1^st JUNE 2024 THE WORLD HEALTH ASSEMBLY AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED ON WIDE RANGING, DECISIVE PACKAGE OF AMENDMENTS TO IMPROVE THE IHR 2005.. INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS 2005 (Source of Information WHA -News release: Geneva, Switzerland). And the setting of a date for the finalizing negotiations on a Proposed WHO International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

The annual meeting of its 194 countries on the 1^st June 2024 agreed to a package of critical amendments to the International Health Regulation (IHR 2005), making concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global International WHO Pandemic Treaty (Accord) agreement within a year at the very latest. They report this is “in order to ensure comprehensive, robust systems are in place in ALL countries to protect the health & safety of ALL people everywhere- from the risk of future outbreaks and pandemics. (Outbreaks can in climate mandates etc.,)  As embedded in this decision making in the One Health Approach.

The interdependency od Humans-Animals Wild and Domestic, Tree’s Plants Soil., Insects, Air Oceans etc., the whole Ecosystem. Therefore a cockroach is of the same value as a Human Being. In other words your individual freedom, Human Rights mean Diddly Squat.  And 194 countries agreed to this package of critical robust amendments. In an historic development, the World Health Assembly, the annual meeting of its 194 member countries, today agreed a package of critical amendments to the International

These decisions represent two important steps by countries, taken in tandem with one another on the final day of the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, to build on lessons learned from several global health emergencies, including the COVID-19 pandemic. The package of amendments to the Regulations will strengthen global preparedness, surveillance and responses to public health emergencies, including pandemics.

The historic decisions taken today demonstrate a common desire by Member States to protect their own people, and the world’s, from the shared risk of public health emergencies and future pandemics,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “The amendments to the International Health Regulations will bolster countries’ ability to detect and respond to future outbreaks and pandemics by strengthening their own national capacities, and coordination between fellow States, on disease surveillance, information sharing and response. This is built on commitment to equity, an understanding that health threats do not recognize national borders, and that preparedness is a collective endeavor.”

Dr Tedros added: The decision to conclude the Pandemic Agreement within the next year demonstrates how strongly and urgently countries want it, because the next pandemic is a matter of when, not if. Today’s strengthening of the IHR provides powerful momentum to complete the Pandemic Agreement, which, once finalized, can help to prevent a repeat of the devastation to health, societies and economies caused by COVID-19.                                   The new amendments to the IHR include:

• introducing a definition of a pandemic emergency to trigger more effective international collaboration in response to events that are at risk of becoming, or have become, a pandemic. The pandemic emergency definition represents a higher level of alarm that builds on the existing mechanisms of the IHR, including the determination of  public health emergency of international concern. According to the definition, a pandemic emergency is a communicable disease that has, or is at high risk of having, wide geographical spread to and within multiple States, exceeds or is at high risk of exceeding the capacity of health systems to respond in those States; causes, or is at high risk of causing, substantial social and/or economic disruption, including disruption to international traffic and trade; and requires rapid, equitable and enhanced coordinated international action, with whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches;
•  
• a commitment to solidarity and equity on strengthening access to medical products and financing. This includes establishing a Coordinating Financial Mechanism to support identification of, and access to, financing required to “equitably address the needs and priorities of developing countries, including for developing, strengthening and maintaining core capacities,” and other pandemic emergency prevention, preparedness and response-related capacities;
• establishment of the States Parties Committee to facilitate the effective implementation of the amended Regulations. The Committee will promote and support cooperation among States Parties for the effective implementation of the IHR; and
• creation of National IHR Authorities to improve coordination of implementation of the Regulations within and among countries.

“The experience of epidemics and pandemics, from Ebola and Zika to COVID-19 and mpox, showed us where we needed better public health surveillance, response and preparedness mechanisms around the world,” said Dr Ashley Bloomfield of New Zealand, Co-Chair of the Working Group on Amendments to the IHR (WGIHR), and of the Drafting Group that guided the negotiations of the package of amendments during the WHA. “Countries knew what had to be done and we did it. I am so proud to be a part of this.”

Fellow WGIHR Co-Chair Dr Abdullah Assiri, of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, added: “The amendments to the International Health Regulations strengthen mechanisms for our collective protections and preparedness against outbreak and pandemic emergency risks. Today’s powerful show of global support for stronger Regulations also provide a great boost for the process to negotiate a much-needed international Pandemic Agreement.”

Countries agreed to continue negotiating the proposed Pandemic Agreement to improve international coordination, collaboration and equity to prevent, prepare for and respond to future pandemics.  WHO’s Member States decided to extend the mandate of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, established in December 2021, to finish its work to negotiate a Pandemic Agreement within a year, by the World Health Assembly in 2025, or earlier if possible at a special session of the Health Assembly in 2024.

“There was a clear consensus amongst all Member States on the need for a further instrument to help the world better fight a full-blown pandemic,” said Ms Precious Matsoso of South Africa, Co-Chair of both the Pandemic Accord Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) and the Drafting Group on the INB and IHR agenda items at the WHA.  Fellow INB Co-Chair Roland Driece, from the Netherlands, said: “Today’s great result in approving amendments to the International Health Regulations will provide the momentum we need to finalize the Pandemic Agreement. We clearly have the will, the purpose and now the time needed to complete this generational agreement.”

Notes to editors: The IHR (2005), the successors of the 1951 International Sanitary Regulations, were conceived to maximize collective efforts to manage public health events while at the same time minimizing their disruption to travel and trade. They have 196 States Parties, comprising all 194 WHO Member States plus Liechtenstein and the Holy See.

WHO Member States launched the process to develop the world’s first pandemic accord, to prevent a repeat of the global health, economic and social impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, at a Special Session of the World Health Assembly in December 2021.

https://www.who.int/news/item/01-06-2024-world-health-assembly-agreement-reached-on-wide-ranging–decisive-package-of-amendments-to-improve-the-international-health-regulations–and-sets-date-for-finalizing-negotiations-on-a-proposed-pandemic-agreement?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1lslyBpqAQ110GLKHEqUDrnT4xs5NOtS_RPkC6YD8XLrF9Es2xfXLXm3M_aem_AWhvUOejT_KTzGYDR0VBd5AZhKAwh_8–qKDVIqzNxB4KHIPhzF_wREwknpfbeftAKHZYg6UNk8FACEBfOHktSDg

A new agreement with the World Economic Forum gives multinational corporations influence over matters of global governance.

Harris Gleckman

Anew corporate and government marriage quietly took place last week when the leadership of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to partner with each other. While this MOU is proudly displayed on the WEF website, it is nowhere to be found on the UN website. The only indication on the UN website of this important new development is a picture of the pen used to sign the agreement, and two pictures of the signing ceremony.

One reason for this difference is that the UN’s corporate-centered Global Compact has received a good deal of bad press. Now the new WEF-UN agreement creates a second special place for multinational corporations inside the UN. There is no similar institutional homes in the UN system for civil society, for academics, for religious leaders, or for youth. It is hard to imagine a national government signing a similar formal partnership with one of its business organizations.

At the same time, the UN is under pressure from Donald Trump who wants to deconstruct the whole multilateral system. For Trump, dismantling the international system built after World War II is a companion piece to his domestic effort at deconstructing the administrative state. For the Secretary-General of the UN, the pact with the WEF may well be his effort to find new power actors who can support the current system, which is now celebrating its 75th anniversary, in the face of Trump’s onslaught.

On the other side, the WEF recently received significant public criticism after giving Hungarian Prime Minister Orban and Brazilian President Bolsonaro a warm welcome at its 2019 Davos gathering. This marriage may be seen as a way for the WEF to re-establish itself as part of the global governance center.

The timing and managing of public perceptions are not the only interesting aspect of this arrangement. In 2009, the WEF published a 600 page report entitled the Global Redesign Initiative, which called for a new system of global governing, one in which the decisions of governments could be made secondary to multistakeholder led initiatives in which corporations would play a defining role. In a sense this WEF study recommended a sort of public-private United “Nations” – something that has now been formalized in this MOU. The agreement announces new multistakeholder partnerships to deliver public goods in the fields of education, women, financing, climate change, and health.

The rather detailed MOU includes forms of cross organizational engagement up and down the UN structure. The MOU contains commitments that the Secretary-General himself will be invited to deliver a keynote address at the WEF annual Davos gatherings. His senior staff and the heads of the UN programmes, funds, and agencies will also be invited to participate in regional level meetings hosted by the WEF. It also contains a promise that the UN’s individual country representatives will explore ways to work with WEF’s national Forum Hubs. Aware of the mutual importance of public legitimacy each institution can provide for the other, the MOU also contains an agreement to cross-publicize their joint activities.

Besides the institutional blessing of the United Nations, what does the WEF get from the MOU? The scope of each of the five fields for joint attention is narrowed down from the intergovernmentally negotiated and agreed set of goals to one with more in line with the business interests of WEF members. So under financing, the MOU calls only for ‘build[ing] a shared understanding of sustainable investing’ but not for reducing banking induced instabilities and tax avoidance.

Under climate change, it calls for ‘ …public commitments from the private sector to reach carbon neutrality by 2050’, not actions that result in carbon neutrality by 2030 . Under education, it re-defines the Sustainable Development education goal to ‘ensure inclusive and equitable quality education’ into one that focuses on education to meet the ‘rapidly changing world of work.’ The MOU explicitly restricts the WEF from making financial contributions to the UN, which might have ameliorated the economic impact of some of Trump’s threat to the budgets of the UN system. At the same time, it avoids any commitment to reduce global inequality, to make energy affordable, to hold multinational corporations accountable for human rights violations, or even to rein in the behavior of the WEF’s firms that act inconsistently to the re-defined goals set out in the agreement.

All this joint work might have some practical good if it were not for three crucial elements: firstly, the agreement circumvents the intergovernmental review process; secondly, the agreement elevates multistakeholderism as the solution to the problems with the current multilateral system; and thirdly the proposed multistakeholder partnerships are not governed by any formal democratic system. Were the Secretary-General convinced of the wisdom of a UN marriage with the WEF, he could have submitted the draft MOU for approval by the member states. Instead, the Secretary-General joined the WEF in declaring in effect that multistakeholder groups without any formal intergovernmental oversight are a better governance system than a one-country-one-vote system.

All multistakeholder governance groups are largely composed of a self-selected group of multinational corporations and those organizations and individuals that they want to work with. They work without any common internal rule book to protect the views of all who might be impacted by the group. Participation in multistakeholder group is a voluntary undertaking. The drop-in-drop-out arrangements are antithetical to the UN’s efforts for 75 years to build a stable secure global governance system with a clear understanding of obligations, responsibilities and liabilities.

What is surprising is that by accepting this marriage arrangement with the WEF, the Secretary-General of the UN is marginalizing the intergovernmental system in order to ‘save’ it.

Open Democracy 2^nd July 2019

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/how-united-nations-quietly-being-turned-public-private-partnership/?source=in-article-related-story

Maurice Strong the Godfather of Climate Hysteria. The self proclaimed Socialist Climate Change Inventor, that defined a trace gas as a very wealthy meal ticket of tens of thousands of climate functionalities

Maurice Strong established two of the largest UN Environmental Agencies.  Maurice Strong Personal Advisor to  UN Secretary Generals. Maurice Strong quoted at the UN “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about”? Quote Maurice Strong UN. The Science is settled “No its not:. Maurice Strong Self confessed socialist had a massive influence on world affairs, international environmental rules, international agencies and businesses, an influential member of the WEF

Maurice Strong joined the UN at 18years old lived with a leader of the UN Treasury. Eventually put the UN into the collaboration with environmental businesses. The shadowy influence of the UN Leaders from 1962 till 2005, often clled ‘the international man of mystery’  and a ‘new guy in your future’ and a very dangerous one at that. Strong made his fortune in oil and energy eg Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few. He had an extensive range of contacts within the power brokers of the world, he was called the ‘Michelangelo of Networking’ but he was not angel.

1972 organized the 1^st Earth Summit in Stockholm The Conference on the Human Environment. This led to the formation of the UN Environment Program Maurice Strong was the head of this. Later he organized the UNEP, he was the boss of the first international expert group on climate change. This led to UN sponsored organizations eg The Earth Council and Earth Charter, World Resources Institute, World Wild Life Fund, The Commission for World Governance and the University for Peace.

Strong was the driving force behind the world governance, governing of UN Nation States . He dreamt up a world tax on monetary transactions of 0.05% which would have given the UN an annual income of $1.5 trillion annually. About equal to the income of the US. However the stumbling block was the UN Security Council that has veto rights. (The power of Veto). So he devised a plan to get rid of the UN Security Council but did not succeed in implementing his plan. And then he came up with this light bulb moment called ‘Global Warming’, this might just be the device to get his World Governance up and running.

1989 Strong was appointed to Secretary General of the Earth Summit, 1992 he addressed the second Earth Summit at Rio. Telling 1,000’s of climate change delegates

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable”.

Hence there goes the house (private Property) there goes your Meat  (plant based burgers) Bill Gates ‘Beyond Burgers’, the transformation of the world called ‘The World we Want’ being the world the Corporation- UN-WEF Collaborators want.  (Global Power and wealth)

However Strong did not say at this time he had actually purchased a very large piece of land in Colorado. The Colorado Land and Cattle Company, he bought this off an arms dealer named Adnan Khashoggi who had strong connections with the Bin Laden family

200,000 acres of cattle property called ‘Baca’ It sat on a vast underground water system. Strong formed the American Water Development Corporation to exploit the water by pumping it out for commercial intent but was stopped by locals. Maurice Strong was told by a mystic that : The Baca Ranch would become the new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the world in years to come”

With this, he created the Manitou Foundation, a New Age Institute which was located at his Baca Rach, above what he called the saced waters that lay below. He established the ‘Conservation Fund’ with the help of Laurence Rockefeller, to study the mystical properies of the Manitou Mountaun. A circular temple was built at the ranch devoted to the world mystical movements

The valley where the Baca Ranch is located is traditional home of the Navajo tribes. They believe that their ancestors were led underground in this valley by ‘Ant People’. According to the Navajo tradition they warned of the coming ‘Sky Katchinas’ (Sky spirits’. Strong was drawn towards these Navajo mystical beliefs. Maurice Strong founded the Earth Council Institute in 1992, recruiting world luminaries eg., Mikhail Gorbachev, Shimon Peres, Al Gore and David Rockefeller. In year 2000 Earth Charter Strong again pushed for a World Governance body.

2005 Maurice Strong, an extremely powerful man made a push which he announced would save humanity, the promoting of the theory of human induced greenhouse gases, but he was caught with his hand in the till. He endorsed a chque for himself made out to M Strong issued by the Jordanian Bank. The South Korean businessman Tongsun Park was given the cheque, he was convicted in 2006 by a New York Federal Court of conspiring to bribe  UN Officials

Maurice Strong resigned and then fled to Canada, then onto China where he continued to live. Taking sanctuary in China where his cousin Louise Strong, a Marxist who lived with Mao Tse Tung for 2 years before she died in 1970.

In 1947 Maurice Strong  worked at the UN at the age of 18 a Canadian from Manitoba, he was a junior officer at the UN Security Section, he lived with the UN Treasurer Noah Monod. Maurice Strong was involved in bribery and corruption, a very well known one was the Un Oil for Food Scandal. Strong was stripped of many of his 53 International Awards and honours he had collected over a lifetime for this. Strong was known for his dual role of an eco global socialist pushing for a world governance and he was also reported to be a ruthless businessman

Maurice Strong was a longtime Foundation Director of the World Economic Forum, a senior advisor to the World Bank. A Canadian Oil- Mineral Businessman, Under Secretary of the UN, President of the Power Corporation of Canada, Secretary of the Un Human Environment Programme, CEO of Petro Canada, Headed Ontario Hydro. Head of the Water Development Incorporated, Commissioner of the World Commission on environmental Developments, Leader of International environmental Movements worldwide.

An active member of Perking University, Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Institute for Research on Security and Sustainability for North East Asia. Died at 86 in 2015. Self confessed radical Socialist. There are references made to Maurice Strong and Canada’s Principal Investment Corporations that have interests in Energy and Utility Businesses. The Power Corporation of Canada. In 1976 at Pierre Trudeau request Maurice Strong returned to Canada to head the newly created national oil company Petro-Canada.

Strong was a shareholder in Oil companies, he had acquired Denver Oil was the largest shareholder. AZL merged with Tosco Corporation which Strong acquired which was 160,000 acres – the Baca Ranch in Colorado which was Strongs Manitou Foundation. Strong later became the chairman of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the holding company for some of Canada’s principal government owned corporations. 1982 he became chair of Ontario Hydro.

Dec 3st 1986 Strong founded the American Water Development Incorporated, with a rights to pump water from a guge area and sell it to water districts in the Front Range Urban Corridor of Colorado. (There was much conflict about this and activism) So Strong existed the company. Strong was the director of Molten Metal Technology, an environmental tech company founded in 1989, recycling hazardous waste gained research grants from US Dept of Energy. The company later filed for bankruptcy.’ Stockholm Conference

In 1971, Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet,^[25] co-authored by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos. The report summarized the findings of 152 leading experts from 58 countries in preparation for the first UN meeting on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. This was the world’s first “state of the environment” report.

The Stockholm Conference established the environment as part of an international development agenda. It led to the establishment by the UN General Assembly in December 1972 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, and the election of Strong to head it. UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the third world.^[26] As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change.^[27]

Strong was one of the commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983.

Maurice Strong the Godfather of Climate Hysteria. A longtime foundation Director of the WEF, on the advisory committee of Harvard University, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Maurice Strong flanked by 100 world leaders embodied in Agenda 21 launchpad. The design of the global governance and Mass Global Warming hysteria that has now evolved into a ECO Socialist Multistakeholder Public Private Global Partnership with the UN-WEF ‘Corporate Capture of the World. WEF GLOBAL REDESIGN INIATIVE. – THE GREAT RESET– THE NEW NORMAL – THE GLOBAL AGENDA 2030- TO LEAVE NO-ONE BEHIND– EVERYONE– EVERYWHERE AT EVERY AGE– ORIGINATED BY THE SHADOW OF THE MOST POWERFUL LEADERS OF THE UN– NONE OTHER THAN MAURICE STRONG.THE GLOBAL GOD FATHER OF CLIMATE HYSTERIA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

 https://coherence.com.au/curlew/2019/08/maurice-strong-inventor-of-global-warming/

UN CYBERCRIME TREATY has been highly criticized it is widely reported to overlook, violate Human Rights. Expands global evidence collection, encompasses a long list of non-cybercrimes, has huge over-reaching powers beyond those even detailed in the Un Treaty. The UN Treaty draft was prompted by the UN General Assembly vote in December 2019, the negotiating a cybersecurity accord after Russia took issue with the previous ‘UN Budapest Convention. Russia demanded that the issue they had needs to be addressed. The first draft of the UN Cybercrime Treaty caused some great concerns but now the second draft published on 28^th November is being called a tool of repression. The original purpose of the UN Treaty was combatting cybercrime, but this has now morphed into an globally expansive treaty with far reaching over-reach in both National and International investigations.

It empowers States to cast a wider net of having the ability to access data , thus violating a Nation States privacy laws. The Treaty falls short of reining in  intrusive surveillance powers this endangers human rights undermining the original cybercrime fighting intent

Human Rights Watch acting associate director Deborah Brown said the latest draft is “primed to facilitate abuses on a global scale” because it gives governments expansive cross-border powers to investigate “virtually any imaginable crime – like peaceful dissent or expression of sexual orientation – while undermining the treaty’s purpose of addressing genuine cybercrime.” She said that “Govts should not rush in to conclude this Treaty without ensuring that it elevates, rather than sacrifices our fundamental rights. UN Member State Government have had negotiation sessions over the past few days 19-20^th December in Vienna before the draft is considered in the Headquarters of the UN Assembly at the end of January where yet another session will take place.

The UN Cybercrime Treaty is to be finalized between 29^th January to February 9^th 2024 at the New York Headquarters of the UN Assembly.. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021. It has been widely reported that the adoption of the UN Treaty by Nation States in the Treaty’s present form will erode private data, weaken cybercrime, undermine online rights and freedoms across the world. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021.The new provision extend to extra-territorial surveillance without safeguards

Some of the concerns are:- Removal of sections of the original draft limit the Treaty’s powers to narrowly define cybercrime.  Nation State surveillance across borders without safeguards and expansion of online fraud. The Treaty as it is now presented allows every government in the world to transfer the personal information of citizens between themselves in secret in perpetuity, and to force the service providers who are responsible for that data to hand it over without any ability to object or refuse on any grounds. There is little UN Nation State objects to the UN Cybercrime Treaty, there is very limited or zilch response to robust human rights safeguards.

NZ Government website (DPMC) reported that NZ is currently engaging in the UN International Cybercrime Treaty (29/4/2022). The Government once again states it promotes a International Rules Based Order, that its important that NZ is in the conversation that shaped this new instrument of international cooperation. The Govt website reports that there were consultations in October 2021  and feedback was sought on NZ’s written submissions as to Treaty negotiations, general provisions, procedural measures and law enforcement referring to the UN Cybercrime Treaty. NZ Government is committed to constructively promoting the Internal Rules based Order.

65 Countries ratified the UN Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. The Budapest Treaty was developed by the Council of Europe in 2001, entered into force in 2004.  18^th February 2021 speeches in the Beehive by David Clark and Kris Faafoi was the announcing of joining the Council Of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, referencing the decisions process was due to the recommendation by the Royal Commission of the Inquiry into the Christchurch Terror Attack (15/3/2019)’ With Kriis Faafoi saying “The government needs to ensure that NZ is confident, secure in the digital world, so we can tackle threats to online wellbeing”

Kris Faafoi said “the government made a number of changes to its policy proposals, looking at ways that Māori have an ongoing oversight role in the implementation and participation to the UN Convention”/ Thus the Convention was submitted to the House Of Representatives for Parliamentary Treaty examination. It was announced by Faafoi that the Convention addresses cross-border cybercrime by aligning the Nations laws with this, facilitating information sharing on current threats and best practice (best practice for the govt and UN Nation States), increases and fosters International dialogue

Parliaments role in International Treaties was published 17^th April 2019 by NZ Parliament. Documents What is a Treaty:- An agreement between 2 countries or with an international entity like the UN or WTO, that binding under International Law. Often known as International Agreements.

Parliaments role in International Treaties. In practice the Prime Minister and the PM’s Cabinet with help from their officials negotiates, decides on whether NZ will join or withdraw from a Treaty. The governments decision is effective whether or not Parliament endorses the Treaty or not. Since 1998 it’s been an constitutional convention that the govt will not (except in an emergency) bind NZ to a Treaty until Parliament has been allowed a minimum period to scrutinize it (This is set out in the Cabinet Manuel). All Treaties in the House are referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, they refer to the Treaty itself, or refers to a more relevant subject matter in the Treaty to a Select Committee to consider.

Although an International Treaty is binding at an International level, it cannot change NZ Domestic Law, only Parliament can do that. Non-binding International Treaties (UN) sit in a place call ‘Soft Law’ where this is easily accessible, can be adopted quickly and non transparently into Domestic Policy making it binding- legally by parliamentary legislation. Binding Internal Laws are also entered into Domestic Laws to make these binding. Non-Binding International laws can be referenced to by the judicial in certain cases as they arise. A Select committee has 15 sitting days in which to report back to the House on Treaty issues, objections etc.,

There were 17 submissions on the consultation as to Cybercrime, this was processed and closed in September 2020. These were received by a range of private companies, organization and individuals. Individual names have been withheld to protect personal information. 13 names of organization however were published. • Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa/The Māori Law Society (THRMOA) • Interim Māori Spectrum Commission (IMSC) • Mega Limited (MEGA) • Internet NZ • Telecommunications Forum (TCF) • Spark • Microsoft • PaloAlto Networks • Copyright Licensing Limited • NZ Authors • ANZ Screen Association • WeCreate • Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC). There were other formal submissions, engagements undertaken with several Iwi/Māori groups and individuals.

It is reported that the UN Cybercrime Treaty risks being a ‘Global Surveillance Pact’ that will trample data privacy, these are human rights concerns. Will pave the way for regimes such as China, North Korea, Iran for regimes to legalize surveillance across borders, to criminalize online speech with the support of the International Community, giving the green light for governments to persecute protestors, activists, independent journalist and marginalized groups. Any person that draw attention to the authoritarian regime aim to criminalize free speech. “That’s where we’re at,” said Katitza Rodriguez, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s policy director for global privacy. “The draft treaty provides the legal basis for governments to make highly intrusive surveillance mechanisms like interception of content and real time tracking of metadata, available ‘to the fullest extent possible’ to foreign governments for almost any sort of criminal investigation of a serious crime with minimal safeguards.”

Specifically: the draft would authorize police to help foreign governments investigate activities that may not be a punishable offense in both countries, she explained.

“The dual criminality principle safeguards human rights, but it is treated as optional,” Rodriguez said. “To uphold global human rights, the proposed treaty must mandate dual criminality.” Deborah Brown, senior researcher and advocate on technology and human rights at Human Rights Watch, said the vague wording in the treaty’s Article 17 is especially concerning because it could allow governments to punish certain speech by defining it as a crime because it was posted online. For many governments, this means cracking down on online dissent or expanding digital surveillance.”

The UN Cybercrime Treaty is to be finalized between 29^th January to February 9^th 2024 at the New York Headquarters of the UN Assembly.. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021. It has been widely reported that the adoption of the UN Treaty by Nation States in the Treaty’s present form will erode private data, weaken cybercrime, undermine online rights and freedoms across the world. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021.The new provision extend to extra-territorial surveillance without safeguards

Some of the concerns are:- Removal of sections of the original draft limit the Treaty’s powers to narrowly define cybercrime.  Nation State surveillance across borders without safeguards and expansion of online fraud. The Treaty as it is now presented allows every government in the world to transfer the personal information of citizens between themselves in secret in perpetuity, and to force the service providers who are responsible for that data to hand it over without any ability to object or refuse on any grounds. There is little UN Nation State objects to the UN Cybercrime Treaty, there is very limited or zilch response to robust human rights safeguards.

NZ Government website (DPMC) reported that NZ is currently engaging in the UN International Cybercrime Treaty (29/4/2022). The Government once again states it promotes a International Rules Based Order, that its important that NZ is in the conversation that shaped this new instrument of international cooperation. The Govt website reports that there were consultations in October 2021  and feedback was sought on NZ’s written submissions as to Treaty negotiations, general provisions, procedural measures and law enforcement referring to the UN Cybercrime Treaty. NZ Government is committed to constructively promoting the Internal Rules based Order.

65 Countries ratified the UN Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. The Budapest Treaty was developed by the Council of Europe in 2001, entered into force in 2004.  18^th February 2021 speeches in the Beehive by David Clark and Kris Faafoi was the announcing of joining the Council Of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, referencing the decisions process was due to the recommendation by the Royal Commission of the Inquiry into the Christchurch Terror Attack (15/3/2019)’ With Kriis Faafoi saying “The government needs to ensure that NZ is confident, secure in the digital world, so we can tackle threats to online wellbeing”

Kris Faafoi said “the government made a number of changes to its policy proposals, looking at ways that Māori have an ongoing oversight role in the implementation and participation to the UN Convention”/ Thus the Convention was submitted to the House Of Representatives for Parliamentary Treaty examination. It was announced by Faafoi that the Convention addresses cross-border cybercrime by aligning the Nations laws with this, facilitating information sharing on current threats and best practice (best practice for the govt and UN Nation States), increases and fosters International dialogue

The new New Zealand Coalition, no politician in Parliament have shared this information with the people of New Zealand WHY?

LINKS;

https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/fhd7EW-Summary-of-Submissions-Budapest-Convention.pdf

15 page Summary of Submission-Budapest Convention NZ on Cybercrime Convention

https://therecord.media/un-cybercrime-treaty-draft-criticized

https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/our-programmes/national-security/cyber-security-strategy/united-nations-cybercrime-treaty

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-zealand-join-council-europe-convention-cybercrime

https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/fact-sheets/parliament-s-role-in-international-treaties/