Suggested substractions are struckthrough and suggested additions are bolded.

How to Protect National and Personal Sovereignty & Maintain Autonomy from the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO):

How Your Country Can Withdraw from WHO1

  • Ralph Fucetola, JD
  • Rima E. Laibow, MD

Presented by Natural Solutions Foundation2 and the Institute for Health Research3

This memorandum white paper provides information which is applicable worldwide on how nations states (i.e., “countries”) may lawfully exit the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN) — or both — when the residents of each nation have come to understand realize that it is in their best interest to do so.

Wire-America: You cannot provide legal advice, as you have not read/understood all these countries’ laws.

The WHO and the UN have become permitted themselves to become not only irreparably corrupted on a gargantuan scale but, through that corruption, to become the powerful tools of intentionally dangerous and highly beholden to destructive special interests whose clear intent is to overturn national, sovereignty as well as personal sovereignty and autonomy through far-overreaching, illegitimate alleged supra-national powers.

These so-called self-generated powers , which can disappear evaporate once countries exit these two organizations. would, If the WHO/UN goals are achieved (scheduled for Aug-Oct, 2022) in the coming months , allow the WHO could effectively seize governance and absolute control of every nation in the UN/WHO once the Director General of the World Health Organization issues an un-challengeable Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC, popularly referred to as a “Pandemic”).4

Indeed, over the objections of his Scientific Committee of Experts, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus did, in fact, declare Monkey Pox to be a PHEIC, absent any compelling evidence, on July 23, 2022. While six pervious PHEICs have been declared since 2005 by WHO, this is the first time one was declared despite lack of support by the Emergency Committee of experts convened to advise the Director General on whether to declare a PHEIC.5

The WHO granting itself the power to arrogation to itself of the power to literally dissolve the national sovereignty of any nation experiencing an actual or theoretical PHEIC is unprecedented in world history. the law of nations. Similar cancellation of personal autonomy and the Right of Informed Consent is accomplished, in part, through tyrannical (and potentially genocidal) amendments to the “International Health Regulations” now being promulgated – (promulgated, overturned and currently on appeal), in New York State,6 and the Republic of South Africa.7

Wire-America: Why in these two areas? Please explain.

Additional PHEIC-related powers dovetail with the overarching, totalitarian plan to govern every aspect of human and other life on Planet Earth through Agenda 21/2030/2025/20238,9 and its massively totalitarian, comprehensive subsidiary implementation called the “One Health” program.10

These supra-national powers under PHEIC (i.e., Pandemic) conditions are currently in the process of affirmation via a number of interlocking international tools11,12 by the WHO, backed solidly by the UN. These powers can literally dissolve national sovereignty and force medical examination and treatment on both the consenting and the non-consenting living in each country.

We believe that the future of humanity is best protected and preserved by rapid and complete withdrawal from the WHO and the UN before it can do additional harm to the global We, the People, around the world.

Once a nation has withdrawn from the WHO and the UN, such self-granted transnational, supra-sovereign powers evaporate. held by the WHO, however, no longer threaten preserving national and personal sovereignty Although ratification procedures may differ from country to country, the process of withdrawing from the WHO and the UN is the same for all member nation states. which are members of the WHO and the UNM.

The exit process is remarkably straightforward and surprisingly simple: Simply put, once the treaty or obligation has been breached/abrogated/abandoned/ rejected, the treaty no longer has any legal force or impact on the laws of the withdrawing country.

Given the self-proclaimedgenerated “right” power of WHO to wholly capture and dissolve the sovereign powers of any member country under certain unilaterally declared conditions (e.g., a “Pandemic” declared on the sole authority and pronouncement of the Secretary General of the WHO), we believe that it is the best interest of any nation which wishes to preserve its sovereign powers and protect the Right of Informed Consent of its people to withdraw as rapidly as possible from both the WHO and the organization which it allegedly serves, the United Nations.

Wire-America: No need to repeat.

The “Constitution” of the WHO13 was adopted by an international conference in 1948 and was then submitted to the member states of the United Nations for ratification and accession.14 The fact that this document was subjected to the process of ratification indicates that the document establishing the WHO was given the status of an International Treaty. Consequently, withdrawing from the WHO requires a national action by each country so inclined in keeping with the customary law of nations in withdrawing from treaties. In other words, since membership in the WHO has the same status as a ratified international treaty, the procedure for withdrawal is best understood by reference to the customary law of treaties.

Neither the WHO “Constitution” nor the UN “Charter” provides information on how national withdrawal from those documents is to be accomplished. This absence of direction for withdrawal is sometimes misunderstood as a signal that withdrawal from these organizations is not possible. In fact, withdrawal is, indeed possible. This possibility has been verified on several occasions by nations withdrawing from these organizations and other similar treaty organizations.

One nation has successfully, and without opposition by any other nation or by the United Nations itself, withdrawn from that body. On January 20, 1965, Indonesia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs addressed a letter to U Thant, Secretary General of the United Nations, communicating Indonesia’s intention to withdraw from the organization.14

That letter produced a letter from the Secretary General simply accepting Indonesia’s decision. No demand for justification or other input was made by the United Nations and when, on September 28, 1966, Indonesia’s new government requested to rejoin the United Nations, no additional membership scrutiny or processing was required: the delegates were simply invited to retake their seats.15

While scholars may debate whether Indonesia withdrew or suspended its membership in that body, it is clear that no opposition was raised to the decision of that sovereign nation’s ability to exit both its participation and its obligations to that body.16

As we will see below, the United States has withdrawn from several organizations with the same status as the WHO over its history with the UN and its organizations.

With special reference to the question of whether it is possible to withdraw from the WHO and, if it is, what the procedure would be to do so, on October 21, 2020, the United States Congressional Research Service provided an analysis of the process to exit from the WHO and the implications for the US and other countries that do so.17

US Membership in the WHO was approved by Joint Resolution of Congress on June 14, 1948, 62 Stat 441.18 That resolution includes specific language regarding how to leave the organization. According to this research document, the process is both clear and simple:

Since there is an “absence of any provision” in the WHO Constitution19 as there is in the UN Charter, the question may be resolved by National Law and by Customary International law such as that provided by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.20

In fact the process of withdrawing from the United Nations, and all of its special organizations, including the WHO, is, actively underway in the United States through an Act now before the Congress, HR 7806: The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2022.21

We see continued membership in the WHO and the UN as an invitation to rapid and complete destruction of all national sovereignty, personal sovereignty and autonomy and, therefor, urge the residents of every country to use all appropriate, peaceful means to demand the rapid and complete withdrawal of their country from the destructive and deadly grip of these dangerous organizations.

There is significant Customary International Law regarding how nations may lawfully terminate treaty obligations. Since both the UN Charter22 , like the WHO Constitution, fail to provide specific information on the process of withdrawing from membership in that organization, the information presented here pertains to withdrawal from both the WHO as well as the UN.

Customary international law uses the principle of rebus sic stantibus or “things standing thus.”23 If a treaty has no withdrawal provisions, once a treaty has been ratified, the ratifying state may, following this principle, withdraw from a treaty only if there has been some substantial unforeseen change in circumstances. Substantial changes in circumstances may include the object of the treaty becoming moot or occasion of a material breach committed by a treaty party. Articles 61 and 62 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties24 narrowly construe Rebus sic stantibus, without naming this principle explicitly. They note that sovereign states have the right to repudiate any treaty.

Preparing to invalidate the very sovereignty of the ratifying states and seize their governance as provided for in the International Health Regulations25 and the upcoming Pandemic Preparedness and Response Treaty26 constitutes, in our opinion, a significant material breach of the Constitution of the WHO, which is what was ratified by each member nation. Planning for massive population reduction and capture of every facet of personal and national decision-making , too, is not what was agreed to by nation states when they ratified either their participation in the WHO or the UN.

Current accretions to these documents grant extraordinary powers to the WHO to dissolve national sovereignty which were never envisioned when countries entered into their arrangements with either the WHO or the UN.

Centuries of precedent support the right of sovereign nations to unilaterally withdraw.27 For example, President Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.28 Additional support to this position is conferred by Article 2 of the United Nations Charter which specifically recognizes “the principle of the sovereign equality” of all member states of the United Nations.”29

The recently proposed changes to the WHO Treaty30 and to the International Health Regulations31 may constitute such “substantial unforeseen change.” 32 Certainly each sovereign has the sole authority to decide when such a change has occurred, putting the right to exit the WHO and UN in the hands of the governments of the various nations, individually.

In addition to strong historical precedent for withdrawing from international treaties, there also is modern precedent in withdrawing from specific organizations attached to the United Nations. For example, “the United States left the International Labor Organization in 1977, citing anti-U.S. politicization within the organization; it later re-joined in 1980. Similarly, the United States exited UNESCO in 1984, complaining about the organization’s mismanagement and anti-Western bias, and did not return for 19 years, until 2003.”33

In 2018, the US withdrew from the Paris Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Agreement not without some domestic and international uproar, but without significant difficulty.34

The United States can choose to withdraw from the World Health Organization and the United Nations with few direct consequences. Obviously, political, economic and other indirect pressures would be applied to any nation seeking to disrupt the globalist anticipated hegemony and status quo. Since the WHO has become a vital tool for the total dissolution of national sovereignty and personal autonomy the WHO has become, we can expect that there will be a great deal of external pressures against withdrawal.35

The WHO has become accustomed it has become to strong national and popular endorsement of its programs, policies and plans (such as Agenda 21/2030/2025/2023) and Codex Alimentarius, which “voluntary” standards. (including the severe undernutrition mandated by Codex Alimentarius disastrous “Maximum Permissible Upper Limits” [MPULs] for dietary supplement)s, we can assume that external pressures of various kinds. Obviously, external pressures could well be applied to nations withdrawing from these organizations.

In considering the way nations may withdraw from treaties, the influential Vienna Convention36 codifies the general rules applicable to treaties, stating:

“Article 42 – 2. The termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention. The same rule applies to suspension of the operation of a treaty.”

Where (as in the UN Charter or WHO Constitution) there is no provision regarding withdrawal, the state involved may make its own sovereign decision; since under ancient law, ‘Silence is Acquiescence’37

Thus, ultimately, an individual sovereign state, in its sole discretion, has the power to , quite literally, “Just Say No!” to any treaty that no longer serves its national interest,

It is the opinion of the authors of this white paper that the WHO and the UN have clearly demonstrated that rather than serving health and autonomy of the people in their member states, they promote exactly the opposite. Before they can act further to damage public health and nation state sovereignty, we urge any nation which values its form of government, its people and their well-being to move with all possible speed to withdraw from even the pretense of WHO/UN’s supra-national powers and withdraw as rapidly as possible from these dangerous, oppressive organizations — the WHO and the UN.

©Natural Solutions Foundation 2022

  1. https://rumble.com/v  ↩
  2. http://www.OpenSourceTruth.com  ↩
  3. http://www.InHeRe.org  ↩
  4. WHO International Health Regulation Amendments Defeated in Geneva – Wire America  ↩
  5. Monkeypox as a PHEIC: implications for global health governance – The Lancet  ↩
  6. NY AG appealing isolation and quarantine decision (news10.com)  ↩
  7. ACTION ALERT: Clarion call for international solidarity with South Africa against tyrannical health regulations (substack.com)  ↩
  8. ia2030-document-en.pdf (who.int)  ↩
  9. IA2030_FrameworkForActionv04.pdf (immunizationagenda2030.org)  ↩
  10. https://tinyurl.com/yckcvwak  ↩
  11. International Treaty/Framework Convention for pandemic preparedness and response (who.int)  ↩
  12. Statement on the twelfth meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic (who.int)  ↩
  13. couv arabe.indd (who.int)  ↩
  14. WHO (1948). Preamble to the constitution of the world health organization as adopted by the international health conference. New York, 19-22 June, 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948.”https://tinyurl.com/2zlqcs5w  ↩
  15. UN-Charter_Withdrawal-from-the-United-Nations.pdf (federalism.eu)  ↩
  16. Ibid.  ↩
  17. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/R46575.pdf  ↩
  18. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/R46575.pdf  ↩
  19. https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=62&page=441  ↩
  20. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) (un.org)  ↩
  21. https://L-to.com/hc2328wu  ↩
  22. uncharter.pdf  ↩
  23. rebus sic stantibus | law principle | Britannica  ↩
  24. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) (un.org)  ↩
  25. International health regulations (who.int)  ↩
  26. An international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness – Consilium (europa.eu)  ↩
  27. For example, The Treaty of Hampton Court, signed in 1562 by Queen Elizabeth I, was violated by her in 1672. Treaty of Hampton Court (1562) | Military Wiki | Fandom  ↩
  28. Mike Pompeo expected to announce US suspension of INF treaty on Friday | CNN Politics  ↩
  29. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) – Treaty Law  ↩
  30. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_United_Nations  ↩
  31. http://www.opensourcetruth.com/pandemic-treaty/  ↩
  32. http://www.opensourcetruth.com/u-s-plan-to-amend-international-health-regulations-hands-over-more-power-to-who/  ↩
  33. Indisputable Violations: What Happens When the United States Unambiguously Breaches a Treaty (georgetown.edu)  ↩
  34. Withdrawal from International Agreements: Legal Framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Iran Nuclear Agreement (congress.gov)  ↩
  35. Responses to Questions about Codex and Dietary Supplements | FDA  ↩
  36. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf  ↩
  37. https://lexspeak.in/2013/08/law-related-to-acquiescence/  ↩