The Swiss Federal Council must declare “Opt-out” – co-determination for parliament and people.
Introduction by Peter Koenig
The World Health Assembly (WHA) approved amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) in the early morning hours of Sunday, June 1, 2024, during the 77th WHA in Geneva. The approval came at the end of the assembly, in a cloak and dagger operation, with the amendments adopted by consensus, meaning without a formal vote. This happened with a half empty conference room. A cloak-and-dagger operation refers to a clandestine activity, often involving secrecy, intrigue, and espionage.
It is characterized by hidden aims and methods, typically associated with secrecy – non-transparent; by most standards, illegal. The decision was taken in a half empty room, way past midnight, when the “Master of Ceremony”, the moderator, presented the most controversial motion ever in the history of WHO, to those few still present, “anybody opposes?” – Waiting three seconds, and, as the response was silence, with his little hammer after nobody objected, hammered it through “The motion is accepted”, and the few in the deserted conference hall applauded with the joy of criminals, who just landed a miserable coup on the world population.
The Swiss delegation was either not present during the early-morning hours non-vote acceptance of the new IHR, or if they were present, they remained silent – no comment. That is how government delegations, with the duty to represent the interests of the people, are acting lately – “lately”, meaning in the past almost five years, since the beginning of the Covid plandemic, when censorship became “rules-based”, forbidding free speech and free expression, a rule which is against any international and national laws.
When admitted by the Swiss Health and Foreign Ministers the illegal WHO rule was that a person killed in a car accident, was tested (with the by now known fake and invalid) PCR test, and had a positive result, the car accident death had to be registered as a covid death. Is this what the Swiss people, or the people of any country for that matter deserve? No, of course not.
That is how the five most devastating articles of the revised International Health Regulation (IHR) were approved. They are against the Constitution and Sovereignty of most of the 194 WHO members, soon to be 193, as the US of A, under one of President Trump’s first Executive Orders, will exit WHO as of the beginning of 2026. We can only wish and pray that other countries will follow Washington’s example soon – and particularly Switzerland, hosting this evil and illegal organization, would be well advised to EXIT WHO.
And, We the People, should demand Exiting WHO immediately, before being force-injected a possibility under the new IHR— and maybe killed. Force-injections have a miserable and filmed precedent in Germany, and possibly elsewhere, when health and police officers raided old-age homes and literally put resisting seniors down to force-inject them. The five most shockingly horrifying provisions would have serious implications for the Swiss democratic system, violating essential constitutional articles.
They can be summarized as follows:
- Expanded, discretionary power of the WHO Director-General to declare a pandemic or a potential pandemic without proof or legal review.
- The Director-General determines what constitutes “relevant health products” that must be used during a pandemic.
- Member states must establish authorities to ensure coordination with the WHO.
- The WHO determines how a pandemic may be discussed and requires member states to suppress all other opinions and findings – a massive restriction of freedom of expression.
- The contracting states must establish a coordinated financing mechanism.
None of this has become a subject of public debate, not even discussions in Parliament were allowed by the ever more tyrannical and dictatorial Swiss Federal Council. More than 90% of the Swiss people have no clue what their Government, their Executive pushes through without even going to the Parliament, and without any explanation to the public. The meager argument, always repeated by the Federal Council, who disagrees with the legal and democratic procedure, goes, “these are only minor technical adjustments.” A flagrant lie.
The Federal Council, therefore, believes that it can decide for itself whether to accept these newly revised anti-people IHRs, or to object and reject the changes (known as “Opting-out”). The Swiss Government has now until 19 July 2025 to “Opt-out” and present the case to the people and / or the Parliament. Depending on the democratic outcome, “Opting-in” later, would theoretically still be in the cards. See below the full interview with the brilliant Swiss lawyer Andrea Staubli.1
Thomas Kaiser (ThK): By July 19, the Swiss Federal Council must decide whether to accept the amended International Health Regulations (IHR) or to suspend their adoption for the time being to hold a public debate on the matter. Acceptance without a democratic process would be a dictatorial act.
Five of the IHR, among many other provisions, would have serious implications for our system of government if adopted, as they would violate essential constitutional articles.
- Expanded, discretionary power of the WHO Director-General to declare a pandemic or a potential pandemic without proof or legal review.
- The Director-General determines what constitutes “relevant health products” that must be used during a pandemic.
- Member states must establish authorities to ensure coordination with the WHO.
- The WHO determines how a pandemic may be discussed and requires member states to suppress all other opinions and findings – a massive restriction of freedom of expression.
- The contracting states must establish a coordinated financing mechanism.
Finding out what lies behind these points and how the new IHR will affect the Swiss Constitution, the following interview with Swiss lawyer Andrea Staubli is revealing. It is outrageous what is being pushed through without the people’s consent to make Switzerland irreversibly dependent on the WHO.
ThK: What is the next political step in connection with the amended International Health Regulations (IHR) of the WHO?
Andrea Staubli (AS): The Federal Council has the dossier under its “control,” and the big question is: Will the treaty go to parliament and, if so, to the people? The “Action Alliance for a Free Switzerland” (ABF Switzerland)2 and renowned lawyers believe that the provisions must be dealt with by the Swiss Parliament.
However, the Federal Council takes a different view and argues that these are only “minor technical adjustments.” It therefore believes that it can decide for itself whether to accept these IHR or to object and reject the changes (known as “Opting-out”).
Due to the far-reaching impact of the IHR on Switzerland’s sovereignty, this also has a direct effect on the freedom of the individual. ABF Switzerland is convinced that these changes must at least be submitted to Parliament.
ThK: Various motions have been tabled to put the issue on the parliamentary agenda, including the option of a referendum. So far, these have been unsuccessful. Is there still a possibility of bringing this issue back to parliament?
AS: In recent years, there have been various initiatives in the National Council and the Council of States calling for the agreements that the WHO is drafting or has already drafted to be submitted to parliament.
One example is the Glarner motion from 2022. It calls for WHO instruments to be submitted to Parliament. The Federal Council recommended that Parliament reject the motion. However, both the National Council and the Council of States approved the motion by large majorities in spring 2024 and fall 2024, respectively.
Various parliamentarians and lawyers, as well as ABF Switzerland, say that the interpretation of the motion and all votes cast in the National Council and the Council of States clearly indicate that the motion must also apply to the IHR. Since the motion was accepted by both chambers, the Federal Council is obliged to submit the amendments to the IHR to Parliament.
To date, the Federal Council has not taken any steps in this regard. Further motions with a similar thrust have therefore been submitted. The Schwander motion in the Council of States and the motion by the SVP parliamentary group in the National Council, which explicitly referred to the amendments to the IHR, were rejected.
At present, the political situation regarding the further course of action on the amendments to the IHR, which have extremely serious implications, is unclear. During the summer session, attempts will therefore be made to raise the issue again to ensure that the Glarner motion is implemented correctly.
ThK: Why were the Schwander motion and that of the SVP parliamentary group rejected?
AS: We found that the members of both chambers of parliament were insufficiently informed and educated about the IHR. We suspect that the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) provided the relevant committees, the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) and the Social Security and Health Committee (SHC) of the Council of States and the National Council, in a one-sided or incomplete manner, and that the serious issues that constitute an encroachment on our medical sovereignty and personal responsibility were not addressed by the FOPH.
The FOPH and Federal Councilor Elisabeth Baume-Schneider always talk only of “minor technical adjustments.” This argument is taken up by the commissions, and the other parliamentarians trust the commission members and agree with their opinion.
ThK: Let us counteract this lack of information! What are the most serious points of these changes in the new IHR?
AS: I would like to highlight five points in particular: The first point concerns the introduction of the “pandemic emergency” in the amended IHR. This gives the Director-General of the WHO extended powers.
It will be even easier for him to declare a pandemic, and he will be able to do so alone. A pandemic does not even have to exist; a potential high risk is sufficient to declare a pandemic. The Director-General has enormous discretionary power. Although there is an Emergency Committee to advise the Director-General, he is not bound by its advice.
He also determines who sits on the Emergency Committee. There are no checks and balances in the WHO system. The separation of powers that we know in our system of government does not exist at the WHO.
If the Director-General now declares an emergency, as we experienced in our country in 2020, our Federal Council will invoke this: “We have no choice but to follow the WHO’s recommendations.”
The Federal Council argues in favor of the IHRs by saying that each country can decide for itself whether it wants to follow the WHO and its recommendations or not. As the example shows, this is far from reality, because little Switzerland is hardly going to say, “We’re not going along with that.” It’s complete window dressing.
ThK: Hasn’t the Federal Council always followed the WHO guidelines to the letter?
AS: Yes, Federal Councilor Sommaruga responded to a journalist’s question at the time as to why Switzerland had not yet returned from the extraordinary to the normal situation by saying that Switzerland could not do so because the WHO had determined this.
Federal Councilor Cassis gave the following example in the Arena: If an accident victim is taken to hospital and dies there, they are counted as a Covid death if they test positive in a PCR test. This was not Switzerland’s decision, but a decision made by the WHO. It must be done this way. So, we have seen that our government blindly adopts more or less everything that is determined by the WHO.
ThK: Switzerland didn’t have to do that?
AS: No, those were recommendations. They could be adopted or not. Federal Councilor Baume-Scheider made it clear that the IHR is an international treaty and therefore binding once signed: Pacta sunt servanda – agreements must be kept, which means that Switzerland is bound by this treaty.
On the one hand, the text of the IHR refers to the sovereignty of states, but at the same time it also states that if the Director-General recommends measures, these must be implemented. There is therefore a certain contradiction in the text of the treaty itself.
However, we can already see that Switzerland is submitting to the provisions of the WHO, which means that the recommendations become mandatory. With the entry into force of the amended IHR, these mechanisms would be put into writing and thus cemented.
ThK: This is serious and should be rejected for this reason alone. What can we expect about the other points?
AS: The Director-General determines what constitutes “relevant health products.”
When a pandemic is declared, he then determines which relevant health products are to be used during the pandemic. Health-related products include vaccines, both traditional and cell- and gene-based, as well as mRNA vaccines, which are now specified in writing in the IHR.
The Director-General can order that these be used. If a pandemic is declared, the drugs no longer must meet the high requirements for approval as “health products.” “Swissmedic” can then, for example, approve a new mRNA product without sufficient testing and without determining whether it is safe.
This is highly controversial, even after the experience we have had with Covid-19. It has always been claimed that the vaccine protects against infection. Today we know that this was not the case. Great efforts are being made to develop all vaccines on an mRNA basis.
This could lead to only such vaccines being allowed as health-related products. Alternative products or healthy lifestyles, vitamins or fresh air and exercise would not be accepted and could even be banned.
ThK: How is this to be enforced in individual countries?
AS: The member states, including Switzerland, and this is the third point, must set up new authorities to ensure coordination between member states and the WHO. These IHR authorities must provide personnel and financial resources and also adapt their domestic regulations to ensure coordination.
This is a clear encroachment on Switzerland’s sovereignty. Another dangerous aspect is “information control.” Member states are required to build core capacities in the area of risk communication. The prevention of misinformation and disinformation must be ensured, which means nothing less than combating it. According to the IGT, states are obliged to do so.
ThK: This is strongly reminiscent of censorship. Who decides what constitutes misinformation or disinformation?
AS: The WHO determines what can and cannot be said or written. If, for example, we say that the COVID-19 vaccine does not protect against infection, this would be considered misinformation in the future, and the federal government would have to combat such a statement. If it were found on social media, it would be deleted.
The WHO began setting up an infodemic management system in the summer of 2020. The WHO defines an infodemic as “too much information.” So, the WHO already knew in 2020 that it would be confronted with statements that did not fit into its concept. This means that in future, the WHO will determine what constitutes too much information.
It is claiming this right on the grounds that it wants to protect people from risky behavior and, in doing so, prohibit behavior that it considers contrary to its views. To enforce this, the WHO is training so-called infodemic managers.
Their task is to track down and combat false information as defined by the WHO. This is an indisputable violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in our federal constitution, such as freedom of expression and information, freedom of the media, and freedom of science.
ThK: All of this costs money. The “informers” must be trained and then paid. How is that supposed to work? Who will foot the bill?
AS: The amended IHR includes a coordinating financing mechanism, and that is the fifth point that cannot simply be described as a technical provision. This will allow the WHO to coordinate financial flows.
Because, as you said, a lot of money is needed. With the threatened withdrawal of the US, there will be a further shortfall in funding. Here, too, member states are obliged to implement the regulations and build up so-called core capacities. Additional funding is therefore needed to enforce the amended IHR.
The WHO is in charge of the whole process and sets the pace. The member states are under its control and must report on the implementation of the amended IHR. On all these points, the Federal Council speaks of “minor technical adjustments.” That is not true.
ThK: Your comments clearly show the extent to which these five points of the amended IHR undermine state sovereignty.
AS: The proceedings at the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) were also completely irregular and unlawful. However, the Swiss delegation did not intervene and is thus covering up the WHA’s irregular and unlawful actions.
The Federal Council’s aim is to handle the whole matter quietly and without democratic legitimacy, i.e., without submitting it to Parliament, let alone the people. In doing so, it is giving the administration excessive power. This is contrary to the separation of powers. We must not allow this to happen!
ThK: It is a violation of good faith to make decisions behind closed doors without taking into account the democratic foundations of our country.
AS: Attempts are being made to smuggle the IHR past Parliament and the people. What we are witnessing here has parallels with the EU treaties. At least the undemocratic actions of the Federal Council are being discussed in this case, even in the mainstream media. In contrast, there is absolute silence on the changes to the IHR. The parallels are obvious, and it is clear that the same thing is happening. There is a system behind this.
ThK: What should the Federal Council do now?
AS: With regard to the IHR, the Federal Council must declare an Opt-out in this situation, in which neither a parliamentary nor a public debate has taken place. In general, we see that the IHR, like the EU treaties, is being handled in a completely non-transparent manner. The facts are being concealed and not made public.
The federal government is providing information very cautiously and only selectively. Negotiations are being conducted “in secret,” and the public is not supposed to know anything about them. We note that direct democracy is being ignored. It has gone so far that federal powers are being transferred to international organizations such as the WHO or the EU, thereby violating the principle of subsidiarity.
In principle, cantonal powers are being transferred to the federal government and from there to international organizations, which are then increasingly interfering in state tasks. Unfortunately, the cantons often fail to fulfill their responsibilities. There is no public debate on any of these issues.
ThK: Understanding the new IGV is certainly very challenging, and the legal language does not make it any easier.
AS: Yes, that is another point, namely the complexity of the agreements. The IHR were initially only available in English, but because the federal government initiated a consultation process, the provisions had to be translated into German.
Every citizen has a right to know and understand what is in these IHR. For many, as you say, it will be a challenge to wade through the legalese.
Even our parliamentarians, with the heavy workload they already have to cope with, will hardly have time to give the IHR the attention it deserves. Then the bureaucrats from the administration will come along and say that they can decide for themselves.
ThK: But it is also questionable whether they understand the whole thing. Above all, we cannot rely on them to examine it seriously. They are often driven by the idea of integrating Switzerland more closely into the international community. You mentioned earlier that opting out is an option available to the Federal Council. What would be the consequences of this?
AS: Opting-out is a special mechanism. The amendments to the IHR were adopted by the WHA on June 1, 2024. They will automatically enter into force for every country on September 19, 2025, unless a country Opts-out.
In Switzerland’s case, this means that the Federal Council must declare her Opt-out to the WHO by July 19, 2025, thereby rejecting the amendments. In view of the far-reaching consequences of the amended IHR, the Federal Council must hold a debate with the National Council and the Council of States so that the people can have a say in the next step.
The Federal Council’s Opt-out is essential in order to comply with the democratic and constitutional processes that we have in our country and that are enshrined in our constitution. There are just under two months left to notify the WHO of the Opt-out.
It is impossible to reach a decision in parliament and, if necessary, put the IHR to a referendum within this time frame. It is a democratic obligation for the Federal Council to declare the Opt-out.
ThK: Does this mean that the new IHRs are off the table?
AS: No, but they are suspended. The Federal Council could withdraw the Opt-out at any time, in which case the IHRs would come into force in Switzerland. Citizens should express their dissatisfaction to put pressure on the authorities to involve the people in the decision.
What politicians are proposing here is outrageous. The people must be able to say: No, we don’t want this. For this reason, ABF Switzerland has launched a nationwide campaign. An online petition that anyone can sign allows people to express their disagreement with this approach.
The aim is to get parliament to demand that the Federal Council declare an opt-out. Every single vote counts! This campaign is being supported by a flyer campaign to ensure that as many people as possible know what is at stake.
It is important that we citizens do not leave such serious interventions to politicians. Ultimately, we must live with the consequences, and it is our sovereign rights that are at stake.
ThK: Ms. Staubli, thank you very much for talking to us.
Andrea Staubli is a lawyer and mediator and former court president. She is involved in the Action Alliance for a Free Switzerland (AFB Switzerland) campaigning for the sovereignty of the Swiss Confederation.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst, regular author for Global Research, and a former Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
- https://www.globalresearch.ca/ihr-who-interfering-state-sovereignty-switzerland/5894962 ↩︎
- The Action Alliance for a Free Switzerland is a broad alliance representing all sections of the population. It campaigns for a self-determined Switzerland. Due to the current urgency, its primary goal is to prevent the revised Epidemics Act, the ratification of the WHO pandemic treaty, and the adoption of the revised International Health Regulations (IHR) in Switzerland. ↩︎