U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

[AlaskaDenise]

Bush's SPP power grab sets stage for military to manage flu threats

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America summit in Canada released a plan that established U.N. law along with regulations by the World Trade Organization and World Health Organization as supreme over U.S. law and set the stage for militarizing the management of continental health emergencies.


The "North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza" was finalized at the SPP summit last week in Montebello, Quebec.

At the same time, the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, has created a webpage dedicated to avian flu and has been running exercises in preparation for the possible use of U.S. military forces in a continental domestic emergency involving avian flu or pandemic influenza.

With virtually no media attention, in 2005 President Bush shifted U.S. policy on avian flu and pandemic influenza, placing the country under international guidelines not specifically determined by domestic agencies.
The policy shift was formalized Sept. 14, 2005, when Bush announced a new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza to a High-Level Plenary Meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, in New York.


The new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza was designed to supersede an earlier November 2005 Homeland Security report that called for a U.S. national strategy that would be coordinated by the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Agriculture.

The 2005 plan, operative until Bush announced the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza, directed the State Department to work with the WHO and U.N., but it does not mention that international health controls are to be considered controlling over relevant U.S. statutes or authorities.

Under the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza, Bush agreed the U.S. would work through the U.N. system influenza coordinator to develop a continental emergency response plan operating through authorities under the WTO, North American Free Trade Agreement and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.

WND could find no evidence the Bush administration presented the Influenza Partnership plan to Congress for oversight or approval.

The SPP plan for avian and pandemic influenza announced at the Canadian summit last week embraces the international control principles Bush first announced to the U.N. in his 2005 International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza declaration.

The SPP plan gives primacy for avian and pandemic influenza management to plans developed by the WHO, WTO, U.N. and NAFTA directives ? not decisions made by U.S. agencies.

The U.N.-WHO-WTO-NAFTA plan advanced by SPP features a prominent role for the U.N. system influenza coordinator as a central international director in the case of a North American avian flu or pandemic influenza outbreak.

In Sept. 2005, Dr. David Nabarro was appointed the first U.N. system influenza coordinator, a position which also places him as a senior policy adviser to the U.N. director-general.

Nabarro joined the WHO in 1999 and was appointed WHO executive director of sustainable development and health environments in July 2002.

In a Sept. 29, 2005, press conference at the U.N., Nabarro made clear that his job was to prepare for the H5N1 virus, known as the avian flu.

Nabarro fueled the global fear that an epidemic was virtually inevitable.
In response to a question about the 1918-1919 flu pandemic that killed approximately 40 million people worldwide, Nabarro commented, "I am certain there will be another pandemic sometime."

Nabarro stressed at the press conference that he saw as inevitable a worldwide pandemic influenza coming soon that would kill millions.

He quantified the deaths he expected as follows: "I'm not, at the moment at liberty to give you a prediction on numbers, but I just want to stress, that, let's say, the range of deaths could be anything from 5 to 150 million."

In a March 8, 2006, U.N. press conference that was reported on a State Department website, Nabarro predicted an outbreak of the H5N1 virus would "reach the Americas within the next six to 12 months."

On Feb. 1, 2006, NORTHCOM hosted representatives of more than 40 international, federal and state agencies for "an exercise designed to provoke discussion and determine what governmental actions, including military support, would be necessary in the event of an influenza pandemic in the United States."

NORTHCOM and other governmental websites document the growing role the Bush administration plans for the U.S. military to be involved in continental domestic emergencies involving health, including avian flu and pandemic influenza.

NORTHCOM participated in a nationwide Joint Chiefs of Staff-directed exercise ? code-named Exercise Ardent Sentry 06 ? to rehearse cooperation between Department of Defense and local, state and federal agencies, as well as the Canadian government.

A pandemic influenza crisis was one of the four scenarios gamed in Exercise Ardent Sentry 06, involving a scenario of a plague in Mexico reaching across the border into Arizona and New Mexico.

As has been customary in SPP documents and declarations, the Montebello, Canada, announcement of the North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza acknowledges in passing the sovereignty of the three nations.

The announcement says, "The Plan is not intended to replace existing arrangements or agreements. As such, each country's laws are to be respected and this Plan is to be subordinate and complementary to domestic response plans, existing arrangements and bilateral or multilateral agreements."

Still, the SPP plan argues the risk from avian and pandemic influenza was so great to North America that the leaders of the three nations were compelled "to work collectively and with all levels of government, the private sector and among-non-governmental organizations to combat avian and pandemic influenza."

Moreover, the SPP plan openly acknowledges, "The WHO's international guidance formed much of the basis for the three countries' planning for North American preparedness and response."

WND previously reported NORTHCOM has been established with a command center at Peterson Air Force Base, tasked with using the U.S. military in continental domestic emergency situations.

WND also has reported President Bush signed in May two documents, National Security Presidential Directive-51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-20, which give the office of the president extraordinary powers to declare national emergencies and to assume near-dictatorial powers.

Following the Montebello summit last week, the SPP North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza was published on a made-over SPP homepage redesigned to feature agreements newly reached by trilateral bureaucratic working groups.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57369<SCRIPT src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>

 

[Thornton]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

Very interesting post. Thanks.
Here is a a direct link to the North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza.
http://www.spp.gov/pdf/nap_flu07.pdf

Also a direct upload of the document is attached.
In my quick read of the document, I found very little mention of the military or WHO and extensive discussion on plans to keep infrastructure and trade operational.

 

[tropical]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

Pandemic is without borders, and must be applied an international protocol.
The public health sector is obviously unprepared everywhere now, if some serious novel pandemic take off, only the military have the power to control the subsequent chaos.

About 40 percent of the U.S. work force would be affected in a pandemic, and the virus would probably spread through the population in six- to eight-week "waves," Navy Capt. Lynn Slepski, of the Department of Homeland Security, said. With so many people unable to perform their normal jobs, federal and state agencies plan to assist with critical national missions such as maintaining transportation and distribution systems to ensure people have access to food, medicines and other supplies.

Although NORTHCOM is prepared to take on more duties if requested by the president or secretary of defense, the command's primary mission will remain its "non-negotiable contract with the American people to defend the homeland," Bassani said. "We're here to support and defend the nation."

 

[gsgs]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

will the states and counties agree to the federal or UN-policy
or will each local sheriff claim for independence when
there is no power to control him , many people are sick and
dieing ? I mean, can we expect that the current political
structures will hold in a society where surviving is the
primary problem and people presumably won't care about
non-local policy, treaties ?
Why should they obey to federal/state/northcom orders,
what do they risk, is it considerable when compared
to the risks of their local decisions ?

 

[tropical]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

gsgs: "...mean, can we expect that the current political
structures will hold in a society where surviving is the
primary problem and people presumably won't care about
non-local policy, treaties ?"
Presumably, the meanings is just this - people won't care, and because of that probably will be activated some federal acts (which implement some international acts - because the plains, the goods, and people - in the begining of pandemic, are from everywhere in the world) by which the military can restaurate some kind of society needs: food, water, medicines, order, in part or in a whole land.
Did exist some other kind of force that can establish order and other goods in this kind of emergency (one example: Katrina?)?

"Why should they obey to federal/state/northcom orders,
what do they risk, is it considerable when compared
to the risks of their local decisions ?"
Martial law.

 

[Niko]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

In a democratic republic, transparency and balance of power is essential. Judicial Watch has a wealth of information for those who have concerns.



Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

<table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="300"> <tbody><tr><td>

</td></tr> <tr><td>[SIZE=-3]About NASCO[/SIZE]</td></tr> </tbody></table>
On March 23, 2005, heads of government Vincente Fox, George W. Bush, and Paul Martin launched the North American partnership at a meeting in Waco, Texas, with the expressed goal of ?a safer, more prosperous North America.?

Proponents of the partnership claim its purpose is to increase security and prosperity for all three nations through enhanced cooperation.
Critics maintain the partnership will sacrifice U.S. sovereignty by establishing a ?North American Union,? with open borders and a common currency. Recently, President Bush stated that he found these fears "amusing."

Judicial Watch does not find it amusing and is calling for complete transparency and disclosure in the matter. Follow the links below to read the recently released documents and learn more about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/SPP.shtml

 

[gsgs]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

would states share their vaccine, Tamiflu ?
would they send troups which operate under federal command ?
would they shoot at their own people to enforce quarantine
if required by the feds by the state by the county by the sheriff
by the town-militia ?

 

[Niko]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

would states share their vaccine, Tamiflu ?

Vaccine distribution (when a vaccine is available) will be doled out by the feds most likely. Tamilfu purchase is up to each state with feds supplementing the cost. Not sure where stockpile will be located (regionally?)

would they send troups which operate under federal command ?

Executive order makes this possible. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/p...00&en=18a956c463967791&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

would they shoot at their own people to enforce quarantine
if required by the feds by the state by the county by the sheriff
by the town-militia ?

Good question. If you find the answer, please let me know http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31333.pdf

 

[Laidback Al]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

Bush's SPP power grab sets stage for military to manage flu threats

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America summit in Canada released a plan that established U.N. law along with regulations by the World Trade Organization and World Health Organization as supreme over U.S. law and set the stage for militarizing the management of continental health emergencies.

This is sensationalism and misreporting. I reviewed the SPP plan (link provide by Thorton above in post #2). I could find nothing in the document that subordinates sovereign rights of Mexico, Canada, or the United States to the WTO, WHO, or the UN. See also SPP myths versus facts: http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp

This document is simply a "feel good" planning document for Canada, Mexico, and the United States to work together and share information with international agencies in the event a pandemic.

From page 8:

International Legal Framework
Canada, Mexico and the United States are States Parties
to the International Health Regulations (2005)[1], or
IHRs, and, as member countries of the World Organization
for Animal Health (OIE), observe the guidelines
and standards provided in the OIE Terrestrial Animal
Health Code (2006).
In the event of an outbreak of avian influenza, each country
would advise the OIE on confirmation of the isolation and
identification of a virus described in the Terrestrial Animal
Health Code as notifiable avian influenza, and implement
contingency plans to control and/or eradicate the virus from
domestic poultry operations.
In the event of an influenza pandemic, the IHRs provide a
legal framework under which States Parties and the WHO
secretariat are to work together to protect against and
control the international spread of disease while avoiding
unnecessary interference with international traffic and
trade. The IH Rs establish a transparent process to be
followed by the WHO and IHR States Parties in response
to public health emergencies of international concern.
Provisions in the IHRs obligate States Parties to:
? Notify the WHO of all potential public health
emergencies of international concern that occur
within their territories;
? Develop, strengthen, and maintain core capacity for
surveillance, reporting, and response; and
? Establish a national focal point as the contact
point for the WHO on all IHR matters.​

--------------------------------------​

[1] Prior to the IHRs? entry into force, the WHO?s 59

th World Health Assembly in 2006 adopted a resolution that called upon WHO Member
States to ?comply immediately, on a voluntary basis, with provisions
of the International Health Regulations (2005) considered relevant to
the risk posed by avian influenza and pandemic influenza.? Canada,
Mexico and the United States voluntarily implemented relevant provisions
of the IHRs. ​

 

[Blue]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

I agree, laidback al.

The original article is from WND. They have some extreme opinions on
various things. This is not to say that there is not some truth there, but
if you look at the majority of what they support on their site, you may
want to take what they say with a grain of salt, so to speak. It is so hard, sometimes, to discern truth from political sites.

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

I agree, laidback al.

The original article is from WND. They have some extreme opinions on
various things. This is not to say that there is not some truth there, ........ It is so hard, sometimes, to discern truth from political sites.

I agree that WND takes a radical view on some issues, however, they sometimes bring up good issues and their articles can be springboards for relevent discussions.

I don't see any other way to ensure widespread equitable distribution of essential goods, other than martial law (unfortunately). I can envision the military working with normal distribution networks and perhaps providing security for delivery services.

Perhaps a pandemic may be the beginning of new cooperation between some neighboring nations.

GSGS - how does Germany plan to ensure equitable distribution of essential goods? How well will Germans accept highly controlled distribution of essentials?

.

 

[scottmcpherson]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

I agree, this article is sensationalist nonsense. The survivalist fanatics are beginning to migrate (sorry for the pun) over to pandemics now. They see a Red under every bed.

But the follow-up dialogue does expose some planning issues that I feel are not being addresed by law enforcement/homeland security, such as who has jurisdiction in certain areas.

The Strategic National Stockpile is actually a series of heavily-guarded, DoD-controlled warehouses at strategic locations across the country (hence strategic in its title). They store all Federal AND State-bought Tamiflu and Relenza. If expiration dates approach, DoD and FDA will jointly test capsules and inhalers at random and then restamp expiration dates on Federal Tamiflu and Relenza (but not the State-purchased share).

Personally, I believe all law enforcement in a pandemic will ultimately come together under the State Police and National Guard for their respective states. I know the military at all levels is taking a deeper interest in pandemic planning and I, for one, welcome that fact. Nobody else outside of "we flubies," public health, federally-regulated corporations and the military seems to be taking it seriously.

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

Nobody else outside of "we flubies," public health, federally-regulated corporations and the military seems to be taking it seriously.

All those who will have "the buck stops here" sign on their desk had better take it seriously. If they haven't learned lessons from Katrina, we're in serious trouble.

.

 

[scottmcpherson]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

Amen to that, AlaskaDenise! If they don't, the crowd moving toward them with pitchforks most certainly will.

PS. We are in serious trouble.

 

[Niko]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

All those who will have "the buck stops here" sign on their desk had better take it seriously. If they haven't learned lessons from Katrina, we're in serious trouble.

.

Agreed. When a pandemic hits, there will be many "Mayors" with plans in the file drawer - not rehearsed and not disseminated to the right officials nor communicated to the public.

I hope the citizens of this country learned a thing or two from Katrina also. We've been warned, time and again, we are on our own.

Personally, I would prefer to see more time and attention focused on communicating with the public on the need to prepare and less focus on military planning, but... that's my little utopia, I guess.

NOTE: This is not a bashing of any particular political party, individual or race - I'm an equal opportunity "basher"

 

[gsgs]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

AD, the German people would be even more surprised by a panflu than the US.
Well, maybe 98% vs. 95%, so that's no big difference anyway.

We have
WTO,UNO,NATO
European Union
federal
states
communities

Tamiflu is stored by states, e.g. I'm in NS, they have 0.1 packages Tamiflu
per citizen, some miles away is NRW, they have 0.3 ,
NS hopes to get some from the others...
But generally the feds have more power here and the states less than in USA.
We have 2 or 3 vaccine plants, presumable the states with the plants
get the first vaccine, else they might issue some pressure...
Most people are reluctant to obey fed-orders like curfew or such, they are not used to it.
The older ones from DDR or Nazi-Germany know it.
Nevertheless, I assume we are better prepared for the required,necessary "strong leadership"
than USA just from history experience, we have big coalition actually, "exception laws"
still from cold war, 1960s demonstrations, individuals are not armed, people are not so
violently opposing, we have a detailed pandemic plan.
OTOH, Germany is more crowded than USA...

It's somehow unpredictable how they will react.
It would be better if everyone (individuals and communities,states,EC)
signs some panflu-contracts now , so they hopefully won't
oppose to what they had signed earlier.

I'm speaking about a unlikely severe panflu here, 1918-like or worse.

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

On this AM's today show, they were doing a 2-year after review of Katrina.

One of the ?Mississippi residents interviewed said...."Adversity doesn't create character, it reveals it".....referring to the many good folks who rose to the occasion.

Let's hope a pandemic reveals an army of these people.

.

 

[prepdeb]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

I'm in the US and if we do experience a severe pandemic situation, I'd welcome all the military or other law enforcement personnel that could be provided.

Crime is far too rampant here in good times to expect an improvement in conduct in bad times.
Sadly, too many people use difficult circumstances to justify bad behavior.

As mentioned in a previous post about the Katrina situation, some people rose to the crisis and some people sunk to depths too deep to imagine.

In my opinion, curbing social unrest and lawlessness will be one of the most important factors in survival. Too many people feel that they can get away with anything during a time of crisis and lack a moral compass.
Since we live in a city, I can only hope for some sort of control. No amount of preparation or food storage will save us if people lacking a conscience run wild.

During the Katrina experience, there were many who did whatever they could to help their fellow man, but there were also many who used the crisis to hurt others.

 

[Shannon Bennett]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

All the military available to us in the US will not make a dent in public safety. Too few spread too far. What we need is inter-agency communications capability. We also need to practice with something more than table-top modeling. If we don't, we are looking at a Katrina type debacle escalated to a nation-wide scenario. There will be looting, mayhem, murder and citizens will take up arms to protect themselves. Chaos.

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

.....inter-agency communications capability

Here they are establishing one radio channel that ALL agencies that may be involved in any emergency can use to receive/send.

During bad flooding last year, many agencies were "drafted" to assist, but they had no radio communications capability & had to DRIVE to find someone, or at least someone with a compatible radio. Then the land-line phones failed & finally the cell towers...all for 2-3 days.

We have a system here that should these systems fail, SOMEONE will man the firestations and have adequate radio capability. It works.

One glaring omission of our table-top modeling was our assumption that help from elsewhere would come riding in on white horses.......didn't happen. We were clearly on our own. Improvisation became SOP.

.