Disclaimer: While the Foundation for Health Research does not believe that the United Nations or any of its related health organizations will take any action other than to whitewash any findings about the origins and spread of COVID-19 and never ascertain, let alone publish, the truth, FHR respects that others might disagree and seek the opportunity at the United-Nations level to investigate all wrongdoings associated with this coronavirus pandemic. We, therefore, post this suggested course of action so that it may be read, considered, and comments may be made about the wisdom of this approach.
Towards Creating a new UN Secretary General’s Pandemic Board of Inquiry
By Stephen Fox
Ultimately, for the long-range future and beyond the parameters and duration of a Pandemic Board of Inquiry, what really is needed is the creation of a permanent new United Nations Undersecretary General for Pandemic Prevention. This might also be considered during the 75th UN General Assembly in September of this year.
Using Article 97 of the United Nations Charter, this concept is advancing, to establish at the highest levels of international governments a Secretary General’s Board of Inquiry about the Covid Pandemic, focused on the legal issues and ramifications.
Such a Board of Inquiry would not deal with the purely medical matters which remain under the jurisdiction the of the World Health Organization, which will survive after having almost a billion dollars knocked down from WHO’s budget a few days ago by the current USA president.
An initial description of this concept is laid out in my prior OpEdNews article, including brainstorming and commentaries by former UN Ambassador and former NM Governor Bill Richardson, US Senator Martin Heinrich, and the present and the former Foreign Ministers of Finland, Pekka Haavisto and Erkki Tuomioja.
Towards A New UN Secretary General’s Pandemic Board of Inquiry: 2 Finland Foreign Ministers Respond
What is a Board of Inquiry?
A BOI constitutes an analytical and managerial tool used within the United Nations peacekeeping missions and Special Political Missions under the administrative support of DFS to review and record the facts of serious occurrences, with a view to identifying gaps in procedures and policies, strengthening internal controls and improving financial and managerial accountability. This Standard Operating Procedure is to establish when the convening of a BOI is mandatory as well as to ensure consistency in the conduct of BOIs convened by Heads of United Nations field missions, the Under-Secretary-General for Field Support (USG, DFS) or the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations (USG, DPKO).
Mandatory? Yes, of course, such a Board of Inquiry is mandatory, in my opinion.
In the post-pandemic world, whenever that decides to start, there will be a host of legal questions and legal conflicts to be resolved. Better to have the full the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth at the highest level of the UN for member nations’ benefit s well as to keep the Peace, rather than devolve into fierce battles about what happened and about who is responsible and who is to blame, all of which could lead to armed conflict at worst, and t best, to the destruction of civil liberties enjoyed in most of the world before the pandemic struck.
Many of those battles will be driven by the inevitable and severe economic deprivation that is already materializing. I think there is a strong tendency among certain nations to be ready to engage militarily, all for a host of bad and superficial reasons, including “sweeping it all under the rug.”
Post-Pandemic Economics are something International Economists should be already thoroughly discussing, and perhaps sharing that discussion with the world’s leading Epidemiologists. That is quite another matter for academic and corporate realms. As I envision it, the Board of Inquiry would be quite different. In my prior article, I put it this way:
“Please remember that our focus is on legal ramifications of the pandemic. Was it an inevitable accident, a freak of nature, several acts of biochemical warfare, or a “predictable accident” (as described by International Law professor, Francis A. Boyle); was it made in a lab and then went haywire? Which corporations are profiting? How can nations inter-cooperate to prevent future pandemics, and who is telling the complete truth (under oaths that are just as serious as if the questioned were appearing in the International Court of Justice)? Those are the kind of questions to be resolved, plus many more, if the entire truth is ever to be unraveled.”
I am sending this kind of article to major media outlets worldwide and in due course, to officials at 3 levels in each nation: Heads of State, Foreign Ministers, and UN Ambassadors, well in advance of the 75th UN General Assembly in September, which may take place as usual, or “virtually” (difficult to imagine, eh?)
The General Assembly opens 15 September; the first day of high-level General Debate will be 22 September.
I would like to see as sponsors and cosponsors ethical, stable, and focused nations like Finland, Mexico, Canada, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Czech Republic, Malaysia, Bolivia, Chile, Botswana, Morocco, Indonesia, Tanzania, and Kenya. That is by no means a final list, and one that will certainly evolve, depending on who decides what at the United Nations.
To move on: The last UN Board of Inquiry was established in August 2019, and was explained in this official press release:
Secretary-General Establishes Board to Investigate Events in North-West Syria since Signing of Russian Federation-Turkey Memorandum on Idlib
The Secretary-General, under the authority conferred to him under Article 97 of the Charter of the United Nations, has decided to establish an internal United Nations Headquarters Board of Inquiry to investigate whatever he chooses to focus on. I believe this was the last one to be established. That investigation covered destruction of, or damage to UN-supported facilities in the area, and other damage. The Board’s intent was to ascertain the facts of these incidents and to report to the Secretary-General upon the completion of its work. The Secretary-General urges all parties concerned to cooperate with the Board once it has been established.
I have sent the above article to many media outlets, some in China, Netherlands, the UK, USA, and Finland, as well as to the current Foreign Ministers of the UK, France, and Russia, which, along with the USA and China, are the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. There are other members of the Security Council, some with terms ending in 2020 and some in 2021. I am in the process of writing to all of them. [Non-Permanent members whose terms expire in 2020 are Belgium, Dominican Republic, Germany, Indonesia, and South Africa. India, Kenya, Djibouti, Canada, Ireland, Norway, and Mexico are candidates to replace those whose terms expire in 2020.]
I have sent it to the present Under Secretary General for Peace Keeping, Dr. Atul Khare; to Nobel Prize Winner Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh; to Greta Thunberg in Sweden, to various levels of government in several nations. Because I believe this Board of Inquiry should have direct connections to the International Court of Justice in the Hague, I have sent several rounds of correspondence to all of the members of the ICJ.
Who are the members of the International Court of Justice?
President Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf Somalia
Member of the Court since 6 February 2009; re-elected as from 6 February 2018; Vice-President of the Court from 6 February 2015 to 5 February 2018; President of the Court since 6 February 2018
Vice-President Xue Hanqin China
Member of the Court since 29 June 2010; re-elected as from 6 February 2012; Vice-President of the Court since 6 February 2018
Judge Peter Tomka Slovakia
Member of the Court since 6 February 2003; re-elected as from 6 February 2012; Vice-President of the Court from 6 February 2009 to 5 February 2012; President of the Court from 6 February 2012 to 5 February 2015
Judge Ronny Abraham France
Member of the Court since 15 February 2005; re-elected as from 6 February 2009 and as from 6 February 2018; President of the Court from 6 February 2015 to 5 February 2018
Judge Mohamed Bennouna Morocco
Member of the Court since 6 February 2006; re-elected February 2015
Judge Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade Brazil
Member of the Court since 6 February 2009; re-elected as from 6 February 2018
Judge Joan E. Donoghue United States of America
Member of the Court since 9 September 2010; re-elected as from 6 February 2015
Judge Giorgio Gaja Italy
Member of the Court since 6 February 2012
Judge Julia Sebutinde Uganda
Member of the Court since 6 February 2012
Judge Dalveer Bhandari India
Member of the Court since 27 April 2012, re-elected as from 6 February 2018
Judge Patrick Lipton Robinson Jamaica
Member of the Court since 6 February 2015
Judge James Richard Crawford Australia
Member of the Court since 6 February 2015
Judge Kirill Gevorgian Russian Federation
Member of the Court since 6 February 2015
Judge Nawaf Salam Lebanon
Member of the Court since 6 February 2018
Judge Yuji Iwasawa Japan
Member of the Court since 22 June 2018
[Quora summary: The ICJ can enact two types of rulings:
Contentious issues: These relate to disputes among states only.
International organizations, actors, individuals, NGOs and so on, are not represented under this type of ruling. Criticism has been levied against the contentious ruling, because such a ruling can be made binding only upon the mutual consent of the states involved in the case. Thus, the ICJ, in contentious cases can enact jurisdiction only and only if the states involved in the case both give their permission. Thus, in this case, the ICJ has no authority of its own in relation to contentious cases.
Advisory opinions: The name of this type of ruling will tell you how binding this form of ruling is. An advisory opinion is permitted by the ICJ only upon request. Once a request has been launched, the ICJ may (under Article 96[a] permit an International body or state to make a formal statement which it feels may be informative and useful on legal matter. Though any statement that has the ICJ approval on it is respected, it is of a consultative nature only, and is meant more as expert advice which may very well be ignored, should the party receiving the advice feel so. ]
Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party. If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.
I will gladly formally correspond soon with Secretary of State Pompeo in due course, but want to wait a bit to see what international support materializes before approaching him. There is every good chance that he will also support the idea, and I don’t think anyone should pre judge him just because he is part of the current administration. If 7 billion people and their representatives make it clear that this Board of Inquiry must be considered mandatory, Secretary Pompeo is not going to deny or prevent such developments. Secretary Pompeo is, after all, human too.
I am concerned at reports from Europe of fining people who come outside, from 200 to 600 Euros, with armed militia patrolling the streets. I can see the merit of this for a bit of time into the near future, but not to extend it indefinitely. That would be a case of abrogating basic civil liberties in those nations that have and cherish them, in the name of the pandemic.
I also do not want to see the human race be forced into undergoing any mandatory vaccinations of any kind. Just a few months ago in 2019, thousands of Italians were marching in the streets, objecting to forced influenza vaccinations. More recently, Italy was struck with one of the world’s highest coronavirus death rates. All such vaccinations should be voluntary, as well as based on informed consent.
We have seen the beginnings of pontifical mandatory statements from Bill Gates about these matters.
We have already seen potential profiteers behind the scenes in some of the big vaccine companies like Gilead, which had to back down from the favored treatment they were initially given by the corporate manipulated United States FDA.
Please see my 2 prior articles:
FDA Gives Gilead Orphan Status on Remdesivir/Coronavirus as “Rare Disease”~Reminiscent of Rumsfeld’s Swine Flu Debacle?
“Bowing to Critics,” Gilead Retreats on FDA Orphan Status re COVID19 Drug; US Senator Murray: FDA Designation “Misguided”
[with a special ongoing thanks to Washington’s US Senator Patty Murray]
Legal and Medical considerations on the Human Immune Systems
On the subject raised by Senator Patty Murray of Washington, we must note that legal questions should be brought up soon about the corporate manipulation and thoroughly corrupted FDA.
Anyone with a weakened immune system from their regularly ingesting the neurotoxic artificial sweetener aspartame, which is metabolized in everyone as formaldehyde and the proven brain tumor causing agent, diketopiperazine: these people are going to have a tough time if not an impossible time, resisting coronavirus in this enlarging epidemic.
The epidemiologists and medical statisticians are going to have a field day if and when this pandemic runs its course, analyzing corona vs smokers, junk food eaters, those vaccinated with the flu shots, those who have consumed aspartame and Glyphosate/Roundup weed killer, and many other parameters and metabolic categories of toxicity in food additives and pesticides, which more than half the world’s nations have acted upon, leaving the USA far behind, unable to rescind what is killing us on a daily basis, before this pandemic, because both USA and China, in concert with the Japanese megacorporation, Ajinomoto, are the top manufacturing sources of carcinogenic chemicals like aspartame.
When the equation is stated like that, it makes me wonder whether this pandemic will ever end. In the meantime, I ask for your help in establishing this very mandatory United Nations Secretary General’s Pandemic Board of Inquiry.
Helping can be as simple and straightforward as forwarding this article to news media editors and to members of legislative and judicial bodies in many nations.
No one person can get all of this done by September 2020, except the Secretary General, Antonio Gutteres. It is up to us, we the people of the world, to further convince him that this Board of Inquiry must be convened.