Thi Thuy Van Dinh, David Bell: The UN Machinery against Human Rights

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED (…)

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and (…)

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS (…)

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

–United Nations Charter Preamble (1945)

This is the last part in a series looking at the plans of the United Nations (UN) and its agencies designing and implementing the agenda of the Summit of the Future in New York on 22-23 September 2024, and its implications for global health, economic development, and human rights. Previous articles are accessible on Brownstone Journal:

Part I: The UN Smothers The Peoples With Compassion

Part II: The UN’s Green Agenda Will Spark Famine

Part III: The UN Invites Its Friends To Dinner

Part IV: Three New Pacts To Be Approved At The UN Summit

The UN Secretariat will hold its Summit of the Future at its headquarters in New York this week, on 22-23 September 2024. Few could number the many global summits that have been held across this nebulous grouping of entities, programs, and funds, although a list of the major ones may be found. They all focus on the noblest causes such as human rights, the environment, development, education, sustainable development, children, indigenous people, that no one can easily oppose.

These gatherings give professional politicians an opportunity to make declarations in front of the iconic blue and white peace flag, skillfully posing for pictures for their domestic cover pages. International and national staff take advantage of business class travel on tax-paid money and fancy hotels, justifying again their irreplaceable jobs, comfortable salaries, and perks. The media tell us how they all feel inspired and moved by the new agenda and how sincere these promises are. Pre-approved non-governmental organizations (NGOs), frequently led by former politicians, and espousing humanitarian missions in concert with the international aid they parasitize, move in to shake hands with the big boys and applaud the system.

All is beautifully scripted, staged, and acted. This is the ever-growing UN industrial complex.

Only ‘We The Peoples’ are not there.

Once built on the premise of improving human lives, rights, and livelihoods, the system has become a cause unto itself, repeating the same empty messages and hypocritical promises over and over again, and always expanding. There are always compelling reasons to spend the money of others.

A System Self-Proclaimed for ‘The Peoples’

The UN Charter, signed on 26 June 1945 in San Francisco in the aftermath of the Second World War, began with the first famous words inspired by the 1787 US Constitution for an international context “We The Peoples of the United Nations…” These are the words from which the UN system draws its legitimacy based on the principle that those elected by, or representing ‘The Peoples,’ make decisions on their behalf. Article 55 affirms the role of the organs to be created.

Article 55 (UN Charter)

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

– higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

– solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and

– universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

However, unlike the American Founding Fathers who immediately chose to guarantee inalienable and fundamental rights of their citizens in the first set of amendments agreed upon in 1791 (known as the Bill of Rights), the UN’s founders merely achieved in 1948 a symbolic Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) without binding force, although it later inspired key international and regional human rights treaties.

A major provision, Article 19(2), is often overlooked, despite its profound impact on the interpretation of all other provisions recognizing fundamental rights based on the circumstances where human rights may be limited. The second paragraph (highlighted below) allows limitations made to human rights and freedoms by authorities for the sake of preserving “morality, public order and the general welfare.”

Article 29 (UDHR)

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3, These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The third provision here is where the UDHR and the US Bill of Rights diverge most fundamentally. Whilst the purpose of the US Bill of Rights was to stop a tyrannical government from overriding the will of the people, the UDHR specifically states that the UN, in its increasing determination to centralize authority within itself, can do so. After laying out the fundamental principles that humans are equal and of equal worth, they could not bring themselves to leave it there but needed to ensure that some were more equal than others.

Human history has shown that it is effortless for any government to claim that the restrictive laws meet requirements for “general welfare” and the greater good, especially in situations deemed by those in power to be endangering public order. The Covid-19 experience has shown that emergency measures are far more readily imposed than they are withdrawn, and the People’s desire for fundamental rights and freedoms may be limited by irrational fear spread by those in power. This is exactly why constitutions should prevent such abuse, rather than justify it.

Two Weeks for the UN to Flatten Human Rights

The UN system is led by the highest servant of ‘The Peoples’ – the Secretary-General (UNSG). According to UNSG’s own website, “the Secretary-General is a symbol of United Nations ideals and a spokesperson for the interests of the world’s peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them.” This official is expected to “uphold the values and moral authority of the UN” even at the risk of challenging some Member States.

On 24 February 2020, human rights were still proclaimed at the center of the system. At a press conference at WHO’s headquarters in Geneva, UNSG Antonio Guterres urged that “all countries must do everything, respecting naturally the principle of non-discrimination, without stigmatisation, respecting human rights – but doing everything that they can to contain the disease.” While “doing everything they can…” implicitly put the importance of the disease above human rights concerns, at least these rated a prominent mention.

On 11 March 2020, WHO declared Covid-19 a pandemic.

On 19 March 2020, at a virtual press conference, UNSG sent out his blessing to any exceptional measure to be taken since the world was “at war with the virus”:

My central message is clear: We are in an unprecedented situation and the normal rules no longer apply. We cannot resort to the usual tools in such unusual times.

Nevertheless, he still made a verbal effort to uphold his mandate: “We must recognize that the poorest and most vulnerable — especially women — will be the hardest hit.” But recognition, of course, is not respect or protection. His statement was alarming in that he, and anyone paying attention, already knew that the vast majority of the world’s population was at minimal or no risk, and only the sick elderly were shown to be likely to suffer from the virus directly. However, the impact of the unusual response on human rights and in increasing poverty and inequality were also expected.

On 26 March 2020, Guterres encouraged States to shut down completely until a vaccine came.

Allow me to highlight three critical areas for concerted G-20 action.

First, to suppress the transmission of COVID-19 as quickly as possible.

That must be our common strategy.

It requires a coordinated G-20 response mechanism guided by WHO.

All countries must be able to combine systematic testing, tracing, quarantining and treatment with restrictions on movement and contact – aiming to suppress transmission of the virus.

And they have to coordinate the exit strategy to keep it suppressed until a vaccine becomes available.

Was Guterres a real spokesperson for the poorest and the most vulnerable, those who were most disadvantaged by restrictive measures? No, he wasn’t. He never invited States to review their emergency measures.

One month later, on 27 April 2020, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), headquartered in Palais Wilson, Geneva, not far from the World Health Organization (WHO), released its guidance on “Emergency measures and Covid-19.” It validated the restrictive measures “for public health reasons,” encouraging rather than questioning the removal of the basic rights the organization was once assumed to uphold and listed the following 6 requirements for emergency measures:

– Legality: The restriction must be “provided by law.” This means that the limitation must be contained in a national law of general application, which is in force at the time the limitation is applied. The law must not be arbitrary or unreasonable, and it must be clear and accessible to the public.

– Necessity: The restriction must be necessary for the protection of one of the permissible grounds stated in the 1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which include public health, and must respond to a pressing social need.

– Proportionality: The restriction must be proportionate to the interest at stake, and be the least intrusive option among those that might achieve the desired result.

– Non-discrimination: No restriction shall discriminate contrary to the provisions of international human rights law.

– All limitations should be interpreted strictly and in favor of the right at issue. No limitation can be applied in an arbitrary manner.

– The authorities have the burden of justifying restrictions upon rights.

In addition, emergency legislation and measures taken must be: i) strictly temporary in scope; ii) the least intrusive to achieve the stated public health goals, and iii) including safeguards such as review clauses, in order to ensure a return to ordinary laws as soon as the emergency situation is over.

No follow-up actions were taken by the UN regarding the consideration of this guidance.

‘We The Peoples’ have learned a hard lesson: Our lives and rights were not the reason for the UN, but subject to it and its wealthy and powerful partners.

Remarkably, less than a year later, in February 2021, Guterres penned an article in the Guardian newspaper to condemn the “pandemic of human rights abuses.” He conveniently did not mention the complicity of the UN system in aiding, abetting, and promoting lockdowns. He completely failed to include any self-assessment of whether his public actions (speeches) and inactions, or those of his organization, contributed to this unprecedented and protracted abuse on a global scale.

An Irrational Panic to Kill the Individual Right to Bodily Autonomy

Following Guterres’ example, the OHCHR did not defend the fundamental right to refuse vaccines, as one would assume its mandate demanded.

On 17 December 2020, the Office released its statements on “Human Rights and Covid-19 vaccines.” Amazingly, it proposed to recognize these vaccines as “global public goods” and called for their equitable distribution and affordable price. Nowhere in the document was mentioned the right for anyone to elect not to be injected, as the basis of international human rights agreements, such as the Nuremberg Code would seem to demand.

Nuremberg Code

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision (…)

The OHCHR’s inadequate understanding of human rights was not a mistake. It persisted and signed. On 8 December 2021, in a video message (entitled “Covid-19 and vaccine inequity by Michelle Bachelet” on YouTube – for unknown reason, the written statement is only downloadable but unavailable online, unlike other public statements by all Chiefs of UN Offices) addressed to the Human Rights Council, its Chief, Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet, stated that (at the 5:30 mark) “any mandatory vaccination regime needs flexibilities for appropriate exceptions,” but that “it may be acceptable to condition the exercise of certain other rights and liberties – such as access to schools, hospitals, or other public, or publicly accessible, spaces – on vaccination.”

Although Bachelet recognized that forced injections were not acceptable (“in no circumstances should people be forcibly administered a vaccine”), she was perfectly happy to restrict what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR, including that of education and participation in society. It was extremely strange that she did not define what was forced vaccination. Vast numbers of people on earth took the vaccines because they were threatened with losing jobs, or losing the right to see family members, attend schools, reopen their business, or even to receive medical treatment. Surely must this amount to forced injections within any reasonable assessment of human need?

Bachelet further stated that appropriate fines could be part of legal consequences for refuseniks. Her flawed arguments were probably based on the so-called ‘greater good’ approach of Covid-19, widely associated in the past with fascist and other totalitarian regimes. Such measures were falsely promoted through the WHO’s propagandistic slogan “No one is safe until everyone is safe,” referenced in her speech.

It is dumbfounding that, for Bachelet – a physician by training (Humboldt University of Berlin) and once Chile’s Minister of Health then President – vaccine mandates did not violate human rights principles. Didn’t she know about the Nuremberg Code developed so near her place of learning, that codifies 10 principles of individual autonomy and the absolute principle of voluntary consent for medical experiments and treatments? (And yes, the mRNA vaccines were still experimental, but informed consent is also basic to all medical ethics.)

Didn’t she know that the UDHR also put the individual first before any greater good, and that there is no community good that doesn’t allow a free and full development of an individual’s personality?

Article 29 (UDHR)

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

These two texts, the Nuremberg Code and UDHR – of non-binding nature, however codifying the highest ethical and moral values of our societies, were developed after World War II to protect individuals at the mercy of authorities who, very often, have the monopoly of violence, control, and punishment, while telling their populations to sacrifice for the community’s “greater good.”

Conclusion

The enormous harms on fundamental rights and freedoms of the voiceless billions have been fast buried, while the UN machinery continues its business as usual. This time, ironically enough, with an agenda for the future initiated by the same Guterres. While proposing 3 non-binding documents (Pact for the Future, Declaration for Future Generations, and Global Digital Compact), the UN plans to expand its mandate and funding to advise and lead on every issue, including the “needs and interests of future generations” and “artificial intelligence.”

It claims to be the only competent and legitimate authority to prevent and manage the eventual “complex global shocks,” meaning crises beyond one single State’s border and capacity. However, without serious and independent assessments of the outrageous Covid response, and without recognition of the UN’s technical, advisory, and moral failures, any agenda forward should be assumed intended to serve the same authoritarian, and for the UN’s partners, very profitable aims.

These documents likely will be adopted by the same political leaders who are yet to face inquiries for committing crimes against humanity on their own populations. To employ their logic, the crimes against the rights of future generations (national debts, poverty, and no education imposed) shall be also investigated.

The UN machinery has grown too old and detached to remember ‘The Peoples’ it is supposed to serve. Worse, it continues to betray its own purposes and principles. It has become a self-serving system, working closely with those having the same targets. It doesn’t care if ‘We The Peoples’ ignore its Summit, oppose, or embrace it. We are not supposed to be part of the process, just its subjects as it forges a world in the image of those we once thought we had defeated.

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.

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.

This article was first published HERE