#wef power grab

[starseedpatriot]

🇵🇱 Former Prime Minister of Poland: "For the first time since the dark days of totalitarian rule, we have political prisoners in Poland." (2 min, 39 sec)

The WEF is trying a blatant communist power grab. If they get away with it, Europe will begin its collapse.

[darkmaga-returns]

By Andrea Widburg

When five different people send you a link, you know that something very important has happened, even if the drive-by media aren’t trumpeting it on their outlets. In this case, it’s Robert Williams’ report at the Gatestone Institute that, in September, the Harris-Biden administration, without fanfare, adopted a UN pact that gives the UN and the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) control over American speech, foreign policy, and, possibly, internal sovereignty. Thankfully, while the administration can sign someone’s name on the dotted line, the Constitution means that signature is invalid. But we’re not in the clear: That invalidity works only if we don’t have a government that acts as if the UN pact applies.

The pact is the UN’s Pact for the Future. Williams describes it this way:

At the Summit of the Future in September 2024, world leaders passed the UN’s Pact for the Future to transform global governance, the Digital Compact and the Declaration on Future Generations. These agreements usher in a dystopian future, where the UN -- an active supporter of terrorism and arguably the world’s most corrupt international entity, led by socialists, communists and dictatorships -- in partnership with the unelected and unaccountable World Economic Forum, led by Klaus Schwab and his covey of billionaire business leaders, is given unprecedented power over the peoples of sovereign countries, who have had no say whatsoever on the contents of this pact, because it has been kept hidden from them. [snip] A large part of the Pact is dedicated to “turbocharging” the UN’s Agenda 2030. Much of this consists of fighting the fake crisis of “climate change” by achieving “net-zero” carbon dioxide emissions. Hidden at the very bottom of the 56-page document -- action point 54 -- is actually one of the most important items: the power-grab of the UN’s secretary-general: strengthening “the international response to complex global shocks”: [Quoted material omitted.] The UN secretary-general, in other words, is to control responses to “global shocks”...

This would mean that any kind of event that captures the media’s imagination, everything from “climate change” to an Eastern European border dispute to genocidal Islamic attacks on Israel, would come under the UN’s purview. America would be subordinated to the UN in its responses. Pax American would end. The UN—the anti-American, antisemitic, anti-capitalist, pro-Islamic UN—would be the world’s new policeman.

[oldgayjew]

In other words ... “The Office of Gestapo Co-ordination for Future Freedom Confiscation” ... designated to be the Spark that begins the Racial/Civil War we’ve been waiting for ...

The Soros/NWO/WEF/WHO/ Nazicrats have lost their minds and become drunk with power ... the Goebbels Media Useful Idiots will go along obediently and no one will stop them ... 

If this continues grab your ankles ...

[justiceheartwatcher]

Louisiana Becomes First U.S. State to Reject WHO-WEF Power Grab – Vigilant News Network

[giftofshewbread]

Pay Attention

 :: By Daymond Duck   Published on: July 15, 2023

On July 4, 2023, Jean Worland (jean.worland@roadrunner.com) posted these words from Hal Lindsey:

In Matthew 16:2-3, Jesus admonished us to discern the times. That means pay attention to what’s going on. Study and apply God’s word. And pray about everything. Today, we see signs of distress all over the world. We can see in real-time things the Bible long ago told us about. And it’s not pretty. Lawlessness, moral confusion, slander, deception, hedonism, uncontrolled rage, and cruelty fill our sightlines. These things are no longer theoretical events to be analyzed from a distance. They’re happening all around us, and it can be scary.

Jesus told us to watch the signs many times (Matt. 24:42-43; Mark 13:33-37; Luke 21:36; Rev. 3:3), but those that are not watching do not know or do not care.

Pay attention because “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (II Cor. 5:10).

The world needs to know what is going on, and it is the responsibility of the Church to speak out.

Here are some events that got my attention in recent days:

One, concerning the decline of America and world government: on July 4, 2023, highly respected World Net Daily (WND) journalist, Bob Unruh, wrote an article about Justin Haskins’ warning that America could lose its independence before the 2024 election.

Haskins is the director of the Socialism Research Center at The Heartland Institute, and his article was posted on a conservative web magazine called the Federalist.

According to Unruh, Haskins said:

A proposal to give the UN great power to deal with “emergencies” could cause the U.S. as we know it to cease to exist.

During an emergency (a natural disaster, a pandemic, whatever), the UN wants the authority to call an emergency and be given power over most of the world.

The UN will be authorized to determine what is an emergency, when it begins, when it ends, and retain power over most of the world for as long as it wants.

Instead of defending America’s independence and sovereignty, the Biden administration has already expressed support for this UN power grab.

Declaring the end of the U.S. sounds dire, but it will be a fact come Sept. 2024 if people don’t stand up.

Here is a link to the article:

https://www.wnd.com/2023/07/biden-helping-u-n-control-life-u-s-know-cease-exist/

(Note: It is difficult to keep all the meetings, —UN, WHO, WEF, IMF —meeting dates, and agendas straight. Haskins wrote about what the UN is trying to do that will destroy the U.S. before the next election. There will be other meetings that could destroy the U.S. The thing to remember about all these groups and meetings is that world leaders are very close to establishing a world government.)

Here are some things I have written about in the past two months:

The World Health Organization (WHO) wants:

A Global Code of Conduct.

A Global Digital Passport.

A Global Digital Currency.

A Global Digital Health Record.

A Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN).

The World Economic Forum (WEF) wants:

Holy Books written by AI.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) wants:

A Global Digital Currency and Transaction Data.

The United Nations (UN) wants:

A Global Digital ID linked to everyone’s bank account.

A seven-year covenant with many to bring in a world government.

Emmanuel Macron wants:

A Global Tax.

Unless God intervenes, the world is on the brink of a world government and the Tribulation Period.

People need to pay attention because where we spend eternity could be at stake.

The Church is running out of time to be salt and light.

(Personal note: Many times, I have said, “The day might come when things start happening so fast that it is impossible to keep up with them.” There are times when I think that day has arrived, and only part of what happens gets reported.)

Two, concerning the decline of America and a possible global economic collapse: on July 7, 2023, it was reported that Russia confirmed that the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) intend to start trading in a new currency backed by gold, and the official announcement will be made at the BRICS Summit in August.

Some officials predict that this will cause the value of the Dollar to plunge, cause a major surge in inflation in the U.S., eventually be seen as the beginning of the end of the Dollar, and send America’s superpower status on a downhill slide from which it will never recover.

I am not an economic expert, but it seems to me that there is no way for this to not have a negative impact on the global economy.

(Note: Several other nations are seeking to join the BRICS nations.)

Three, concerning the turmoil in Israel and its impact on Israel’s future: since January of 2023, there have been major riots and demonstrations in Israel over an upcoming vote on a bill to change Israel’s judiciary.

Israel’s top judges are appointed by other judges.

Liberal judges have taken over the judiciary.

They appoint liberal judges to always ensure a liberal majority on the court, and the liberal majority they appoint always votes to keep Israel a secular nation.

There are conservative Jews that want to worship on the Temple Mount, religious Jews that want to go back under the Mosaic Law (the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or the Pentateuch), Jews that want to rebuild the Temple, resume the animal sacrifices, etc. But even if those conservative and religious Jews get the Israeli Knesset to pass a bill to do these things, the liberal judges can declare the bill illegal and kill it.

That is right; unelected liberal judges can overrule a majority vote of the elected officials, and they have angered many of the elected officials with their liberal votes.

The latest Netanyahu government is conservative.

It has the support of several religious parties.

Netanyahu’s government wants to pass a bill (called the Reasonableness Standard Bill) to take the power to appoint judges away from the liberal judges and empower the government to appoint judges.

In addition to that, if the Israeli Knesset passes a bill (after three readings and three votes) and the unelected judges declare it illegal, the Knesset wants the power to review the Judge’s decision and perhaps vote to overturn it or part of it, etc.

As I understand it, the ongoing riots and demonstrations in Israel are about two things:

One, who makes the laws in Israel (the people’s elected representatives in the Knesset or a group of unelected liberal judges).

Two, what kind of nation will Israel be in the future, a secular nation or a religious nation?

According to the Bible, Israel will go back under the Mosaic Law (the laws that God gave to Moses), they will rebuild the Temple, and they will resume the animal sacrifices.

(Note: Some orthodox Jews believe the Messiah will give them permission to rebuild the Temple. Based on John 5:43, some prophecy teachers believe the Jews will accept the Antichrist as the Messiah. They believe the covenant that is confirmed (strengthened) by the Antichrist will give the Jews permission to rebuild the Temple, and it will be rebuilt very early in the Tribulation Period. That will be after the Rapture, and Israel may be taking a turn in that direction now.)

Are you paying attention?

In addition to the riots and demonstrations being about whether Israel will be a secular nation or a religious nation in the future, here are two more events that I have written about in recent weeks.

The Jews may soon have the ashes of a red heifer that will permit them to rebuild the Temple.

A member of Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party has submitted a bill to divide the Temple Mount between Muslims and Jews so the Temple can be rebuilt.

The effort to rebuild the Temple appears to be slowly advancing.

(Update: On July 11, 2023, the Reasonableness Standard Bill passed in the Knesset by a vote of 64 to 56. If it passes a second and then a third vote, hopefully before the end of this month, it will become law in Israel. In that case, Israel will soon become more religious and less secular.)

Four, concerning persecution and the coming one-world religion: on July 10, 2023, the New American posted an article that said a UN-authorized report urges “governments to threaten and punish religious leaders and organizations that don’t go along with the LGBTQ orthodoxy.”

Right now, this appears to be just a recommendation, but the Bible teaches that extreme persecution and death await those that do not follow the anti-Christian globalist agenda during the Tribulation Period.

The U.S. pays 22% of the UN budget.

(More: A different article said the UN report condemns the anti-gay interpretation of Judeo-Christian scriptures, it celebrates religious groups that promote gay and transgender values, it says medical workers and institutions should be forced to perform abortions, transgender treatments, surgeries, etc.).

(My opinion: The LGBTQ agenda should not be considered superior to religious beliefs. Freedom of religion will not exist when people are forced to abandon the Scriptures and go along with the LGBTQ agenda. Authorizing the UN to tell people what they can and cannot believe in the Bible, Koran, on any other book is the same as establishing a new global religion. Forcing healthcare workers to perform abortions and mutilate the bodies of children is satanic.)

FYI: God does not send anyone to Hell (all of us are born with a sin nature and destined to go to Hell because we sin), but God has provided a way (Jesus) for everyone to go to Heaven (and He is the only way to get there; John 14:6).

Finally, are you Rapture Ready?

If you want to be rapture ready and go to heaven, you must be born again (John 3:3). God loves you, and if you have not done so, sincerely admit that you are a sinner; believe that Jesus is the virgin-born, sinless Son of God who died for the sins of the world, was buried, and raised from the dead; ask Him to forgive your sins, cleanse you, come into your heart and be your Saviour; then tell someone that you have done this.

[americanmysticom]

ANTI-HUMAN AGENDA, WHEN BUREAUCRACIES GO AWRY Apr 8, 2023

“This is an anti-human agenda” — how ‘One Health’ POWER GRABBING efforts point to a WEF-style global political infiltration scheme, with hosts Meryl Nass, M.D., and James Corbett.

’ONE HEALTH’ IS A PRIVATE INSTITUTION CONTROLLED BY DONORS, SUCH AS BILL GATES, THAT WILL PRIMARILY PROMOTE PUBLIC FEAR, AND ‘OPTIMIZED’ SURVEILLANCE

THE ‘ONE HEALTH’ BIO-SECURITY PLATFORM FORWARDS ‘WHO’ PLANNING, WITHOUT BEING ATTACHED TO ‘WHO’, THEREFORE SIDESTEPPING CURRENT EFFORTS TO CURTAIL GLOBALIST BIO-SECURITY ENACTMENT

THE BIG MONEY MONOPOLIST EVIRONMENTALY SUSTAINABLE MONOPOLY SCAM - CENTRAL BANKER FANGS

ESENTIALLY NEO-FEUDALISM, THE LAND OWNERS AND THE PEASANTS

‘CULLING’ IS THE OPERATIVE WORD, COULD THAT WORD BE RELATED TO ‘CULLING’ HUMANS - AS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, AND FACIST GLOBALIST BUROCRACY/CORPORATIONS ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM RESPONSIBILITY, SINCE THEY ARE EFFECTIVLY TAKING RESPONSIBILITY

They expose the corruption in the World Health Organization and pose their perspectives on how Big Oil’s ties to climate affairs are worth considering.

Watch the exchange on ‘Good Morning CHD’!

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/antihuman-agenda-with-james-corbett/

[WHO’s cover-up, money laundering and complicity in illegal Covid Gain-of-function medical experimentation.] 

https://www.secretdonttell.com/shop/

[tinyshe]

PETITION: Stop Tedros' WHO Pandemic Treaty

1 day ago [posting 22.19,5]

The WHO Pandemic Treaty looks set to be one of the biggest power-grabs in living memory, with unelected globalists seeking the power to declare pandemics, and then control your country's response.

But it's not too late to do something about it.

SIGN and SHARE this special petition telling Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus that the WHO will never usurp your nation's sovereignty.

The past two years have been rife with infringements on personal liberties and civil rights by national governments, but now the World Health Organization is seeking to appropriate those same abusive powers to itself at a global level.

194 member states representing 99% of the world's population are expected to sign pandemic treaties with the WHO that would allow Tedros, or any future Director General, to dictate exactly how your nation would respond to a new disease outbreak which they consider a pandemic.

This attack on national sovereignty will come as no surprise to those who for years have listened to elites like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates discussing their vision for the centralization of power into globalist organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the WHO and the rest of the United Nations.

SIGN this petition against the WHO's Pandemic Treaty, before it's too late.

Ludicrously, 20 world leaders calling for the treaty, including Tedros, Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron, compared the post-Covid world to the post-WWII period, saying similar co-operation is now needed to "dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and co-operation - namely peace, prosperity, health and security."

Australian PM Scott Morrison is the latest leader to express support for a “pandemic treaty”.

The stated intention of the WHO is to “kickstart a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

The wheels are already in motion, with the Biden administration officially proposing the initial steps towards handing global pandemic control to the WHO.

Biden's representatives have submitted amendments to the WHO's International Health Regulations (IHR), which would give the Director General the right to declare health emergencies in any nation, even when disputed by the country in question.

These amendments, which would be legally binding under international law, will be voted on by the World Health Assembly (the governing body of the WHO) at a special convention running from May 22-28 and set the stage for a fully-fledged pandemic treaty to be passed.

SIGN and SHARE the petition telling the WHO that you won't accept any pandemic treaty

The ball has been rolling since the last World Health Assembly meeting in December, where the United States launched negotiations "on a new international health instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response," a U.S. statement read.

"This momentous step represents our collective responsibility to work together to advance health security and to make the global health system stronger and more responsive.

"We look forward to broad and deep negotiations using a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach that will strengthen the international legal framework for public health/pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response and enable us to address issues of equity, accountability, and multisectoral collaboration evident in the COVID-19 pandemic.

"We know it will take all of us working together across governments, private sector, philanthropy, academia, and civil society to make rapid progress towards a long-term solution for these complex problems," the U.S. statement added.

SIGN the petition today to show the WHO that you won't accept this attack on national sovereignty.

These are precarious times in which freedom and self-determination must be defended from those who would ride rough-shod over your civil rights.

We do not want to go back to global lockdowns, vaccine mandates and propoganda.

Sign the petition - speak up now!

For More Information:

Biden hands over American sovereignty with proposed WHO treaty - LifeSiteNews

Pandemic Treaty is a backdoor to global governance - LifeSiteNews

Dr. Robert Malone on the WHO's power-grab - LifeSiteNews

**Photo: YouTube Screenshot**

[docholt0000]

THIS VIDEO HAS ALLOWED ME TO PUT THE LARGER PICTURE TOGETHER.

THEY ARE SUBVERTING HISTORY AND INFORMATION TO CAUSE GROUPS TO HATE EACH OTHER WHICH WILL CAUSE WAR!

THEY ARE USING DISEASE AND LOCK DOWNS TO AFFECT THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE PEOPLE KEEPING EVERYONE OCCUPIED ON FOOD CLOTHING AND HOUSING.

THEY ARE PULLING THE NORMAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS OUT OF THE COUNTRIES THAT PROVIDE GASOLINE OIL FERTILIZER COAL TO NAME A FEW WHICH WILL INCREASE THE SPEED OF THE COLLAPSE THEY NEED TO TAKE POWER.

ALL WHILE WEF AND THEIR SUPPORTING GROUPS TAKE CONTROL OF EVERYTHING!

HOW DO WE FIGHT BACK TELL EVERYONE TO BUY LOCAL, GROW YOUR OWN FOOD AND LIVESTOCK!

KEEP A STOCK OF FOOD, WATER AND WEAPONS!

WE MUST BUILD SMALL LOCAL ECONOMIES THAT SUPPORTS ITSELF AND OTHER COMMUNITIES NEARBY!

AS AN EXAMPLE I WILL BE SEWING, GUNSMITH, MEDICAL,WOODWORKING.

WE HAVE GOTTEN HERE THROUGH LAZINESS, LACK OF LEARNING AND NOT KEEPING UP NECESSARY SKILLS.

THEN ALLOWED OURSELVES TO BECOME DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT AND BIG BUSINESS!

WHEN WE GET OUR FREEDOM BACK TO SUSTAIN IT WE MUST NEVER ALLOW MONOPOLIES OF COMMON NEEDS AGAIN.

WE MUST KEEP OUR SKILLS AND SUPPORT ALL OF OUR LOCAL ECONOMIES TO PREVENT THIS TYPE OF POWER GRAB AGAIN!!!

MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL

SEMPER FI

DOC

https://youtu.be/R7gAEkzIgvw

[deblala]

https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/health-healing/child-sacrifice-wef-who-power-grab

[americanmysticom]

DUTCH FARMER PROTEST 2022 BIZARRE AND COUNTER-INTUITIVE GOVERNMENT ACTIONS HAVE A GLOBALIST AGENDA

“THERE’S NO PROBLEM THAT GOVERNMENT CAN’T MAKE WORSE”

Dutch farmers fed up! Block highways in protest of crack down || Jared Bedke https://odysee.com/@AlisonMorrow:6/dutch-farmers-fed-up!-block-highways-in:0

5 Lessons |  DUTCH FARMER PROTEST 2022 https://odysee.com/@PoplarPreparedness:9/5-lessons-dutch-farmer-protest-2022:9

Government OUTLAWING farming during a food shortage? When there are empty shelves, [then] to ban making food? In the Netherlands the government has agreed to do just that and farmers are having none of it.

Mass tractor protests on roads, at government offices, and now at food distribution warehouses. Dutch farmer protest 2022 is gaining support and demanding the government back down.

SEE ALSO

White House Is Quietly Modeling For $200 Oil "Shock" https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/white-house-quietly-modeling-shock-200-oil

Dutch farmers form tractor blockade in 'massive' protest over nitrogen policy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOrasUB5GzM

[CCP deep state psyop and moneymaker, steer and bewilder the public, create chaos while robbing the moneychanger bank. First here then there then back again. Money wave generators using others equipment, and savings.]

[rielpolitik]

GAIA RISING: 'Shadow Networks', The Revolutionary Power Of The Real Circular Economy - By Sabrina Chakori

GAIA RISING: ‘Shadow Networks’, The Revolutionary Power Of The Real Circular Economy – By Sabrina Chakori

Source – resilience.org “… SM:…The circular economy is mankind’s the only truly progressive & sensible move forward. How does this then differ from the WEF’s pledge that we will all “…own nothing & be happy”. Simply, my revulsion at Dr. Evils grand “Great Reset”, is that it has all the hall-markings of another authoritarian power grab, complete with psychological warfare tactic’s, social…

[newsnigeria]

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/amazonia-in-flames-brazils/

Amazonia in Flames – Brazil’s Bolsonaro is a World Criminal – Encouraging Jungle Burning for Private Exploitation of Freed Land

by Peter Koenig for The Saker Blog

On 28 October 2018, Jair Bolsonaro was elected President of Brazil with 55.1% of the vote – and with a gigantic help from Cambridge Analytica.

At the World Economic Forum (WEF) in January 2019 in Davos Switzerland, Bolsonaro made a sumptuous presentation, “We Are Building a New Brazil”. He outlined a program that put literally Brazil up for sale, and especially the Brazilian part of Amazonia. He was talking particularly about Brazil’s water resources, the world’s largest, and the rain forest – offering a huge potential for agricultural development and mining.

None of the world leaders present at the WEF, precisely those that regularly meet pretending to save the planet, reacted to Bolsonaro’s statement on the Amazon region. They all new who Bolsonaro was and is – they knew that the man had no scruples and would destroy – literally – the world’s lungs. They did nothing. They stayed silent in words and deeds, applauding the neonazi for his openness to international business and globalization.

Today, on the occasion of another similar world event, the meeting of the G7 in Biarritz, France, French President Macron accused Bolsonaro of lying when he talked and pledged environmental consciousness after taking office, about protecting the Amazon area. Macron was joined by Germany in threatening Brazil with canceling the trade agreement with Mercosur, if he would not immediately undertake to stop the “wildfires”. They have most likely nothing to do with ‘wild’ – as they according to all circumstantial evidence were planted in a concerted effort to rid the rich Amazon territory of the life-sustaining jungle, so as to make the newly gained flame-deforested land accessible for private agri-business and mining.

Mind you, the G7 is another self-appointed totally illegal group of industrialized, rich countries (similar to the G20); illegal, because they have been approved by nobody, not by the UN or any international body. They became rich mostly on the back of poor developing nations that were and are still colonized for hundreds of years. The G7 count today about 10% of the world population and are controlling 40% of the globe’s GDP.

Despite the fact that nobody, other than themselves ratified their existence and their machinations, they believe they can call the shots of how the world should turn and function. They have no official backing by anybody, especially not the people across the globe, who, with a vast majority are fighting globalization. It’s a useless structure – RT refers to them as “The Unbearable Pointlessness of G7” – but their power lays in the rest of the world’s silence – their silent acceptance of the G7’s arrogant wielding of the scepter of power.

So, would Bolsonaro take them seriously, knowing that he is one of them and they are fully sharing his ideology of profit first, shoving environmental and social values down the muddy waters of the Amazon River? Hardly. He knows they are hypocrites. He knows that they make a bit of noise, because they have to. It makes for good public relation and propaganda – so people don’t go on the barricades. He knows that starting this coming Monday, 26 August, when the G7 summit will be history, that anything the Macrons of this world so impressively said, will fade away. The media will concentrate on other ‘news’ – and the forest fires will burn the life stream of Amazonia away – to make room for corporate profit making by the elite few.

Never mind the Constitutional protection of indigenous people and their land, Bolsonaro backed by evangelists and his military junta will rapidly dismantle any remaining protection for the ecosystem and native communities. His argument goes that the native people’s land is sitting on huge reserves of natural resources that belong to Brazil and may be concessioned to private corporations for mining, exploitation of agriculture and lumber.

The indigenous folks are people who have for thousands of years made a peaceful living in the Amazon. They are the gatekeepers of Amazonia; they are the people who may carry our genes from the present killer civilization to the next, hopefully less of a killer one, when mankind has finally managed to destroy itself. It will not destroy the planet. Never. The planet will just get rid of the nefarious elements of annihilation – mankind – and renew itself. As has happened many times in the past – a new civilization will eventually be born – and, yes, the world’s indigenous people, the likely only survivors, may carry on our DNA, possibly to the next attempt at humanity.

—-

The fires have so far in about 20 days since they were discovered, consumed at least 74,000 ha of tropical rain forest. The smoke is already trespassing the border to Argentina and affecting the provinces of Formosa, Jujuy, Corrientes, Catamarca, La Rioja, Santa Fe and may have already reached Buenos Aires. NASA reports that about 3.2 million square kilometers of South America are covered by smoke.

The flames are massive and are devastating the jungle at a rapid pace. Amazonia comprises one of the world’s largest rainforests, also known as Mother Earth’s lungs – without which humanity – and fauna and flora might not survive.

According to the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE), the fires increased by 83% – almost double – from what they were last year, and, not coincidentally, at least 68% of protected areas have been affected. The Brazilian Space Research spotted 72,000 fires, of which 9,000 last week alone. The Amazon is home to 34 million people, including over 350 indigenous groups.

At the onset of the G7 conference, Mr. Macron twittered: “Our house is burning. Literally. The Amazon rain forest – the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen – is on fire. It is an international crisis. Members of the G7 Summit, let’s discuss this emergency first order in two days!”

The destruction of the Amazon is indeed a crime of first degree. Accordingly, there are protests around the world against Bolsonaro’s “free for all” mining, lumbering, land and water grabbing policies. The eco-warriors Extinction Rebellion (XR) organize widespread protests, and in front of London’s Brazilian Embassy protesters chanted, “Hey hey, ho ho, Bolsonaro’s got to go!”. —

While the Brazil fires catch world attention, there are jungle fires even larger than those in Amazonia burning down other parts of the world’s oxygen-generating lungs. Bloomberg cites NASA data, according to which last Thursday and Friday, 22 an 23 August – in two days alone – more than 6,900 fires were recorded in Angola and about 3,400 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), about 5 times as many as in the same two days in the Brazilian Amazon region. The destruction of the jungle in Africa progresses virtually unnoticed and is hardly reported in western media. Bloomberg is an exception. Whys is that?

Could it be that the same globalized corporations interested in Brazil’s natural resources underlaying the Amazon forests, are also interested in those enormous reserves of minerals and hydrocarbon resources of Central Africa? Have they – DRC, Angola and possibly others been encouraged tacitly or directly by Bolsonaro and his clan to let the jungle burn? There are plenty of Brazilian corporations which have a vivid interest in Angola, another former Portuguese colony.

Despite the G7 apparent concern to protect the world’s lungs in Amazonia, they seem to be oblivious about the Central African rain forest devastation. The massive African fires too advance rapidly and extinguish another part of the world’s lungs. But these fires are not on the G7 radar, or agenda for discussion, and nobody is threatened with sanctioning if the respective governments remain hapless onlookers.

In 2008, a so-called Amazon Fund, the first UN REDD+ initiative for the protection, preservation and monitoring of the Amazon region was created (UN REDD+ = reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and foster conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks).

Germany and Norway – and others – have accused Brazil for not having properly invested their contribution into the Fund. Norway has recently blocked a payment of US$ 30 million destined for the Fund. Germany had blocked already in early August the equivalent of US$ 39 million for different Amazon protection programs to be financed by the Fund. But Bolsonaro, in a nonchalant manner dismissed the blocked payments, suggesting that Germany should use the funds for reforestation of Germany.

In the case of Brazil, the threats by the Macron-Merkel duo – and others – seem to have had at least at the outset the effect that Bolsonaro is mobilizing the military to help extinguish the fires. Will he succeed? – Does he want to succeed? – In any case will the media continue reporting on progress once the G7 have gone home? – Will the world’s outcry be loud enough to force a concerted effort, possibly UN led – to fight and extinguish these fires that are menacing not only to destroy a key oxygen generator for life on mother earth, but also a UNESCO protected world heritage?

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.  Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

[babymilkaction]

Comments on WHO's High Level Commission

Consultation on the draft report of the WHO Independent High-level Commission on NCDs (Deadline: 16 May 2018) 

Baby Milk Action/IBFAN UK comments on this consultation (PDF or page down for full text)

While this draft  report contains some useful observations, these are totally undermined by the claims made in paras 36-41 and Recommendation 2. This section promotes Public Private Partnerships and other business friendly strategies as being essential to an effective NCD response with little or no acknowledgement of their risks, the lack of evidence for their effectiveness or  the fact that involvement of the private sector in policy setting is inappropriate and can sabotage government efforts to protect human rights to health and survival.

Text from WHO website: “The WHO Independent High-level Commission is hosting a web-based consultation from 10 to 16 May 2018 on a preliminary draft report dated 1 May 2018. Member States, UN organizations, NGOs, private sector entities, philanthropic foundations, and academic institutions are invited to submit their comments by email to ncdcommission@who.int by 16 May 2018.All relevant contributions received before or on 16 May 2018 will be published on this website. The comments received may serve as an input for the work of the Commission. The report will be launched on 1 June 2018. DISCLAIMER: The version dated 1 May 2018 is a working copy only and has not been endorsed by any of the Co-Chairs or Commissioners.”Draft report (1 May 2018): pdf, 454kbSource: WHO website (accessed on 11 May) See also: Commission website

    Baby Milk Action/IBFAN UK comments to WHO’s web-based consultation on the First Draft  Report of the WHO Independent High Level Commission on Non Communicable Diseases.   16th May 2018

 As one of WHO’s longest-standing partners that has worked with WHO to protect child health

since the late 1970s, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft report. Since the

comments we submitted in February are relevant to this response and since (despite our

request) they were not posted on WHO’s website, they are included at the end of this

submission.1

 IBFAN has submitted numerous comments regarding WHO’s work on NCDs, highlighting the role

of breastfeeding and infant and young child feeding in the prevention of NCDs and the need to

safeguard WHO’s interactions with the private sector. We attended the 1st  UN General Assembly

on NCDs, contributed to the development of the Political Declaration and launched the Conflict of

Interest Coalition at this event, demonstrating the concern of 161 NGOs to keep policy setting

free from commercial influence.2

 Our aim has been to protect WHO’s independence, integrity and trustworthiness in order to

maintain its capacity to fulfil its constitutional mandate and three core functions, to:

•  act as the directing and coordinating authority in international health work (Art.2a)

•  propose conventions, agreements and regulations…. (Art.2k)

•  assist in developing an informed public opinion among all peoples on matters of health

(Art. 2r)

Throughout the many debates about the role of Non State Actors, Member States have given

consistent reassurances that WHO’s policy-setting functions would be protected from

commercial influence. We were therefore concerned about the status of this new Commission in

relation to that of Member States, the future direction of WHO’s work in NCDs and WHO’s

recommendations to Member States. In February we raised specific concerns about the ‘advisory’

role of three proposed Commissioners, in particular Arnaud Bernaert, of the World Economic

Forum, a body that represents some of the worlds largest corporations whose marketing

practices are known to damage health and the environment , and who are actively involved

in deforestation , mono-cropping, land and sea grabbing  and risky technologies – all of which have

an impact on NCDs and the right to food.

We are worried and disappointed that our concerns where not acted upon and believe that the

draft Report provides clear evidence that there has indeed been commercial influence on the

Commission. For WHO to allow WEF to act as an ‘advisor’ in this way seems to us a derogation of

duty and we believe that the report and many of its assumptions and recommendations provide

ample evidence of the risks of this decision. We strongly urge a reconsideration of its whole

1 Conflicts of Interest concerns about three members of WHO’s new High-level Commission on NCDs

2 http://coicoalition.blogspot.co.uk

Baby Milk Action/IBFAN UK comments on the draft Report of WHO’s NCD Commission, May 2018 2

 approach before it is released as a WHO recommendation that is clearly intended to influence

Member States actions and decisions.

Examples of the report’s clear bias towards industry and recommendations that will lead

to an undermining and delay of effective strategies to protect public health .

While the report contains some useful observations, these are totally undermined by the claims

made in paras 36-41 and Recommendation 2. This section promotes Public Private Partnerships

and other business friendly strategies as being essential to an effective NCD response with little

or no acknowledgement of their risks, the lack of evidence for their effectiveness 3  or the fact that

involvement of the private sector in policy setting is inappropriate and can sabotage government

efforts to protect human rights to health and survival.

Para 30  outlines why countries are lagging behind but puts all the blame on governments for a

‘lack of political will’ to overcome market forces. The food industry is absolved of all

responsibility for its many and varied lobbying tactics that are known to undermine efforts to

regulate their activities. 4

 Little or no mention is made of the impact of trade or the need to integrate concerns about NCDs

into the work of Codex Alimentarius and to address the lack of conflicts of interest safeguards in

this body. Food businesses and their front groups are disproportionately and inappropriately

represented at Codex meetings (often sitting on government delegations and sometimes even

leading them).5

 No mention is made of the importance of breastfeeding and optimal infant and young child

feeding in the prevention of NCDs.

Para 36:  suggests that the 2011 Political Declaration on NCDs calls for engagement with the

Private sector, but makes no mention of Declaration’s call for such engagement to be

‘appropriate’. No mention is made of WHO’s frequent call for the avoidance of conflicts of interest

– apart from a brief mention of ‘management of conflicts of interest’ within a mixed bag of

principles in Para 32. 6

Para 37 and 38:  The rationale given for the establishment of a “fresh working relationship”  with

the food and related industries is the “limited progress”  made so far. Instead the report highlights

the progress made by the private sector in promoting products that are loosely defined as being

‘consistent with a healthy diet.’  The only identified problem is that these products are not more

‘affordable, accessible and available’ . No mention is made of the many countries that have brought

in effective regulations to control harmful marketing in the face of opposition from the food

industry – nor any mention of WHO’s recommendation to avoid ultra-processed foods and to

encourage instead culturally appropriate, bio-diverse and minimally processed locally produced

foods.

Para 38  makes the unsubstantiated claim that “all countries”  will benefit from “public private

partnerships”.  The report fails to mention that ‘partnerships’  are, by definition, arrangements for

‘shared governance’  to achieve ‘shared goals’,  that shared decision-making is their single most

unifying feature, that the term ‘Partnership’  implies ‘respect, trust, shared benefits’  and that with

the ‘image transfer’ gained from WHO, it has strong emotional and financial value, especially for

corporations whose marketing practices damage health, the environment and human rights.

3 What can we learn from collaborations between public health and the food and drinks industry?UK Health Forum, 2018.

http://www.babymilkaction.org/archives/16835 shorturl.at/lmnrJ

4 There are many examples – the following on one that relates to infant feeding: Interference in public health policy:

examples of how the baby food industry uses tobacco industry tactics. World Nutrition, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 2, p. 288-310, dec. 2017.

ISSN 2041 9775.

https://worldnutritionjournal.org/index.php/wn/article/view/155

5 French and US Trade delegations put child health at risk, IBFAN Press Release, Dec 2017

French and US Trade delegations put child health at risk

6 There are eight WHA Resolution on infant and young child feeding and the Global Strategy on Diet Physical Activity and

Health that specifically call for avoidance of conflicts of interest and commercial influence.

Conflicts of interest

Baby Milk Action/IBFAN UK comments on the draft Report of WHO’s NCD Commission, May 2018 3

 IBFAN’s experience with Multi-Stakeholder Platforms in the european context has identified

many problems.

For example:

§  consensus cannot be reached on the most effective policies such as the regulation of

marketing;

§  there is a ‘lowering of the bar’ and emphasis on small incremental changes, voluntary

initiatives , self-regulation and self-monitoring  (according to industry’s own criteria);

§  weak industry ‘Codes of Conduct’ with no legal power are promoted as adequate

‘governance;’

§  industry-funded ‘lifestyle’ educational activities predominate, blurring the boundaries

between marketing and education and providing ‘cover’ for ongoing irresponsible

marketing.

§  Meanwhile the ongoing pressure to form partnerships with the private sector threatens

the independence and watchdog role of the civil society organizations.

Para 39  suggests that governments should employ ‘their regulatory and legislative powers to

protect the population’  only ‘when engagement with the private sector fails.’  This is a clear

delaying tactic. No mention is made of States’ Human Rights obligations, outlined in CRC General

Comment No 16, regarding the impact of the business sector on children’s rights and that States

are required to ‘implement and enforce internationally agreed standards concerning children’s

rights, health and business, including […] the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk

Substitutes and relevant subsequent World Health Assembly resolutions’ .7

Para 41:  Extols the benefits of technological curative approaches to NCDs, with no mention of

the risks of these approaches and how over-emphasis on such technologies can divert attention

from essential primary health care, preventive approaches and attention to the precautionary

principle.

Submission sent in February 2018

Baby Milk Action/IBFAN UK submission to WHOs two-week consultation on its proposed

NCD Commission.

 I am writing on behalf of Baby Milk Action/IBFAN UK regarding our concerns about three of the

proposed Commissioners for WHO’s Independent Global High-level Commission on NCDs.

As one of WHO’s longest-standing public interest partners, IBFAN places great value on WHO’s

Core constitutional norm-setting functions and its independence, integrity and trustworthiness.

With this in mind we respectfully urge WHO to ensure that the appointments and terms of

reference for this Commission safeguard WHO’s core constitutional functions:

•  as the directing and coordinating authority in international health work (Art.2a);

•  its mandate to propose conventions, agreements and regulations (Art.2k);

Our comments relate to the fact that the Commission has an advisory role.

Arnaud Bernaert : IBFAN’s concern relates to Mr Bernaert’s role as Senior Director of Global

Health and Healthcare of the World Economic Forum (WEF). WEF members include some of the

worlds largest corporations whose marketing practices are known to damage health and

the environment, and who are actively involved in deforestation, mono-cropping, land and sea

grabbing and risky technologies.

7 http://www.ohchr.org/en/HRBodies/CRC/Pages/CRCIndex.aspx

Baby Milk Action/IBFAN UK comments on the draft Report of WHO’s NCD Commission, May 2018 4

 WEF and its members are not benign bystanders in relation to UN policies. Indeed WEF’s Global

Redesign Initiative , launched in 2010, proposes that issues are taken off  the agenda of the UN

system to be addressed instead by ‘plurilateral, often multi-stakeholder, coalitions of the willing

and the able.’  The GRI envisages a world managed  by a coalition of multinational corporations,

nation states (including through the UN System) and select civil society organisations.

Since 2009 when WHO established the short-lived NCDNet, IBFAN has opposed proposals that

WEF should have any advisory role in relation to WHO. While WEF or its members may act

as multipliers/disseminators of WHO recommendations – and certainly have access to vast

amounts of information that policy makers might find useful – we believe that WHO would be

reneging on its constitutional mandate and would set a bad model for Member States, if it was to

go further and to allow a representative of WEF to have the advisory role  of Commissioner on

any public health policy matter. Throughout the many debates about the role of Non State

Actors, Member States have given consistent reassurances that WHO’s policy-setting functions

would be protected from commercial influence. It should be among WHO’s highest priorities to

ensure that this is the case.

WHO Draft Global Programme of Work (Rev 2) Para 78: “At the same time WHO sets norms

and standards which differentiates it from these other actors in global health. WHO’s Framework of

Engagement with Non-State Actors provides the guidance needed to engage in partnerships with all

types of non-State actors while maintaining the Organization’s integrity and independence from

interests detrimental to health”. 111. “… At the same time, WHO must protect its work from conflict

of interest, reputational risks, and undue influence.” FENSA Para 4: “… This requires a robust

framework that enables engagement and serves also as an instrument to identify the risks,

balancing them against the expected benefits, while protecting and preserving WHO’s integrity,

reputation and public health mandate.”

 An additional concern is Mr Berbaert’s former role (until 2014) as Senior Vice-President of

Philips Healthcare in charge of global strategy, business development. Philips manufactures

medical equipment and a range of other products, including baby feeding bottles that are covered

by the scope of International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes  and subsequent relevant

WHA Resolutions. Throughout Mr Berbaert’s time at Philips, the company marketed these

products in ways that are in violation of that Code. Philips currently claims to be the “#1 brand

recommended by mums worldwide”  [1]

Dr Sania Nishtar , Former Federal Minister, Pakistan, Founding President, Heartfile . While

we acknowledge and appreciate the areas where our advocacy aims are in line, our concern

about Dr Nishtar’s appointment as Co-Chair of the Commission relates to an article published in

the medical journal, the Lancet  (Vol 390 October 21, 2017): The NCDs Cooperative: a call to

action.  In this article Dr Nishtar called for the setting up of an “international multistakeholder

agency called The NCDs Cooperative …” stating that “WHO’s mandate and governance structure

may preclude it from leading and hosting a multisectoral public–private partnership.”  The clear

implication is that WHO’s conflict of interest safeguards – inadequate as we believe them to be –

are an obstacle to progress that should be bypassed. Surely the role of all the Commissioners

should be to uphold WHO policy and help WHO make recommendations that are fully in line?

Sadly Dr Nishtar’s article failed to provide evidence of the efficacy of public private partnerships

(PPPs) or highlight their known risks in relation to NCD prevention and other threats to global

health. It is worth noting that since 2003 OECD Guidelines ‘Managing conflict of interest in the

public service ’ have identified PPPs and hybrid entities as particular “at risk areas”  for conflicts of

interest.[2]

We hope that the new Commission will help governments remain in the drivers seat when

tackling NCDs. It could encourage them to have clear assessments of their national situations

based on hard data, with goals, a clear strategy, and careful consideration of whether and what

role private sector should play in its implementation. Pretending that it is easy or feasible to

find ‘Common ground’  with corporations – especially on regulatory issues – will not be helpful.

Baby Milk Action/IBFAN UK comments on the draft Report of WHO’s NCD Commission, May 2018 5

Katie Dain, CEO NCD Alliance , Co-Chair, WHO Civil Society Working Group for the third

High-level Meeting on NCDs.  We are concerned about the proposal to have the NCD Alliance

represent civil society on this Commission and Co-chair the Civil Society Working Group. Our

concern relates to the funding of the NCD Alliance. The NCDa was established by a US$1 million

grant from the world’s largest medical technology company (Medtronics) and according to the

most recent available evidence, we understand that nearly 50% of its funding is derived from

other pharmaceutical companies (e.g., Novo Nordisck, Sanofi, Lilly, and Merck). All these

companies are directly subject to WHO Guidance to national governments. They all have a clear

financial incentive to influence WHO policies, to favour ‘treatment’ rather than ‘prevention’

while undermining efforts to bring in regulations that affect their bottom line. NCDA’s nonindustry

members include the World Heart Federation and the International Diabetes

Federation, entities that are also substantially funded by pharmaceutical companies.

For all the above reasons, and while we acknowledge and appreciate the areas where our

advocacy aims are currently in line, we cannot support the proposal that NCDa should represent

Civil Society on this Commission. Like many public interest NGOs, we have made the decision to

refuse corporate funding and our advocacy in relation to public private partnerships and the

involvement of corporations differs to that of NCDa in several key areas.

For more information contact: Patti Rundall, prundall@babymilkaction.org

Comments on WHO’s High Level Commission was originally published on Baby Milk Action