ‘5C Health Emergency Simulation Exercise’ in Berlin, Germany in May 2017. The name “5C” refers to the five C-topics around which the exercise revolved: communication, collaboration, contributions, coordination and compliance. The simulation involved a fictional novel respiratory virus, the Mountain Associated Respiratory Syndrome (MARS) virus. At the same meeting, the G20 released a statement titled “Berlin Declaration of the G20 Health Ministers: Together Today for a Healthy Tomorrow”, which made it clear that the World Health Organization expects member states to comply with the International Health Regulations (IHR). In the Berlin Declaration, under the section focused on “compliance” it calls for stronger tools to force compliance from member states. It reads, “However, countries’ compliance with the IHR and with temporary recommendations issued under the IHR needs to be enhanced.” The document also states that “countries not fulfilling their obligations might be perceived by the international community to be violating international law and thus risk reputational damage”. As the G20 noted in their declaration, the IHR were passed by the WHO in 2005 and went into effect in 2007. They are considered an “international legal instrument” that is binding on all WHO Member States. “We acknowledge that efficient global health crisis management can only be ensured through compliance with the International Health Regulations (IHR). We will act accordingly within our obligations under the IHR and support the leadership and coordination of WHO in the event of health crises of international concern,” the document states. It also says the signatories “affirm WHO’s central role as health cluster lead in particular within the United Nations (UN)”. All “stakeholders” are expected to be “involved in preventing, preparing for and responding to current and future health crises, guided by the leadership of WHO”. Further, the document states that the “international community needs to fully support the WHO in order for the organization to be able to fulfill its role”. It is these sorts of statements which have stoked fears of the WHO interfering with the sovereignty of member states. 2018: WHO Research Development Blueprint In February 2018, the WHO launched the “2018 R&D Blueprint” to focus on diseases which are claimed to represent the highest likelihood of causing a future pandemic. Around this time the WHO added Disease X to the shortlist as a placeholder for a “knowable unknown” pathogen. The WHO said the name “represents the knowledge that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”. The WHO called for more financing and preparedness for the apparently inevitable future pandemic. Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN “experience has taught us more often than not the thing that is gonna hit us is something that we did not anticipate”. October 2018: The Trudeau Institute War Game In addition to Event 201, previous simulations of pandemics have also been touted as preparation for the future event known as “Disease X”. One such simulation took place in October 2018 in Saranac Lake, New York, at a gathering organized by the Trudeau Institute and the State University of New York Upstate Medical University titled, ‘‘Translational Immunology Supporting Biomedical Countermeasure Development for Emerging Vector-Borne Viral Diseases.” At this gathering a group of biomedical scientists conducted a “war game” for the fictional Disease X. The attendees included basic scientists, physician-scientists, science support professionals, and organizations and institutions with “experience and expertise in identifying and working to solve major global health problems”. Keynote speakers included representatives from the International Vaccine Institute (IVI), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). The scientists concluded that the key to preventing a “global health disaster” resulting from Disease X is to pull “existing public health organizations together in a coordinated, vigorous and sustained effort” to deliver a “safe and effective vaccine”. They called for “leveraging pre-developed vaccine platforms such as injectable formulations of DNA, self-replicating RNA, recombinant proteins and viral vectors”. March 2020: COVID-19 After the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic we continued to see references to Disease X from numerous scientific journals and health organizations. In March 2020, The Lancet published a study titled “Disease X: accelerating the development of medical countermeasures for the next pandemic“. A couple months later a paper titled “The Next Pandemic: Prepare for ‘Disease X’” was published in the West Journal of Emerging Medicine. 2021: Disease X Medical Countermeasure Program By 2021, John Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security launched the Disease X Medical Countermeasure Program. The program was said to “leverage technologies and vaccine platforms most suitable to the viral families that are likely to cause future catastrophic disease outbreaks”. 2022: WHO Updates Their “Research & Development Blueprint” In November 2022, the WHO announced the launch of a global scientific process to update the list of “priority pathogens” to guide global investment, research, and development (R&D), especially in vaccines, tests, and treatments. The WHO convened over 300 scientists to consider the evidence on over 25 virus families and bacteria, including “Disease X.” The scientists made recommendations for which priority pathogens needed further research and investment. 2023: Disease X Act of 2023 In June 2023, Congresswoman Lori Trahan of Massachusetts introduced the “Disease X Act of 2023” calling for expanding “the priorities of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to specifically include viral threats that have the potential to cause a pandemic”. BARDA was created in 2006 as a response to the claims of anthrax attacks in the United States. The agency has been compared to the controversial Department of Advanced Research and Projects Agency, or DARPA. Trahan’s bill calls for establishing a Disease X Medical Countermeasures Program at BARDA by allowing the HHS to award contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements to “promote the development of Disease X medical countermeasures for viral families with pandemic potential”. The bill also calls for directing BARDA to “accelerate and support the advanced research, development, and procurement of countermeasures and products to address Disease X threats”. May 2024: The WHO Pandemic Agreement With only 3 months until the WHO’s official meeting to vote on the Pandemic Agreement, the clock is ticking for the Predator Class and their biomedical agenda. Will they succeed in forcing the agreement down the throats of skeptical nations? If so, will Disease X magically appear? Will the agreement actually lead to the loss of sovereignty? The language in the agreement appears to be clear that nations will be expected to follow the guidelines and recommendations of the WHO during a claimed pandemic. Whether nations will comply and how exactly the WHO could enforce such measures remains to be seen, but the 2017 G20 Berlin Declaration specifically mentions peer pressure from other nations. This could come in the form of public statements or even financial pressure. One thing is for certain: those who are paying attention need to know that 2024 is going to be a big year for the Predator Class as they finally attempt to cement their collectivist philosophy in a binding international agreement. Do whatever you can to spread the word and resist their attempts to strip nations and individuals of the right to decide how to respond to claimed health threats. https://thefreethoughtproject.com/health/dissecting-disease-x-and-the-pandemic-agreement https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/dissecting-disease-x-and-pandemic.html

Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight Debbie Lerman When everyone from the President to your primary care doctor declared loudly and wholeheartedly in December 2020 that the newly FDA-authorized Covid mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” – what were those claims based on? In this article, I will review the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots. I will use the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process. The analysis will show that: The Covid mRNA vaccines were acquired and authorized through mechanisms designed to rush medical countermeasures to the military during emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction. These mechanisms did not require the application of, or adherence to, any laws or regulations related to vaccine development or manufacturing. The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.) What all of this means is that none of the laws or regulations that we count on to protect us from potentially harmful, or deadly, medical products was applied to the Covid mRNA vaccines. The assertion of “safe and effective” was based entirely on aspirations, opinions, beliefs, and presumptions of government employees. In Part 1 of this article I will provide a summary of the main contractual and legal points and explain how they excluded any requirements for regulatory oversight. In Part 2, I will go through a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation. Contractual Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines When the US government entered into its Covid vaccine agreement with Pfizer, which was acting on behalf of the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, the agreement encompassed a minimum of 100 million doses of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” and a payment of at least $1.95 billion. The agreement also allowed for future procurement of hundreds of millions of additional doses. That’s a lot of money for a lot of items, especially since the vaccines had not yet been tested, approved, or manufactured to scale and, as the agreement stated, were purely “aspirational.” Obviously, this is not normal procedure. But, then, those were not normal times. The government declared that we were “at war” with a catastrophically dangerous virus that would kill millions and millions of people of all ages unless we could develop “medical countermeasures” (a military term) and get everyone to take them as quickly as possible. In keeping with the declaration of war, it was a military framework that was used for acquiring the aspirational products that became known as Covid mRNA vaccines. Military Acquisition The government side to the agreement with Pfizer was the Department of Defense (DoD), represented by a convoluted chain of parties, each operating as a subcontractor, or co-contractor, for the next. You’ll find details about the role of each of these military procurement groups in Part 2 of this article. The important point to recognize is that all of these bodies are charged exclusively with military objectives: “ensuring military readiness,” “enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel,” and “supporting the Army and Unified Land Operations, anytime, anywhere.” This is crucial, because the laws and procedures governing military procurement have a very different set of assumptions and cost-benefit considerations than those used in civil society. In fact, agencies governing civilian and public health, like the NIH, NIAID and HHS, do not have the authority to grant certain types of special acquisition contracts, which is why the Covid vaccine contracts had to be overseen by the Department of Defense. Thus, HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities … which HHS lacked.” [ref] What are “OTA authorities?” Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA) (NOTE: OTA is used interchangeably to refer to Other Transaction Agreement and Other Transaction Authority.) The OTA is a procurement method that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.” What types of transactions are we talking about? First and foremost, the OTA acquisition structure “operates outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations.” This means no federal laws related to government purchases apply to OTAs. Such laws generally involve things like ensuring competition, accounting standards, cost management, record-keeping and labor practices. For purchases of medical products, they also include things like oversight of research on human subjects and privacy laws. Why is it a good idea to bypass all these acquisition regulations? For the military, OTAs can provide “access to state-of-the-art technology solutions from traditional and non-traditional defense contractors.” More specifically, according to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), OTAs are designed to “avoid many of the hurdles that scare away private industry,” including “burdensome regulations.” The second defining aspect of OTAs is that they apply to projects that are …directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of personnel of the Department of Defense or improving platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces. In other words, OTA is not a pathway for government acquisitions primarily intended for civilian populations. In fact, from the time of OTA inception in 1958 until Covid, the vast majority of OTAs were awarded for weapons, military supplies, and information technologies. For example, in an overview from 2013-2018, the top OTAs dealt with underwater weapons, ground vehicles, rocket propulsion systems, and “technologies related to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or the information that rides on it.” What About OTAs for Medical Products? In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” Broadly speaking, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” Furthermore, such technologies could include “animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis, assays, diagnostic technologies, or other platform technologies.” Note that there is a mention of FDA licensing, which means a medical product cannot be purchased through OTA without any FDA involvement. The extent of that involvement will be discussed in the section on Regulations below. But before we get to the FDA, just looking at what an OTA can be applied to, it does not look like manufacturing 100 million doses of anything is even in the ballpark. Pfizer’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) DoD can make three types of agreements under OTA: research, prototypes, and manufacturing. Importantly, according to National Defense Magazine, the agreements (which are “other than contracts”) are supposed to start with prototypes and then move “from prototypes to production contracts.” In other words, you start with an OTA for a prototype and then get an actual production contract. In contrast, the agreement between Pfizer and the US government, routed through the Department of Defense and the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, classified what Pfizer agreed to deliver as a “prototype project” and “manufacturing demonstration.” As stated in the agreement: The intent of this prototype project is to demonstrate that Pfizer has the business and logistics capability to manufacture 100M doses of its currently unapproved mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine for the Government [(b)(4) redaction] So the military acquisition branch of the government is paying Pfizer to show that it can manufacture 100 million doses of a never-before produced or tested product, while also acquiring those 100 million doses, and potentially hundreds of millions more. The “prototype” somehow includes not just the manufacturing process, but also the 100 million doses created through that process. Nowhere in the history of Other Transaction Agreements is there anything remotely resembling this conflation of a prototype (“a preliminary model of something,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary) and the manufacturing of millions of exemplars of that prototype. Actually, it is unclear from the wording of the OTA whether the “prototype” applies to the mRNA Covid vaccine, the mRNA platform for manufacturing the vaccine, the actual manufacturing of 100 million vaccines, or all of the above. Regulatory Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines What about regulatory oversight of the development and manufacturing processes? For pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, this would include: 1) clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the products, and 2) compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices to ensure what is in each dose is actually what is supposed to be in each dose. Who is responsible for this type of oversight in the context of Pfizer’s OTA? Pfizer will meet the necessary FDA requirements for conducting ongoing and planned clinical trials, and with its collaboration partner, BioNTech, will seek FDA approval or authorization for the vaccine, assuming the clinical data supports such application for approval or authorization. What are the FDA requirements “for approval or authorization?” According to the Pfizer OTA, those requirements are whatever it takes to “grant an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) under Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” In fact, the two regulations applied to the authorization of the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccines were EUA and its partner, the PREP Act, which grants legal immunity from prosecution to anyone who has anything to do with the vaccines, unless they commit outright fraud. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) EUA is a very special way to authorize a medical countermeasure in very specific types of emergencies. It was designed, according to the Department of Justice, to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments against – among other CBRN agents – potential biowarfare/bioterror agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague. As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, “Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization.” The article continues, The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic. You can read about the details of EUA regulations in part 2 of this article. In summary, an Emergency Use Authorization can be granted by the Food and Drug Administration once the HHS and/or DoD have declared that there is an attack, threat of an attack, or national security threat created by a CBRN agent (a weapon of mass destruction). Significantly, as the Harvard Law article explains, EUA was not intended to cover brand-new vaccines: The only vaccine ever to have received an EUA prior to the current pandemic was AVA, an anthrax vaccine that had already been formally approved for other purposes. This is extremely important: EUA was meant for dire situations of warfare or terrorism, not to protect the entire population from naturally occurring pathogens. For this reason, EUA products do not require the type of legal safety oversight that is applied in civilian contexts by the FDA. And without adherence to legal safety standards in clinical trials and manufacturing, there is no way of knowing whether the products, in this case the Covid mRNA vaccines, are actually safe. No Legal or Regulatory Standards Apply to the FDA’s Decision to Grant EUA Here’s the kicker about EUA: because it was intended to be issued only in war and WMD-related emergencies, there are no legal requirements for how it is issued, beyond the determination of the FDA that such authorization is appropriate. No legal standards for how clinical trials are conducted. No laws regulating the manufacturing processes. Only “reasonable beliefs” based on whatever evidence is available to the FDA at the time that it makes its determination. This is how it is described in U.S. Code 360bbb-3, which covers EUA: Criteria for issuance of authorization An agent referred to in a declaration [by the HHS Secretary] can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating or preventing such disease or condition The known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the CBRN agent(s) There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product In Its EUA Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders, the FDA recommends that EUA applications contain information about clinical trials, manufacturing processes, potential risks, etc. Crucially, as stated at the top of every page, these are merely “nonbinding recommendations.” It’s up to the EUA applicant to decide what information to submit, and it’s up to the FDA to decide whether that information meets the “statutory requirements” (as stated above). PREP Act If you agree to develop, manufacture, and sell hundreds of millions of aspirational products to the government under the contract-like Other Transaction Agreement and bioterror-contingent Emergency Use Authorization, you need very good liability protection. This is provided by the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act that was designed to go hand-in-hand with EUA. Again, it is possible to envision a bioterrorism scenario, like an anthrax attack, in which the government needs to get lots of countermeasures very quickly. Many people will inevitably die in the attack, but if there’s a chance that the countermeasure will work, it needs to get made and distributed as quickly as possible. If it has some bad side effects, or even if it kills some people, one could argue that the manufacturer should not be held liable. Clearly, this was never intended to apply to a new, untested vaccine used to counter a naturally occurring virus in hundreds of millions of people. What, then, are the standards for determining the necessity of a PREP Act declaration? Here’s how the Health and Human Services (HHS) website describes the factors considered by the HHS Secretary: In deciding whether to issue a PREP Act Declaration, HHS must consider the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administering, licensing, and use of the countermeasure recommended in the Declaration. HHS may also consider other relevant factors. As with the EUA determination, there are no legally binding standards or directives for issuing a PREP Act. If the products made under EUA cause harm or death, no one involved in making or administering those products can be held accountable, as long as there is accompanying PREP Act protection. Conclusion The BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were authorized for use in the entire population of the United States based on the application of the following sequence of agreements and determinations: Department of Defense uses “contract-like” Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to buy aspirational products. DoD is not responsible for overseeing clinical trials or manufacturing. Pfizer is responsible for getting authorization from the FDA. The FDA is permitted to issue Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer for mRNA vaccines because the HHS Secretary declares that there is an emergency that warrants EUA. FDA makes its EUA determination based on whatever evidence and considerations it feels are appropriate, given the emergency situation. There are no legal standards that apply to the FDA’s considerations, except that it believes the product may be effective, the benefits outweigh the risks based on available information, and there is no alternative product. The Health and Human Services Secretary grants total legal immunity through the PREP Act to anyone involved in developing, making, shipping, or administering the vaccines, based on his determination that there is an emergency that justifies this action. That’s what the “safe and effective” claim for the BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines was based on in December 2020, when millions of people – including children and pregnant women – were mandated to take the injections. Objectors were ridiculed, silenced, ostracized, and fired. Harms and deaths were, and continue to be, covered up, uninvestigated, and uncounted. Questions About the Legality of the EUA for Covid mRNA Vaccines It sounds like something in this whole process must be illegal, right? So far, trying to charge pharmaceutical companies with wrongdoing related to Covid vaccines has failed, because the EUA + PREP combo means they were not required to apply any legal/regulatory standards to their clinical studies or manufacturing processes. But what about the government? Since the OTA, EUA, and PREP regulations are intended for use during a catastrophic CBRN emergency, we might ask ourselves: did the US government believe SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered potential bioweapon? Did the government use what we might consider an extra-legal (in civilian terms) acquisition and authorization process based on the assumption that the entire population was threatened by the equivalent of a bioterrorism or biowarfare attack? It sure seems like they did. And if so, did they have a legal obligation to inform the public of this situation in order to resort to the OTA and EUA procurement and authorization pathway? Moreover, even if the government considered Covid-19 to be a disease caused by a potential bioterror agent, how could the HHS Secretary justify an Emergency Use Authorization that required him to determine that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security” when it was known that Covid-19 was deadly almost exclusively in old and infirm populations? In December 2020 the following facts were known about Covid-19 without a reasonable doubt: The infection fatality rate (IFR) for the entire population was less than 1%. The IFR for anyone under 55 was 0.01% or lower. The IFR for children was near zero. [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref] A disease that has significant potential to affect national security has to be very severe, especially in its effect on the military. Yet in December 2020 military-aged people were known to be at nearly no risk from Covid-19. And still the HHS Secretary determined that there was an emergency that warranted EUA for the mRNA vaccines. And all military personnel were mandated to get the injections. I hope that by publishing this information as widely as possible we can eventually find a way to demand some measure of accountability. Acknowledgements Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt have been trying to draw attention to this shocking legal and regulatory framework for a long time. I am deeply grateful for, and indebted to, their in-depth research and tireless work to disseminate this information. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight/

My Story - By Professor Gabriel Oon "Between 2021 and now, I have lost 34 senior medical colleagues. Most were working in institutions and had been vaccinated with Pfizer." Aussie17 Dear Readers, today I bring to you a guest post by Professor Gabriel Oon, retired Professor of Medicine who worked as a WHO consultant and founding President of Singapore’s Society of Oncology. Please feel free to share and distribute! -Aussie17 Share My Story - By Professor Gabriel Oon "SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY!" These words were relentlessly drummed upon us during our WHO meetings in Geneva from 1983 to 1987, where vaccine manufacturers from around the globe (Netherlands, Germany, China, Singapore, Korea, Australia, US, UK, France, Russia, Sweden, Israel, etc.) came together. The gathering was initiated by the Director of Biologics, Dr. Frank Perkins, and the Director-General, Dr. Karl Mahler MD, who had appointed me as a WHO Consultant. Every one of us had created our own variant of the novel hepatitis B vaccine from plasma HBV, employing different inactivation techniques. Dr. Perkins reminded us of the two monumental vaccine calamities in history. The Lübeck disaster (1929-33) saw many children inoculated with live BCG instead of the killed vaccine, resulting in thousands of children affected and several deaths. The Cutter incident (1955) in the USA was when 200,000 received a live polio vaccine; 40,000 fell ill, many became paralyzed, or died. Such tragedies were not to be repeated. With the then-unknown threat of AIDS transmitted by infected blood, it became crucial to source safe, uninfected blood for the production of hepatitis B vaccines. Advancements in molecular science led to the discovery of the common “a” antigen present in all serotypes in both humans and animals. Consequently, a prototype yeast recombinant HB vaccine was formulated, safety-tested, and implemented in Singapore as a collaboration between the International Agency for Research in Cancer/WHO and the Singapore Government. I was then appointed by the Singapore government and IARC/WHO (International Agency for Research on Cancer) to oversee the safety in the manufacture and implementation of the vaccine. Then Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, who mandated the directive to me and my team, insisted on "300% safety, not just 100%." Together with my team and WHO oversight, we rejected several unsafe vaccines and identified vaccine-escape mutants in plasma vaccines that were over-treated with chemicals, which damaged the epitopes of the “a” antigen. This product was rejected. Similar Vaccine Escape Mutants (VEMs) arose with the Pfizer mRNA. Instead of inactivation, nine chemicals were used, including the deep-freezing agent phosphophenolglycol. I believe these VEMs on the Covid mRNA are the cause of the continuous eruption of spike mutants ranging from Delta to Omicron variants seen today, as humans have become reservoirs for these mutants. On my 80th birthday, July 4, 2019, 34 years since the WHO consultation, I announced the complete elimination of HBV and associated lethal liver failures and liver cancer at a Duke-NUS lecture (video below). SARS-2/COVID-19 In October 2018, my wife and I returned from a Yangtze River Cruise where we had admired the beautiful and ancient industrial city of Wuhan, home to 8 million people. START OF THE COVID PANDEMIC: January 2020 We woke to the news that Wuhan was besieged by a lethal coronavirus, resulting in thousands dead daily and several more thousands hospitalized until hospitals reached full capacity. Field hospitals were erected within days. Doctors and nurses arrived from all over China to provide aid; tragically, around a thousand of them died. Within a week, top Chinese scientists had determined the molecular structure of the coronavirus, which was dissimilar to any of the known viruses in their archives. The molecular structure seemed akin to the USCDC's patented invention (No. 7220852/B1 filed on May 22, 2004), with the addition of an HIV glycoprotein insert in the spike protein (later confirmed by Nobel Laureate Prof. Luc Montagnier). China disseminated information on the epidemic and the virus through premier journals and transmitted details to the International Genomic Bank. They invited the WHO in January 2020, who discovered many corona viruses but not this particular virus. Singapore We learned from the news that SG Prime Minister's wife, Ho Ching, chairman of Temasek Holdings, a Singapore investment company, had invested nearly S$3 billion in Pfizer/BioNTech and had initiated the procurement of Pfizer mRNA vaccines, Moderna, and plans for establishing vaccine manufacturing in Singapore. Pfizer and mRNA Vaccines Publications in JAMA 2021 showed that Pfizer was 98% effective. Six of my senior academic staff on the board of journals agreed with me that the end points for assessing efficacy were symptoms. (Later, a US Texas judge in 2022 ordered the FDA to release 55,000 pages showing thousands of deaths and serious adverse reactions. The US Supreme Court in 2022 also accepted Senator Robert Kennedy's charge that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines.) These were not the usual endpoints like antibody levels and virus absence in recipients. This was open to "ghost papers," which we had discovered at WHO. I alerted our three Ministers who know me and the 14 medical experts, "The Pfizer mRNA vaccines are not safe for mass immunization as the live lethal virus is still present in the mRNAs." Mandatory Vaccination Then, we received notice from our MOH (Ministry of Health) that all hospital and clinic staff, workplaces, and schools must be vaccinated or they cannot work. Retirement I was then 82 years old, and my mission after being recalled/returning from Cambridge with an MD in Cancer Immunology was completed. However, with my vast experience with vaccines, I continued to advise our MOH privately, as well as colleagues and friends in our country and worldwide. Request to MOH to Release Sinovac A full-length inactivated COVID virus vaccine, Singapore had 20,000 doses of Sinovac in stock. When the new Delta variant infected frontline workers in five public hospitals and Changi Airport in May 2021, I advised our Ministers that the mRNA vaccines were not preventative and to use Sinovac lest our hospitals be overwhelmed by infections. I also informed Ministers that many individuals with allergies cannot take mRNA vaccines and to release the Sinovac. This news was leaked, and I was chastised as peddling fake news by Prof. David Lye of the National Infectious Disease Center and senior Straits Times journalist Shamir Khalid. The Future COVID will remain for many years as the reservoirs of VEMs (Vaccine Escape Mutates) are evolving from failed protection in millions but causing deaths, delayed deaths, and illnesses. The 95% who received Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines, and not inactivated vaccines like Novavax, are developing new mutants. Losses Between 2021 and now, I have lost 34 senior medical colleagues. Most were working in institutions and had been vaccinated with Pfizer. I lost my eminent elder obstetrician aunt on March 31, 2022, who was infected by a Pfizer-vaccinated caregiver who had contracted the Delta spike mutant. She became too weak, stopped playing mahjong, stopped eating, and five days before she passed, she became blind. She died in my arms. I also lost my elder brother, a senior physician at 85, who received Moderna followed by two boosters of Pfizer. He contracted COVID and died two months later. How to Eliminate Wear masks to reduce aerosol transmission. Use antiviral drugs like Tamiflu, 75mg daily for 7 days. It is a potent neuraminidase inhibitor of COVID and the flu. As with most serious infections, take it early at the onset. Usually, ART is negative on day 2-3. Vaccine Research - With the many combinations of mutations, we need to find common antigens and make new inactivated vaccines. Sinovac and Sinopharm My wife and I have had three doses of Sinovac and two of Sinopharm. We have nucleocapsid spike antibodies and are well. 1.6 billion people, including children in 150 countries, have taken the Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines. They are safe, protective, and have caused no fatalities. Countries can copy or learn from China. Save lives, not politics first. Retired, we stay at home and wear masks in crowded areas. Lessons It's essential to control and eliminate lethal airborne/aerosol infections. A healthy population is a robust workforce. A healthy youth is the future of our country. God bless all, Gabriel Oon Retired Professor of Medicine Former WHO Consultant for Biologicals for Human Use Some final comments by Aussie17: I am fully aware that there are people who are against any kind of vaccine, people who are against wearing masks, and people who believe there is no such thing as viruses. Whatever your opinion is on these matters, I’d just like to say that I know Professor Gabriel personally, and he does not have a single nefarious bone in his body. The world is such a divided place right now that even when you agree with someone 99%, people start calling names and scolding each other over the 1% disagreement, which only serves to deepen our divisions. I hope we can accept diverse views and come together. Signing off for now A17 Thank you for reading PharmaFiles by Aussie17. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share https://www.aussie17.com/p/my-story-by-professor-gabriel-oon

My Story - By Professor Gabriel Oon "Between 2021 and now, I have lost 34 senior medical colleagues. Most were working in institutions and had been vaccinated with Pfizer." Aussie17 Dear Readers, today I bring to you a guest post by Professor Gabriel Oon, retired Professor of Medicine who worked as a WHO consultant and founding President of Singapore’s Society of Oncology. Please feel free to share and distribute! -Aussie17 Share My Story - By Professor Gabriel Oon "SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY!" These words were relentlessly drummed upon us during our WHO meetings in Geneva from 1983 to 1987, where vaccine manufacturers from around the globe (Netherlands, Germany, China, Singapore, Korea, Australia, US, UK, France, Russia, Sweden, Israel, etc.) came together. The gathering was initiated by the Director of Biologics, Dr. Frank Perkins, and the Director-General, Dr. Karl Mahler MD, who had appointed me as a WHO Consultant. Every one of us had created our own variant of the novel hepatitis B vaccine from plasma HBV, employing different inactivation techniques. Dr. Perkins reminded us of the two monumental vaccine calamities in history. The Lübeck disaster (1929-33) saw many children inoculated with live BCG instead of the killed vaccine, resulting in thousands of children affected and several deaths. The Cutter incident (1955) in the USA was when 200,000 received a live polio vaccine; 40,000 fell ill, many became paralyzed, or died. Such tragedies were not to be repeated. With the then-unknown threat of AIDS transmitted by infected blood, it became crucial to source safe, uninfected blood for the production of hepatitis B vaccines. Advancements in molecular science led to the discovery of the common “a” antigen present in all serotypes in both humans and animals. Consequently, a prototype yeast recombinant HB vaccine was formulated, safety-tested, and implemented in Singapore as a collaboration between the International Agency for Research in Cancer/WHO and the Singapore Government. I was then appointed by the Singapore government and IARC/WHO (International Agency for Research on Cancer) to oversee the safety in the manufacture and implementation of the vaccine. Then Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, who mandated the directive to me and my team, insisted on "300% safety, not just 100%." Together with my team and WHO oversight, we rejected several unsafe vaccines and identified vaccine-escape mutants in plasma vaccines that were over-treated with chemicals, which damaged the epitopes of the “a” antigen. This product was rejected. Similar Vaccine Escape Mutants (VEMs) arose with the Pfizer mRNA. Instead of inactivation, nine chemicals were used, including the deep-freezing agent phosphophenolglycol. I believe these VEMs on the Covid mRNA are the cause of the continuous eruption of spike mutants ranging from Delta to Omicron variants seen today, as humans have become reservoirs for these mutants. On my 80th birthday, July 4, 2019, 34 years since the WHO consultation, I announced the complete elimination of HBV and associated lethal liver failures and liver cancer at a Duke-NUS lecture (video below). SARS-2/COVID-19 In October 2018, my wife and I returned from a Yangtze River Cruise where we had admired the beautiful and ancient industrial city of Wuhan, home to 8 million people. START OF THE COVID PANDEMIC: January 2020 We woke to the news that Wuhan was besieged by a lethal coronavirus, resulting in thousands dead daily and several more thousands hospitalized until hospitals reached full capacity. Field hospitals were erected within days. Doctors and nurses arrived from all over China to provide aid; tragically, around a thousand of them died. Within a week, top Chinese scientists had determined the molecular structure of the coronavirus, which was dissimilar to any of the known viruses in their archives. The molecular structure seemed akin to the USCDC's patented invention (No. 7220852/B1 filed on May 22, 2004), with the addition of an HIV glycoprotein insert in the spike protein (later confirmed by Nobel Laureate Prof. Luc Montagnier). China disseminated information on the epidemic and the virus through premier journals and transmitted details to the International Genomic Bank. They invited the WHO in January 2020, who discovered many corona viruses but not this particular virus. Singapore We learned from the news that SG Prime Minister's wife, Ho Ching, chairman of Temasek Holdings, a Singapore investment company, had invested nearly S$3 billion in Pfizer/BioNTech and had initiated the procurement of Pfizer mRNA vaccines, Moderna, and plans for establishing vaccine manufacturing in Singapore. Pfizer and mRNA Vaccines Publications in JAMA 2021 showed that Pfizer was 98% effective. Six of my senior academic staff on the board of journals agreed with me that the end points for assessing efficacy were symptoms. (Later, a US Texas judge in 2022 ordered the FDA to release 55,000 pages showing thousands of deaths and serious adverse reactions. The US Supreme Court in 2022 also accepted Senator Robert Kennedy's charge that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines.) These were not the usual endpoints like antibody levels and virus absence in recipients. This was open to "ghost papers," which we had discovered at WHO. I alerted our three Ministers who know me and the 14 medical experts, "The Pfizer mRNA vaccines are not safe for mass immunization as the live lethal virus is still present in the mRNAs." Mandatory Vaccination Then, we received notice from our MOH (Ministry of Health) that all hospital and clinic staff, workplaces, and schools must be vaccinated or they cannot work. Retirement I was then 82 years old, and my mission after being recalled/returning from Cambridge with an MD in Cancer Immunology was completed. However, with my vast experience with vaccines, I continued to advise our MOH privately, as well as colleagues and friends in our country and worldwide. Request to MOH to Release Sinovac A full-length inactivated COVID virus vaccine, Singapore had 20,000 doses of Sinovac in stock. When the new Delta variant infected frontline workers in five public hospitals and Changi Airport in May 2021, I advised our Ministers that the mRNA vaccines were not preventative and to use Sinovac lest our hospitals be overwhelmed by infections. I also informed Ministers that many individuals with allergies cannot take mRNA vaccines and to release the Sinovac. This news was leaked, and I was chastised as peddling fake news by Prof. David Lye of the National Infectious Disease Center and senior Straits Times journalist Shamir Khalid. The Future COVID will remain for many years as the reservoirs of VEMs (Vaccine Escape Mutates) are evolving from failed protection in millions but causing deaths, delayed deaths, and illnesses. The 95% who received Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines, and not inactivated vaccines like Novavax, are developing new mutants. Losses Between 2021 and now, I have lost 34 senior medical colleagues. Most were working in institutions and had been vaccinated with Pfizer. I lost my eminent elder obstetrician aunt on March 31, 2022, who was infected by a Pfizer-vaccinated caregiver who had contracted the Delta spike mutant. She became too weak, stopped playing mahjong, stopped eating, and five days before she passed, she became blind. She died in my arms. I also lost my elder brother, a senior physician at 85, who received Moderna followed by two boosters of Pfizer. He contracted COVID and died two months later. How to Eliminate Wear masks to reduce aerosol transmission. Use antiviral drugs like Tamiflu, 75mg daily for 7 days. It is a potent neuraminidase inhibitor of COVID and the flu. As with most serious infections, take it early at the onset. Usually, ART is negative on day 2-3. Vaccine Research - With the many combinations of mutations, we need to find common antigens and make new inactivated vaccines. Sinovac and Sinopharm My wife and I have had three doses of Sinovac and two of Sinopharm. We have nucleocapsid spike antibodies and are well. 1.6 billion people, including children in 150 countries, have taken the Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines. They are safe, protective, and have caused no fatalities. Countries can copy or learn from China. Save lives, not politics first. Retired, we stay at home and wear masks in crowded areas. Lessons It's essential to control and eliminate lethal airborne/aerosol infections. A healthy population is a robust workforce. A healthy youth is the future of our country. God bless all, Gabriel Oon Retired Professor of Medicine Former WHO Consultant for Biologicals for Human Use Some final comments by Aussie17: I am fully aware that there are people who are against any kind of vaccine, people who are against wearing masks, and people who believe there is no such thing as viruses. Whatever your opinion is on these matters, I’d just like to say that I know Professor Gabriel personally, and he does not have a single nefarious bone in his body. The world is such a divided place right now that even when you agree with someone 99%, people start calling names and scolding each other over the 1% disagreement, which only serves to deepen our divisions. I hope we can accept diverse views and come together. Signing off for now A17 Thank you for reading PharmaFiles by Aussie17. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share https://www.aussie17.com/p/my-story-by-professor-gabriel-oon

Slovakia will not be entering into any international pandemic agreements with WHO, Prime Minister says Rhoda WilsonNovember 25, 2023 During a SMER party conference, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico declared that his government will not sign the World Health Organisation’s Pandemic Treaty and SMER Members of Parliament will not ratify in parliament the Pandemic Treaty with the WHO because it is a project of greedy pharmaceutical companies. Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Robert Fico was appointed as Slovakia’s Prime Minister for the fourth time on 25 October 2023 after his SMER – Slovenská Sociálna Demokracia (“SMER”) party won the election on 30 September and formed a coalition with the centre-left HLAS – Sociálna Demokracia (“HLAS”) and nationalist Slovenská Národná Strana (“SNS”) parties. A week ago, during an hour-long speech at the SMER party conference, of which he is chairman, Prime Minister Fico stated that he will not support strengthening the powers of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) at the expense of sovereign states in the fight against pandemics. “Only insane pharmaceutical companies could come up with such nonsense,” he told the more than 400 guests, ambassadors, delegates and party members present. His speech is on YouTube in Slovak. There is no autogenerated translation available so we turn to alternative sources for translations into English. Door to Freedom has published the clip below from Fico’s speech with English subtitles. Door to Freedom: Slovakia – Will not sign the WHO amendments, 23 November 2023 (3 mins) Writing about his speech alternative media outlet InfoVojna wrote (Czech to English translation using Google Translate): [The Pandemic Treaty] would transfer health powers in times of a pandemic from the national ministries of health of the signatory countries to the World Health Organisation. The WHO would then acquire draconian decision-making powers, which the signatory countries would have to follow, not only in the area of ​​the obligation to purchase vaccines and medicines ordered by the WHO, but it could also happen with compulsory vaccinations ordered by this multinational organisation. And it was Robert Fico who unequivocally rejected this and declared that SMER MPs would not raise their hands for such a proposal. Fico called the entire agreement with the WHO a plan of greedy pharmaceutical companies, which began to worry about their business, when it now appears that many countries of the world are ceasing to purchase vaccines, cancelling vaccination mandates and the entire business of the pharmaceutical companies is going down the drain. The Pandemic Treaty is supposed to change this and ensure that, through the WHO, the collection of vaccines will be mandated and authoritatively prescribed to all member countries that sign the Pandemic Treaty and then ratify in the parliaments. Robert Fico declared at the ceremonial assembly at Bratislava Castle that Slovakia under his government will not sign the Pandemic Agreement with the WHO, because it is a project of greedy pharmaceutical companies, InfoVojna, 20 November 2023none Martin Demirov who describes himself as someone who likes to “post translations of censored press articles and search for various interesting facts” has written about Fico’s speech in a post on Twitter. His post is in Polish, which we’ve reproduced below in English using the translation generated by Twitter. Fico Delivered a Speech at the Party Congress “The Previous Government Killed 20,000 People During Covid!” By Martin Demirov Fico outlined his priorities: If they arrested me, change would not be possible. One of the longest-existing parties, which will celebrate its 25th anniversary next year, held its annual congress. SMER won the elections in September, and party chairman Robert Fico immediately reminded more than 400 guests, ambassadors, delegates and party members not to be so serious. “For God’s sake, we won.” In his introductory speech, he presented a vision of change for the coming year. Remembering the “covid madness” and the need to change the law protecting criminal groups associated with the previous government, he did not hide his joy at reuniting with the HLAS party. In the first half of his speech, Fico criticised the former government and its leadership (for covid madness, for warmongering), in the second half he talked about the party’s goals, and less than two hours later he ended the speech with the words: “we are here, we move on, they did not break us.” According to party vice president Juraj Blanar, Fico’s leadership is important for SMER. Long live the Slovak Republic,” he concluded his speech. What was the direction of change? The guests included representatives of Bulgaria, ambassadors of Great Britain, China, the United States of America, as well as Cuba, the Czech Republic and Hungary. The Polish ambassador also confirmed his presence. The guests also included the president of the Pensioners’ Union, MichaÅ‚ Kocjan, the president of the Association of Slovak Towns and Villages, Józef Bożek, and the president of the Association of Anti-fascist Fighters, Viliam Longauer. Representatives of employers were also present. Among the Ministers present were Defence Minister Robert Kalinak, Finance Minister Ladislav Kamenicki and Agriculture Minister Ryszard Takacz. Zuzana Plewikova, deputy chairman of the party and member of the youth organisation, also attended the meeting. Thanks to over 20 years of experience, Fico knows how to energise his people and focus on proven electoral topics, thanks to which, although he won electoral votes, he was among politicians leaning towards the alternative scene. “It’s a party convention, it’s not a cabinet meeting, so stop being so serious, we won the election, for God’s sake.” Blanard welcomed Fico, the national anthem was played and a minute of silence honoured the memory of the dead In his speech, he wanted to present a vision for the next year, but he didn’t get there until the second half of the speech. “We won the parliamentary elections for the fifth time,” he said. “We are absolutely the best, and I emphasise this a thousand times, political party in the history of modern Slovakia and we want to remain that way,” he said. We naturally reconnected with HLAS. At the beginning of his speech, he also touched on the illegal actions of the former government during the Covid-19 pandemic, praised the media alternative to the mainstream and attacked the previous government for repression and compulsory vaccinations. Four Media – Denník N, denník Sme, Markízu and Aktuality – did not receive accreditation. Since last week, they have also been unwanted guests in the government building. “Slovakia is talking more and more openly about the 20,000 victims of mismanagement in the country and the government’s senseless decisions,” continued the four-time Prime Minister. He wants to support the efforts of politicians who want to hold the previous government to account and has no plans to support the work of the World Health Organisation to the detriment of sovereign states when it comes to managing the fight against the pandemic. “Such nonsense could only have been invented by greedy pharmaceutical companies,” he said. He called SMER a “write-off” party after the 2020 elections, whose opponents were delighted that social democracy split into two groups when Peter Pellegrini left the party to gain the right to vote. “But it is natural that we met again to co-operate in the government. It is no coincidence that we kept emphasising before the early elections that the basis for forming a new government should be the merger of SMER and HLAS,” he said. “The shock of our opponents after SMER’s election victory and subsequent decisive steps to quickly form a government was so great that they created an atmosphere as if we had stolen the electoral victory and had to hand it over to the opposition liberal “progressive Slovakia,” he said. In addition to PS, he again criticised President Zuzana Caputova. In response to the suspension of membership in the European Socialist Party, Fico said he did not know why they intervened, because it was the same party as in the past. “SMER is not a pennant that turns wherever the wind blows,” he said, adding that Portugal was behind the suspension. Party membership has never served them well, and Fico only remembers a lot of criticism. “When did the party of European Socialists help us over the last 20 years? When? I don’t remember,” he added. Andrei Danko’s party, coalition partner SNS, was criticised abroad mainly for choosing a more radical path. Before the elections, SNS merged with three smaller far-right organisations, and several of its members were candidates for the Our Slovakia People’s Party, whose leader, Marian Kotleba, was convicted of extremism and also lost his seat. Robert Fico blamed the politicians who led Slovakia in the last parliamentary term for the state of the country it is in. “We were not destroyed because we had a different opinion about covid, we were not destroyed because we had a different opinion about Ukraine and we were not destroyed because of an attempt to arrest us for political activities,” he said. “I don’t know if there is an opposition politician in the EU who has been accused four times in three years for his political views. Not because of corruption, but because of his political views,” he told foreign guests. Fico, along with Tibor Gashpar and Robert Kalinak, were accused by the previous authorities of many “crimes.” “I was lucky that I didn’t go to prison, because if they had put me in jail for my political views after two press conferences where we told the truth, neither you nor I would be sitting here today because the party would have been destroyed,” he said. Fico also touched on the presidential and European elections. “The party’s vice-chairman Lubosz Blaha also expressed interest in the elections, the European Parliament is certainly waiting for you, Lubosz,” Fico said. Recently, the opposition wanted to fire him for hanging a portrait of revolutionary Che Guevara instead of a portrait of President Zuzana Caputova after taking over as deputy speaker of Parliament, but the coalition blocked the session. A few days ago, he also published his book “CHE” In addition, he also talked about the need for changes in the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the need for changes in the special prosecutor’s office. He called, among other things, for an urgent change to the whistle-blower law, which currently protects investigators around Jan Churilla and Lubomir Danek. The party’s goal is to stabilise the country and finances and win again. Later, Fico also reached the main political goals of the SMER party. In particular, the most important of them is a successful government that will end in 2027 with victory in the parliamentary elections. In his speech, he outlined what the government should focus on in the coming months. “I don’t see a successful government as a set of numbers, indicators or charts. We will only be successful in 2027 when people realise that it is better, more peaceful and safer,” he said. Fico stressed the need for political stability and efforts to minimise conflicts within the coalition. He also called for quick policy solutions to show interest in “stabilising disrupted public finances at a reasonable and sustainable pace.” Sufficient financial reserves must also be created to compensate for high energy prices, especially for households. He also wants to reduce the impact of high interest rates on mortgages and subsequent refinancing in 2023, while announcing direct mortgage assistance in 2024. He also confirmed the aim of creating the financial conditions for the payment of the full 13th pension. He also stressed the need to have all the necessary regulatory tools and resources to intervene in the event of significant fluctuations in food prices. According to Fico, the government should also immediately decide how to transfer as many European Funds as possible to regions, cities and municipalities and simplify the administrative burden of obtaining them as much as possible. He also called for changes to regulations governing licensing procedures and procurement conditions to be approved “in record time.” According to the Prime Minister, the best proposal for the Education System for practical purposes should also be agreed upon so that the changes come into force at the beginning of the 2024/2025 school year. He also confirmed that the government had started negotiations on new foreign investments. “We have something to consider, we are currently reviewing projects. It is always a question of the scale of state aid,” he said. He also considers it his duty to support every Slovak company that wants to operate in foreign markets. Within two to three months, the coalition will have to develop a mechanism and regulations to shorten the period during which legal migrants with the qualifications necessary to run a business in Slovakia will be able to obtain all permits. He said the proposed measures are the minimum the government must take. He emphasised that all actions should be undertaken within the framework of broad social dialogue. He also confirmed that talks on the government’s withdrawal will take place in Trenčín in December and in Prešov at the end of January. In addition to Fico, the party’s vice presidents, Lubosz Blaha, Ladislav Kamienicki and Ryszard Takacz, also appeared. The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help.. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… . Can you please help power The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful journalism for the years to come… Your Government & Big Tech organisations such as Google, Facebook, Twitter & PayPal are trying to silence & shut down The Expose. So we need your help to ensure we can continue to bring you the facts the mainstream refuse to… We’re not funded by the Government to publish lies & propaganda on their behalf like the mainstream media. Instead, we rely solely on our support. So please support us in our efforts to bring you honest, reliable, investigative journalism today. It’s secure, quick and easy… Just choose your preferred method to show your support belowV support James Rickards: When the next financial crisis hits the elites are planning to freeze the financial system, worldwide US, China, Israel and others are developing AI killer drones; this poses significant risks The latest trends in healthcare and other observations DEADLY SECRETS: Unvaccinated account for just 5% of COVID-19 Deaths since beginning of 2023 but 3 & 4x Vaccinated account for Shocking 95% Slovakia will not be entering into any international pandemic agreements with WHO, Prime Minister says During a SMER party conference, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico declared that his government will not sign the World Health Organisation’s Pandemic Treaty and SMER Members of Parliament will not ratify in parliament the Pandemic Treaty with the WHO because it is a project of greedy pharmaceutical companies... https://expose-news.com/2023/11/25/slovakia-will-not-be-entering-into/

U.S. and Russia ‘can’t stop’ Turkey’s new Syria incursion By ALEXANDER WARD, MATT BERG and LAWRENCE UKENYE 11/22/2022 03:59 PM EST Syrian Kurds attend a funeral of people killed in Turkish airstrikes. Syrian Kurds attend a funeral of people killed in Turkish airstrikes in the village of Al Malikiyah, northern Syria, Monday, Nov. 21, 2022. | Baderkhan Ahmad/AP Photo Subscribe here | Email Alex | Email Matt With help from Phelim Kine and Lara Seligman PROGRAMMING NOTE: We’ll be off for Thanksgiving this Thursday and Friday but back to our normal schedule on Monday, Nov. 28. Turkey is threatening to kill more U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters in Syria — and the United States and Russia might not try very hard to stop it. Turkish President RECEP TAYYIP ERDOÄžAN vowed to soon launch a ground attack on U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in northern Syria, claiming they were responsible for a deadly terrorist attack last week. “We have been bearing down on terrorists for a few days with our planes, cannons and guns,” ErdoÄŸan said Tuesday, alluding to Turkey’s recent lethal aerial bombardments in Syria. “God willing, we will root out all of them as soon as possible, together with our tanks, our soldiers.” It’s unclear if it was Kurdish separatists who killed six people in the heart of Istanbul on Nov. 13. The Kurds deny the allegation, after all. But experts say it has presented ErdoÄŸan with a pretext to delve deeper into northern Syria, a push he’s long wanted to do. “Turkey is quite serious about the current Syria offensive,” the Middle East Institute’s and St. Lawrence University’s HOWARD EISSENSTAT told NatSec Daily. “This fits with both long-standing Turkish assumptions about its security interests and ErdoÄŸan’s need to look strong in advance of elections scheduled for June. Under the current circumstances, Russia or the U.S. might be able to impose limits on Turkish actions, but they can’t stop them entirely.” Both have reasons to be worried about Turkey launching a ground attack. Russia backs Syrian President BASHAR AL-ASSAD while Turkey supports rebels seeking to topple him. “We understand and respect Turkey’s concerns about ensuring its own security,” Kremlin spokesperson DMITRY PESKOV told reporters. “At the same time, we call on all parties to refrain from steps that could lead to the destabilization of the overall situation.” About 900 U.S. troops, meanwhile, are in Syria to keep ISIS at bay alongside Syrian Democratic Forces and fear heavy fighting could disrupt their plans. Turkey has a legitimate right to defend itself and its citizens, National Security Council spokesperson JOHN KIRBY told NatSec Daily during a Tuesday news conference, but added cross-border operations “might force a reaction by some of our SDF partners that would limit and constrain their ability to fight against ISIS…and we want to be able to keep the pressure on ISIS.” “We continue to urge for deescalation on all sides and in our conversations,” Pentagon deputy press secretary SABRINA SINGH later told reporters. But those statements don’t fully reflect the state of play, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s SONER CAGAPTAY told NatSec Daily, because “Ankara has just about aligned all-stars for an incursion.” The U.S. may not resist too strongly since it wants Turkey, a NATO ally, to accept Sweden and Finland’s accession to the alliance. Cagaptay said a Monday State Department statement that barely lambasted Turkey over the violence in Syria was evidence of Washington’s light approach. “I can’t recall any statement that nicely worded about Turkey’s incursion into Syria in a long time,” he said. And Russia is providing millions for Turkey’s economy and energy sector, propping up ErdoÄŸan ahead of next year’s vote. In exchange, experts say ErdoÄŸan may finally accept Assad as Syria’s legitimate ruler, effectively bringing an end to what remains of the war in Syria. If that’s the case, it seems the U.S. and Russia may stand aside as Turkey kills more Kurds — and American allies — in Syria. The Inbox U.S. LEADERS IN ASIA: Vice President KAMALA HARRIS warned of U.S. intervention if China takes aim at the Philippines, our own PHELIM KINE reports. In a visit to the Philippines, Harris pushed back against Beijing’s expansive territorial claims in the region, pledging $7.5 million for the Philippine Coast Guard. On Monday, Harris also warned of a U.S. response if there is “an armed attack” on Filipino ships or aircraft in the South China Sea, invoking a treaty between the allies. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson ZHAO LIJIAN clapped back on Tuesday, warning that U.S.-Philippines cooperation “should not target or hurt other countries’ interests.” Meanwhile, Defense Secretary LLOYD AUSTIN met with his Chinese counterpart in Cambodia on Tuesday, discussing strained bilateral relations and regional and global security issues, the Associated Press’ HENG SINITH reports. The two met on the sidelines of a regional meeting, marking the second time in six months Austin and Gen. WEI FENGHE met face-to-face. It comes just over a week after President JOE BIDEN met with Chinese leader XI JINPING in Indonesia, a gathering widely seen as an effort to ease tensions between the two world powers. On the issue of Taiwan, Austin assured Wei of Biden’s commitment to the “one China” policy, but called on China to refrain from taking destabilizing actions toward the island nation, Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. PAT RYDER said. EUROPE’S NEW MIGRANT INFLUX: Europe is struggling even more to properly welcome thousands of people seeking asylum from war and famine. Specifically, the EU plus Norway and Switzerland recorded about 564,000 applications in August this year — an increase of 62 percent from the same period last year, according to the European Union Agency for Asylum. That increase doesn’t include the millions of Ukrainian refugees moving westward since Russia’s invasion on Feb. 24. “Tents and sleeping bags have become a common sight along the canal in central Brussels, as well as in underpasses and railway stations, as some asylum seekers are forced to wait months for shelter after lodging applications,” per The Financial Times’ SAM FLEMING and GUY CHAZAN, underscoring just how overwhelmed the reception system is right now. NAVY BLAMES IRAN FOR DRONE ATTACK: The U.S. Navy confirmed Iran’s involvement in a Nov. 15 drone attack on a commercial tanker, identifying the drone as a Shahed-136 — the same type Iran has supplied to Russia for use in Ukraine. The attack fits “a historical pattern of Iran’s increasing use of a lethal capability directly or through its proxies across the Middle East,” reads a statement by U.S. Naval Forces Central Command. “The Iranian attack on a commercial tanker transiting international waters was deliberate, flagrant and dangerous, endangering the lives of the ship’s crew and destabilizing maritime security in the Middle East,” said Vice Adm. BRAD COOPER, the command’s chief. U.S. officials had already said they suspected Iran was behind the strike. IT’S TUESDAY: Thanks for tuning in to NatSec Daily. This space is reserved for the top U.S. and foreign officials, the lawmakers, the lobbyists, the experts and the people like you who care about how the natsec sausage gets made. Aim your tips and comments at [email protected] and [email protected], and follow us on Twitter at @alexbward and @mattberg33. While you’re at it, follow the rest of POLITICO’s national security team: @nahaltoosi, @woodruffbets, @politicoryan, @PhelimKine, @BryanDBender, @laraseligman, @connorobrienNH, @paulmcleary, @leehudson, @AndrewDesiderio, @magmill95, @ericgeller, @johnnysaks130, @ErinBanco and @Lawrence_Ukenye. Flashpoints ARCTIC POWER: Russian President VLADIMIR PUTIN touted Moscow’s growing footprint in the Arctic at a Tuesday flag-raising ceremony that commemorated two new nuclear-powered icebreakers that will allow the country to have year-round access to western parts of the Arctic, Reuters reports. The icebreakers “are part of our large-scale, systematic work to re-equip and replenish the domestic icebreaker fleet, to strengthen Russia’s status as a great Arctic power,” Putin said. The Arctic has become more significant due to climate change as melting ice has prompted countries like Russia, the U.S. and China to try to increase their influence in the region, which could also affect trade and shipping lane access. Keystrokes KISS IT GOODBYE, FOR NOW: The idea of creating a new platform where the government and the private sector can rapidly share data on cyber threats has hit a Fort Meade-sized speed bump: the National Security Agency, our friends over at Morning Cybersecurity (for Pros!) report. Until recently, the joint collaborative environment looked like a solid bet to make it into the final version of this year’s National Defense Authorization Act, featuring in both the House and Senate markups of the must-pass defense bill. But the NSA began voicing objections to the JCE in the last few weeks, tilting the scales against the provision on the Hill, two Hill staffers granted anonymity to speak freely about the proposal told MC. The NSA’s “biggest concern” about the legislation is that it “would overly constrain” the NSA and CISA’s ongoing threat-sharing efforts, ROB JOYCE, the director of NSA’s cybersecurity directorate, told MC. The Complex ON THE WAY: The Army is on track to award the multibillion-dollar contract for the UH-60 Black Hawk replacement by the end of the year, our friends over at Morning Defense (for Pros!) report. Competing for the deal are Bell, with its V-280 Valor tiltrotor, and a Sikorsky-Bell team, with the SB-1 Defiant coaxial helicopter for the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, Army acquisition chief DOUG BUSH told reporters Monday. Bell estimates the program is worth more than $100 billion because of foreign military sales opportunities. Black Hawks won’t be phased out of the Army overnight. The service intends to buy them through fiscal 2028 and does not anticipate the replacement to come online until 2035. On the Hill NOT WINGING IT: Republicans have an answer for anyone asking about the effect the party’s populist wing might have on foreign policy: Sorry, what? Lawmakers at the Halifax International Security Forum told our own ANDREW DESIDERIO that “Congress is likely to allocate well more than the $38 billion the Biden administration requested for Ukraine’s military and economic needs as part of a year-end governing funding bill. And that extra infusion is set to advance with the help of senior Republicans, even as influential conservative groups urge a pause.” That means Republicans predict enough Democrats and Republicans will support the package, drowning out loud voices on the right who don’t want to give Kyiv another penny. “If we were on the other side of this, they’d be pounding the table saying, ‘Send more money to Ukraine,’” Sen. JIM RISCH (R-Idaho), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview. Lawmakers from both parties believe the package will get through Congress before newly elected representatives and senators arrive in Washington. SEND ARMED DRONES TO UKRAINE: Sixteen senators are urging the Biden administration to give Ukraine armed drones to better repel Russia’s invasion, our own LEE HUDSON reports. The Biden administration has been hesitant to send the drone to Ukraine due to fears that sensitive technologies aboard the aircraft may end up in Russian hands. An electro-optical/infrared ball on the Gray Eagle provides real-time intelligence, targeting and tracking. The administration was also concerned that the drone and the instruments it carries would pose too many training and logistics challenges for the Ukrainian military. But the bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by Sens. JONI ERNST (R-Iowa) and JOE MANCHIN (D-W.V.), say the benefits of helping Ukraine take out Russian positions outweigh the risks. “The MQ-1C could erode Russia’s long-range fires advantage. Most importantly, armed UAS could find and attack Russian warships in the Black Sea, breaking its coercive blockade and alleviate dual pressures on the Ukrainian economy and global food prices,” they wrote in the letter. The Wall Street Journal first reported on the letter. Broadsides FIRST IN NATSEC DAILY — CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHIPS IN 889: Loyal NatSec Daily readers will remember our report that two senators want to ban the federal government from acquiring products or services from Chinese chipmakers. Simply put, they want to update Section 889 in the federal code to include three Chinese firms and Chinese-made semiconductors. Well, the backlash to that bill by Sens. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-N.Y.) and JOHN CORNYN (R-Texas) has begun. “Left unaddressed, adding the covered semiconductors to part B of section 889 would harm federal agencies’ ability to procure the essential goods and services they need to promote our nation’s well-being, while putting added financial pressure on businesses that are operating in an inflationary economy,” reads a draft letter obtained by NatSec Daily. It’s signed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Aerospace Industries Association, among other groups. The groups are fine with the section’s Part A, which deals with the procurement of items, even though “it presents federal contractors with costly and complex compliance burdens.” Their main gripe is with Part B because it bans interactions with a contractor that “uses” a banned technology. That makes compliance much harder, they argue. “A company with both federal and nonfederal customers would be barred from selling to the government because it ‘uses’ a coffee service that ‘uses’ the covered semiconductors,” the letter reads. Some lawmakers in both parties told NatSec Daily they don’t fully support the Schumer-Cornyn bill because of Point B. The draft note, dated Nov. 22, is addressed to Sens. JACK REED (D-R.I.) and JIM INHOFE (R-Okla.), the top members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Still, much of the non-government national security community is behind the chip ban out of fear China can manipulate the semiconductors for its own purposes. Some of the three companies up for a ban allegedly have ties to China’s military. An AIA spokesperson said of the reason for sending the letter: “We have serious concerns about the cumulative effect of well-intentioned, but burdensome regulations that could drive small businesses out of the industrial base.” Transitions — MICHAEL HOCHMAN is now chief of staff for the White House Office of the National Cyber Director. He previously was deputy chief of staff and deputy general counsel. — HADY AMR has been named a special representative for Palestinian affairs, the first time the State Department has had a D.C.-based post focused on that issue. He was previously the deputy assistant secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian affairs. What to Read — NATHALIE TOCCI, POLITICO: Europe’s Defense Efforts Remain Underwhelming — BEN OLLERENSHAW and JULIAN SPENCER-CHURCHILL, Real Clear Defense: To Deter China, the U.S. Must Have the Political Courage to Retaliate Against Russia — ANDREW KREPINEVICH, JR., Foreign Affairs: Is Putin a Rational Actor? Wednesday Today — The Hudson Institute, 10 a.m.: “Countering Russian Influence in Georgia” Have a natsec-centric event coming up? Transitioning to a new defense-adjacent or foreign policy-focused gig? Shoot me an email at [email protected] to be featured in the next edition of the newsletter. Thanks to our editor, Heidi Vogt, who has aligned the stars to gain full control of this newsletter. And we thank our producer, Kierra Frazier, who is a star in her own right. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2022/11/22/u-s-and-russia-cant-stop-turkeys-new-syria-incursion-00070431

BDS is the most effective way to put our solidarity into action – here’s how to win Olivia KatbiNovember 13, 2023 (Image: Palestinian BDS National Committee) (Image: Palestinian BDS National Committee) As Israel continues to escalate its ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, a new wave of solidarity with Palestine is emerging. Many people are learning for the first time about the Palestinian call to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) Israel until it complies with international law. As a coordinator for the BDS Movement in North America for several years, I have worked on a number of BDS campaigns, and would like to lay out the basics, best practices, and some helpful tips and ideas for BDS campaigning. BDS 101 First, some quick background: The BDS movement was founded by Palestinian civil society in 2005 as a way to exert pressure on Israel to comply with international law until it meets three key demands: 1. An end to Israel’s occupation of all Arab lands and dismantling the illegal apartheid Wall; 2. Full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel; and 3. The right of return for Palestinian refugees. You can learn more about the history of the BDS Movement, the organizations that make up the Palestinian BDS National Committee, and past and current campaigns at the BDS Movement website. BDS is the most effective way for us to put our solidarity with Palestinian liberation into action as residents of the United States, which gives Israel an annual $3.8 billion in military funding, shields Israel from international accountability, and has countless corporations and institutions that maintain some level of complicity in Israel’s violence. BDS is inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, during which international boycotts and sanctions played a major role in bringing about the eventual fall of apartheid, and the U.S. Civil Rights movement and its inspiring boycotts, including the Rosa Parks-led Montgomery bus boycott. A movement for collective action Many people are personally boycotting brands that have stated support for Israel, and that’s great – but I want to stress that consumer boycotts are most effective when taken as a collective action, and BDS isn’t just about consumer boycotts. More important than our own personal investments and purchases, which are symbolic gestures but not impactful alone, is working within an organization, union, or coalition to organize effective, strategic campaigns and build power globally to support the Palestinian struggle. So when you see massive lists of dozens and dozens of companies to boycott going around on social media – please keep in mind that the goal isn’t to boycott as many companies as possible, as very few people can feasibly sustain such extensive boycotts. The goal is to strategically pick a few targets and exert enough collective pressure to win a campaign – meaning, a specific company stops doing business with Israel, a specific institution divests its investments from complicit Israeli or international companies, or a specific city ends its relationship with the Israeli government or adopts a human rights procurement and investment policy. There are many different kinds of BDS campaigns to choose from, and you can choose the most strategic and achievable targets in your own local context. Consider these examples: Municipal boycott: a city ends contracts with HP or Caterpillar. Academic boycott: a university (or department) or academic association ends institutional collaboration with Israeli academic institutions. Sports boycott: US teams refuse to play against official Israeli teams, or Israel gets suspended from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). Consumer boycott: a co-op grocery store stops selling Sabra hummus. Cultural boycott: a celebrity cancels a performance in Israel, or a US event by Israeli cultural ambassadors or sponsored by Israel (or anti-Palestinian lobby groups) is canceled. Divestment: A city, university, church, trade union, or pension fund withdraws its investments in corporations and banks complicit in Israeli apartheid. As the BDS movement continues to grow at a fast pace, many activists around the world, including in Palestine, often wonder what institution or corporation to most effectively target and how. Given our limited human capacity, we want to be strategic with the targets we select. The BDS movement does not actually launch a boycott campaign against every boycottable event, product or institution, because that would make it pretty impossible to achieve concrete results. To be strategic, we carefully select our targets and how we intervene in each case. To read about current BDS targets and strategic campaigning, including why some targets are “pressure” targets instead of full-on boycott targets, please take a look at this recent statement from the BDS Movement. When selecting a BDS target we generally recommend considering the following four criteria:
 1. The level of complicity involved: The deeper the complicity, the easier it is to mobilize support for BDS action against any given target. There are hundreds of international companies and banks that are in some way complicit. Rather than targeting any international athletic footwear company that sells athletic shoes and apparel in Israel, for example, we recommend joining the campaign against PUMA, which sponsors the Israel Football Association. The IFA governs teams in Israel’s illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land. 2. The potential for forming a broad, cross-movement coalition against the target: A divestment campaign targeting Chevron, for example, makes much more sense than a divestment campaign targeting a company that only infringes on Palestinian rights, because Chevron is a target of climate activists worldwide. Intersectional coalitions are especially crucial to maximize the potential of winning against large, nasty complicit corporations. 3. Media appeal: If two companies are equally complicit, and we must choose, it is more effective to go after the more publicly recognized brand, as that usually attracts more media attention and allows us to educate and reach out to a much larger audience. 4. Possibility of success: Even if the above three conditions are met, we don’t launch a campaign against a target unless we have a reasonable chance of success. And success can sometimes just mean reaching a wide mainstream audience and winning their support, rather than actually succeeding in canceling an event, or canceling a contract, but symbolic victories alone are not sufficient. We do BDS because we want to win, build power to affect policy change, and to achieve Palestinian rights ultimately, and not to merely score points and feel good about symbolic gestures. Only through sustained, cumulative, growing and mainstreaming successes can BDS achieve its objectives— which are freedom, justice and equality. Campaigning to win Once you and your group or organization (because you absolutely should not be doing this alone!) have carefully researched and chosen a target that makes strategic sense for your local context, don’t just jump out with a public campaign right away. Starting with a soft ask (due diligence) is an often overlooked step that can sometimes deliver us a win right away – and the goal is winning! For example, meeting with your union’s investment committee to see if they are willing to implement a human rights investment screening policy; privately writing a letter to your school’s procurement manager to see if there is another supplier of computers they could go with rather than HP; or getting grocery store workers to collectively request that the store no longer shelve an Israeli product. You might be surprised by how far good faith engagement, based on sharing accurate information and compelling moral appeals, can in some cases take you, particularly in smaller communities, before escalating to a larger public pressure campaign. In most cases, however, strategic pressure is the only effective way. For example, when we ran a campaign in Portland asking the Portland Trail Blazers to end their sponsorship with IDF sniper scope supplier Leupold and Stevens, we first sent private letters to the Blazers organization explaining our concerns and requesting a meeting to talk further about the partnership. This tactic did not work, and we then escalated to a public, year-long pressure campaign, which we won! But we had to make sure to do our due diligence first, as that in itself shows good faith and win over many bystanders. You should also begin reaching out to other organizations for endorsement and support. Coalition building is a must in most BDS work. Organizations in your area might be interested in campaigning together on the issue, and organizations in the U.S. can offer support for your campaign. For example, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) has talented researchers with years of BDS campaigning under their belts and a great database which can help you find reliable information on companies and investment funds. Palestine Legal can help you ensure that your campaign is as legally sound as possible and may be able to help you face legal challenges that you may run into regardless. IMEU can provide resources on connecting with the media and tips on how best to integrate communications into your campaign strategy, not as an afterthought. Power mapping is an important part of your campaign as well – who are the decision makers, who is best placed to pressure them, and how can we most effectively do so? Do you have any allies on the inside? What kind of opposition do you think you’ll be up against, and how can you prepare for that ahead of time? Other important parts of campaigning include creating a media strategy, a public education strategy (for example, hosting informational events like teach-ins), a timeline for escalation of your campaign, and picking strategic dates for certain actions – such as delivering a petition during a board meeting of the company you’re targeting. Is peacefully disruptive direct action (sit-in, peaceful occupation, flashmob, collective supermarket action, etc.) a useful tactic to consider, at the right time, in your strategy? Historically, some of the biggest and most successful BDS campaigns have taken years of strategic planning, organizing, and network building to pull off – so don’t be discouraged if it doesn’t happen for you right away. It’s worth it to be intentional in your planning and outreach. But at this unprecedented time of crisis with genocide unfolding before our eyes, there’s also no reason why a BDS campaign needs to take years. There is great urgency in the work we’re doing right now, and there’s no reason why a city council or your union leadership can’t make a decision to end its complicity right now if the political will exists. If not now, when? The South African anti-apartheid movement organized for decades to gain broad international support leading up to the fall of apartheid; and apartheid did fall. Freedom is inevitable. The time is now to take action to join the movement for freedom, justice, and equality in Palestine. Before you go – we need your support At Mondoweiss, we understand the power of telling Palestinian stories. For 17 years, we have pushed back when the mainstream media published lies or echoed politicians’ hateful rhetoric. Now, Palestinian voices are more important than ever. Our traffic has increased ten times since October 7, and we need your help to cover our increased expenses. Support our journalists with a donation today. https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/bds-is-the-most-effective-way-to-put-our-solidarity-into-action-heres-how-to-win/

Get this fully customizable project procurement plan #PowerPoint template to set the direction of the organizational #procurement activities and ensures that all the activities are aligned with the overall #business strategy. You can also use this PPT template to showcase the organizational goods and services cost-effectively and efficiently. Download Now: https://bit.ly/3WCugBr #projectmanagement #ProjectProcurement #businessstrategy #powerpointpresentation #powerpointdesign #powerpointtemplates #ppt #slides