NOTE FROM THE EDITOR:

Its author, James Corbett, is an investigative journalist who lives in Japan since 2004. What he writes is his opinion and does not necessarily El Reportero‘s – Vale, Marvin Ramírez.

THIS is How Global Government is Run (and What’s Coming Next…)

by James Corbett

Newsflash: contrary to the worries of conspiracy realists, global government is NOT a far-off, distant threat waiting for us in some potential dystopian future.

No, it’s not a future threat. The truth is that global government is already set up and functioning. Here. Now.

In fact, it’s not even happening in secret. It’s happening in the most visible way possible: a party.

Oops! Did I say “party”? I meant “Conference of the Parties,” of course, aka the mechanism by which individual nation-states have been willingly ceding their sovereignty to the globalist technocrats for decades now.

Never heard of “Conference of the Parties,” you protest? Of course you have. I talk about the COP of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP pretty much every year. In fact, I’ve been covering it since at least COP 15 in Copenhagen in 2009. Lest we forget, 2009 was the year EU President (and Bilderberg lackey) Herman von Rompuy declared to be “the first year of global government,” specifically citing the COP in Copenhagen as “another step towards the global management of our planet.”

Another step, indeed.

Fast forward to 2023. The globalists are fueling up their private jets and chauffered limosines for another wine-and-dine fest—this time COP 28 in Dubai. Yes, it’s just a matter of weeks until we get to bear witness to the annual ritual of these would-be global rulers jetting in to lecture us peons about how we’re not doing enough to save the planet.

But do you know what a COP really is? And did you know that the UNFCCC’s COP is not the only COP being run by the de facto global government? And did you know that the real point of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) so-called “pandemic treaty” is to establish yet another COP chamber in this increasingly bloated shadow government?

Get in, buckle up and hold on. You’re in for one of the most important lessons of your life.

On one level, the entire concept of a “Conference of the Parties”—or, in globalese, a “COP”—is as simple and straightforward as it is innocuous.

Just ask our <sarc>friends</sarc> over at Climate.gov, who provide this definition for COP in relation to the annual UNFCCC summit:

COP is an international climate meeting held each year by the United Nations. COP is short for “Conference of the Parties,” meaning those countries who joined—are “party to,” in legal terms—the international treaty called the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Parties to the treaty have committed to take voluntary actions to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic [human-caused] interference with the climate system.”

Note how the friendly folks over at Climate.gov (brought to you by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration!) are keen to stress that, under the terms of the UNFCCC, the “parties” are legally committed to take voluntary actions to prevent the sky dragons from torching the planet.

Relax, guys, it’s all voluntary*!

*You’re just legally obligated to do it.

In fact, you’ll note that this strange obligatory/voluntary tension pervades Climate.gov’s COP write-up and any number of similar COP explainers.

The parties agree to specific goals for limiting human emissions of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and halogen-containing gases like CFCs) to a specific amount by a given year in the future. Countries participating in the treaty develop their own voluntary pledges—known as Nationally Determined Contributions—to meet the agreed-on targets. Countries are free to develop a mixture of policies that is most economical or advantageous for them. They must report on their successes or failures to meet their voluntary targets at the annual COP meetings.

Hmmm. They “agree to specific goals” but “develop their own voluntary pledges” to meet those targets and they “must” report on their progress toward those “voluntary” targets.

Confused yet? Good. Then the globalists will be happy to hear they’re doing their job right.

You see, these technocratic schemers realize that no one is going to bother digging up (let alone actually reading) the Framework Convention on Climate Change itself.

They realize that average people have enough on their plate just working their 9-to-5 and making ends meet, so they’re not apt to discover the tyrannical rules their government has legally committed them to under Article 4 of the climate change convention.

And they realize that no one is going to bother to follow the threads and figure out the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change isn’t the only supranational, sovereignty-busting, globalist treaty signing entire nations on to the UN Agenda. There’s also the Chemical Weapons Convention and the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Stockholm Convention and a bewildering array of such similar international agreements.

And even if the average Joe and Jane did familiarize themselves with all of these various conventions and all of the things that these agreements obligate their nation to do, they wouldn’t take the trouble to read the Rules of Procedure dictating how these “Conferences of the Parties” are actually run.

Thus, they’ll never read Rule 30 of the UNFCCC COP:

Meetings of the Conference of the Parties shall be held in public, unless the Conference of the Parties decides otherwise.

Or Rule 32:

No one may speak at a meeting of the Conference of the Parties without having previously obtained the permission of the President.

Or Rule 42:

Decisions on matters of substance shall be taken by consensus, except that decisions on financial matters shall be taken by a two-thirds majority vote.

And if, by some minor miracle, they did bone up on the Rules of Procedure for the UNFCCC COP, they’d then find out that they haven’t even scratched the surface.

Why?

Because, there’s not only a COP for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, there are also individual COPs for the UNFCCC sub-groups, like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.

And there’s a COP for the UN Convention to Combat Desertification.

And a COP for the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

And a COP for the Chemical Weapons Convention.

And a COP for the Stockholm Convention and a COP for the Rotterdam Convention and a COP for the Basel Convention and COPs for the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol.

So you see, global government is already here. It is operating through a network of conventions and agreements, obligating governments to act in certain ways and committing them to reaching various targets in a wide variety of fields.

And guess what? As bad as all of this is, it’s about to get even worse.

THE WHO: NEW COP ON THE BLOCK

Remember that WHO document popularly referred to as the “pandemic treaty” that I’ve been ringing the alarm bell about over and over and over and over for the past two years?

Well, it’s not called the “pandemic treaty” anymore. It has now transitioned from its previous formal title of a “WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response” to the somewhat less unwieldy “WHO Pandemic Agreement.” The latest draft of that agreement was released three weeks ago. Have you read it yet?

If you did read that document, you would have noticed all manner of horrible things hidden deep in that forest of legalese—like, for example, the worryingly woolly language used to describe the “infodemic” problem and the accompanying internet censorship solution that both Tedros and UNESCO are now openly lusting after.

You will also no doubt have noticed something relevant to today’s subject buried on page 24:

 Article of the Parties. Conference of the parties

Oh, of course.

Yes, this is a move straight out of the globalist playbook: distract everyone with the word “treaty” to make them think that this is a document that will require special ratification by their national parliament or congress, and then spring an “agreement” on them that will, in most cases, do a complete end run around the political process. And then, as the coup de grâce, insert an article establishing an entirely new bureaucracy, one that will serve as a de facto arm of global government—one that can then redraft and rewrite the global health rules at will at any time in the future.

It’s malevolent. It’s dictatorial. It’s a travesty. But you have to admit it’s brilliant.

Assuming this agreement (or something very much like it) gets the rubber stamp at the 77th World Health Assembly in Geneva next May, most people won’t understand what just happened any more than they understood what happened when the UNFCCC established its COP or any of these other globalist institutions first established their respective COPs.

So, for those who can’t be bothered to read the WHO Pandemic Agreement (or even just Article 21 of that agreement), here are the lowlights:

1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established. The Conference of the Parties shall be comprised of delegates representing the Parties to the WHO Pandemic Agreement. Only delegates representing Parties will participate in any of the decision-making of the Conference of the Parties. The Conference of the Parties shall establish the criteria for the participation of observers at its proceedings.

[. . .]

3. The first session of the Conference of the Parties shall be convened by the World Health Organization not later than one year after the entry into force of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.
4. Following the first session of the Conference of the Parties: (a) subsequent regular sessions of the Conference of the Parties shall be held annually.

[. . .]

5. The Conference of the Parties shall adopt by consensus its Rules of Procedure at its first session.
6. The Conference of the Parties shall by consensus adopt financial rules for itself as well as governing the funding of any subsidiary bodies of the Conference of the Parties that are or may be established, as well as financial provisions governing the functioning of the Secretariat. It shall also adopt a biennial budget.
7. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation, and may adopt amendments, annexes and protocols to the WHO Pandemic Agreement.

[. . .]

9. The Conference of the Parties shall establish subsidiary bodies to carry out the work of the Conference of the Parties, as it deems necessary, on terms and modalities to be defined by the Conference of the Parties. Such subsidiary bodies may include, without limitation, an Implementation and Compliance Committee, a panel of experts to provide scientific advice and a WHO PABS System Expert Advisory Group.

There you go. The global government is about to assume jurisdiction over your health. It is in the process of setting up its governing body for drafting up the rules that will control your government’s response to the next declared scamdemic. And hardly anyone in the public even knows this is happening.

Any questions?

I thought not.

Of course, some might object: “Don’t worry! It says right there in black and white that the rules of procedure and the funding for this body have to be adopted by consensus! You can’t even get three of these technocrats to agree on what to eat for lunch, so nothing will ever get decided!”

But if you do raise that objection then it’s clear you’ve never seen what this type of “consensus agreement” looks like in the WHO process. (SPOILER: it involves a confused old man vaguely asking if the committee is ready to approve the draft, looking around the room of half-asleep bureaucrats for ten seconds, declaring that the draft has been approved and then having to repeat his declaration so that the assembled functionaries and gophers know it’s their cue to applaud.)

This is how your coming global governmental body will be brought into existence. This is how it will establish its Rules of Procedure (which can be composed of whatever phoney baloney rules they want). This is how it will establish its funding mechanism: in a transparent sham of a parody of the “democracy” that these rulers pretend to hold dear.

THIS IS HOW SOVEREIGNTY ENDS

“Shut up, conspiracy theorist!” say the professors and the politicians and the obedient establishment toadies in the lapdog press when confronted with the argument laid out in this editorial. “This COP business isn’t global government and it isn’t nefarious. After all, your governments have voluntarily committed themselves to these agreements and thus to be bound by whatever decisions the COPs make!”

Hard to argue with that, isn’t it?

Unless, of course, we understand that our governments’ arbitrary enactment of rules and restrictions without our consent is precisely the problem.

First, our (s)elected representatives sign us up to overarching, unaccountable, international bodies like the UN and the WHO. Then they appointed nameless/faceless bureaucrats to act as our unelected representatives at those bodies that sign us up to conventions and agreements that most of us don’t even know exist. These conventions and agreements then “obligate” our national governments to take certain actions or to refrain from certain other actions. Finally, those same governments pass legislation that makes these pledges and targets and restrictions the law of our land.

But all this is “voluntary,” you see? It’s all above board. There’s no global government—only global conventions that parties have agreed to abide by.

And to rub even more salt in the wound, those same fact checkers who would deny that this web of conventions and agreements in fact constitutes a de facto global government will also tell us that these agreements don’t go far enough in removing any pretense of national sovereignty from the international system.

Just ask Mostafa El-Harazi and Noor Irshaidat. They are the two Carey School of Law juris doctor students who penned an op-ed for the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy last year, in which they lamented: “What is notably missing [from the UNFCCC], however, is an ‘enforcement mechanism;’ a provision to explicitly deter state parties to the UNFCCC from noncompliance through fines or jurisdiction to an international court like the International Court of Justice.”

Or ask the boffins over at ScienceDirect, who, in their overview of the UNFCCC, bemoan its toothlessness: “[T]he UNFCCC contains few specific requirements and, notably, no enforceable requirement for signatories to reduce the emission of GHGs.”

Or ask boffins like Robert Keohane and David Victor, whose 2016 Nature article on “Cooperation and discord in global climate policy” asserts, “Effective mitigation of climate change will require deep international cooperation, which is much more difficult to organize than the shallow coordination observed so far.”

But, as I say, not one person in a thousand even knows about the Framework Convention on Climate Change or the Basel Convention or the proposed WHO COP, and not one person in a million knows what any of these bodies “voluntarily” obligate the member parties to do.

Would you prefer to watch the sportsball game or read a hundred-page document of complicated legal jargon? Would you rather go out for a night on the town with your friends or commit to studying the organizational chart of some obscure arm of the UN bureacuracy?

Exactly. As I’ve had cause to note before, The End of the World Will Bore You to Tears.

So, if we perish from lack of knowledge, then how do we thrive?

By learning more about these instruments of control, that’s how.

Specifically, we can counteract the globalist agenda by learning more about the treaties and agreements and conventions that are increasingly governing our lives. Then we can parlay our knowledge into a movement. We’ll know we’re making progress when the drive to exit the WHO (and exit the UN while we’re at it) become the only political issues that people are interested in talking about. And we’ll know we’ve really been successful when those same people start talking about individual sovereignty and our natural right to withdraw from every governmental system of control.