By Sylvia Mesesi
The past three months were not only busy for the Christian Council International but also for other international organizations. Many important international documents were discussed and passed. It was especially a pivotal time for two major international documents that reached headlines in the news for the past two years.
That these documents, the Pact for the Future and the Pandemic Agreement, were so long in the headlines, is not without a reason. Many provisions contained serious negative implications for world sovereignty and Christian values.
Pandemic Agreement
The pandemic Agreement was one of the main issues for the Christian Council International in the past three months. With several like-minded organisations, weekly calls were organised to strategise how to raise awareness among state representatives. Several projects were set up to protect life, family and freedom at the World Health Organization.
The agreement itself was drafted by the WHO to better prepare the world for future pandemics. In the past three months, some crucial negotiations took place that redirected the course of this Agreement. Mpox, American Elections and growing distrust in the powers of the WHO all resulted in an acceleration of the agreement. Only in that way, the WHO will be able to finalise the document.
Through this acceleration, many important issues remained unnoticed by representatives. The mechanisms put in place by the agreement, which includes a stronger WHO that sets out when there is a pandemic and how countries must respond to that, must be addressed. Many of the recommendations will include vaccine mandates, travel restrictions and other personal freedom-infringing policies.
The possibility of the WHO determining which health products are relevant is also very concerning. Especially since abortion kits and services can be unlawfully labelled as ‘relevant health products'.
This can all become a reality in less than two years if nothing changes. The CCI is therefore working around the clock and monitoring all updates closely to address these concerns. Raising awareness among policymakers and supporting them to advocate for change has also been undertaken, and will continue.
Pact for the Future
The past quarter was also crucial for the Pact for the Future, another document that is practically legally binding with the main purpose of redirecting state sovereignty. The only difference however is that this document has already been adopted and therefore will influence world policy.
The aim of the Pact was to better prepare and reflect the commitments of the United Nations, and all Member States, for the future. The fact that this document reflects an unlimited call for social engineering and fails to concretely call for the important role of religion, are some of the many problems.
The main issue in this document is however similar to that in the Pandemic Agreement, as it involves the set-up of new mechanisms that could infringe on sovereignty. This means that, again, United Nations unelected and non-transparent systems can redirect sovereignty from Member States.
This was specifically visible in the fact that the Pact called for giving the Secretary-General new powers to coordinate a global response to a global shock. These shocks include climate emergencies, wars and financial downturns. With this new mandate, it is the United Nations that can coordinate the responses to these shocks and could redirect the ‘multilateral system’ as they call it. State sovereignty is again undermined in this approach since it will be the Secretary-General who interacts with relevant stakeholders to respond to the shock.
The new censorship mechanisms to address so-called misinformation and disinformation, the promotion of digital IDs and other close feedback mechanisms from the United Nations to Member States are other ways whereby the United Nations violates national and personal sovereignty. These mechanisms can also be used to pressure Member States to uphold the ‘recommendations’ the United Nations sets out.
Luckily, some of the text was weakened in its language, although it was a close call. The United Nations tried to adopt the Pact via a silent procedure whereby no clear insight was given in the Pact itself, the amendments and the positions of states. Advocating was therefore difficult. Fortunately, CCI was able to give an online statement on several family and freedom-infringing articles and helped to advocate on this topic at a global scale.
Conclusion
Shortly said, the past three months were not only crucial for the United Nations but also for Christian Council International. Although the United Nations still pursues some legitimate goals, we are highly concerned that such procedures and documents could occur more often in the near future.
CCI will therefore remain committed in the future to monitor and advocate in light of our values at a global level. Only in that way, the priceless values of life, family and freedom can remain protected.
Sylvia Mesesi is CCI Policy Officer Africa