(1) Zoltan Pozsar: Dusk of the Petrodollar, Dawn of the Petroyuan
(2) Globalists plot to vest permanent power in WHO, via International
Health Regulations (IHR)
(3) Dr. Astrid stuckel Berger: the WHO, the UN and its Plan for a global
(1) Zoltan Pozsar: Dusk of the Petrodollar, Dawn of the Petroyuan
War and Commodity Encumbrance
A recurring theme in my dispatches this year has been that in a moment
when the world is going from unipolar to multipolar, the actions of
heads of state are far more important than the actions of central banks.
That is because heads of state lead, their actions affect inflation, and
central banks merely follow by hiking rates to “clean up”. Central banks
will be behind the curve in this game, and if investors read only the
speeches of central bankers but not statesmen, they will be even more
behind the curve. The multipolar world order is being built not by G7
heads of state but by the “G7 of the East” (the BRICS heads of state),
which is a G5 really but because of “BRICSpansion”, I took the liberty
to round up.
The special relationship between China and Russia has a financial agenda
to it, and what President Xi and President Putin say about the future of
money – that is, the future they envision – matters for the future of
the U.S. dollar and liquidity in the U.S. Treasury market. Their actions
are forging something new:
Bretton Woods III is slowly taking shape, and in light of developments
to date, my motto for Bretton Woods III – “our commodity, your problem”
– remains apt.
President Xi’s visit with Saudi and GCC leaders marks the birth of the
petroyuan and a leap in China’s growing encumbrance of OPEC+’s oil and
gas reserves: with the China-GCC Summit, China can claim to have built a
“special relationship” not only with the “+” sign in OPEC+ (Russia), but
with Iran and all of OPEC+…
President Xi’s visit was the very first China-Arab States Summit in
history, and echoes FDR’s meeting with King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud on
Valentine’s Day 1945 aboard an American cruiser, the USS Quincy. Fixed
income investors should care
– not just because the invoicing of oil in renminbi will hurt the
dollar’s might, but also because commodity encumbrance means more
inflation for the West.
Here are the key parts from President Xi’s speech at the China-GCC
Summit (all emphasis with orange underlines are mine): “In the next
three to five years, China is ready to work with GCC countries in the
following priority areas: first, setting up a new paradigm of
all-dimensional energy cooperation, where China will continue to import
large quantities of crude oil on a long-term basis from GCC countries,
and purchase more LNG. We will strengthen our cooperation in the
upstream sector, engineering services, as well as [downstream] storage,
transportation, and refinery. The Shanghai Petroleum and Natural Gas
Exchange platform will be fully utilized for RMB settlement in oil and
gas trade, […] and we could start currency swap cooperation and
advance the m-CBDC Bridge project.
Let’s dissect President Xi’s comments bit by bit, and color them with
other pieces of information as we go along. First, what is the
“duration” of this theme?
It’s pretty short: in the words of President Xi, “the next three to five
years”. In market terms, that means that five-year forward five-year
inflation breakevens should be discounting a world in which oil and gas
is invoiced not only in dollars but also renminbi, and in which some oil
and gas is not available for the West at low prices (and in dollars)
because they have been encumbered by the East.
But it does not appear that breakeven expectations reflect anything like
My sense is that the market is starting to realize that the world is
going from unipolar to multipolar politically, but the market has yet to
make the leap that in the emerging multipolar world order,
cross-currency bases will be smaller, commodity bases will be greater,
and inflation rates in the West will be higher…
Inflation traders should be paranoid, not complacent. As Andy Grove
said, “only the paranoid survive”, but when I asked a small group of
inflation traders over dinner in London this summer about how the market
(they) comes up with five-year forward five-year breakevens, I did not
sense any degree of paranoia in their answer: “there is no top-down or
bottom-up work that we do to come up with our estimates; we take central
banks’ inflation targets as a given and the rest is liquidity”.
Inflation breakevens do not seem to price any geopolitical risk.
Second, “paradigm” in “a new paradigm of all-dimensional energy
cooperation” is a symbolic word. The meeting between FDR and King Abdul
Aziz Ibn Saud was a new paradigm too: the U.S.’s security guarantees for
the kingdom for access to affordable oil supplies. Over time, the
paradigm boiled down to this:
the U.S. imported oil and paid for it with U.S. dollars, which Saudi
Arabia spent on Treasuries and arms and recycled the leftovers as
deposits in U.S. banks. (In the wake of the OPEC shocks of the 1970s,
that recycling of petrodollars led to the Latin American debt crisis in
the 1980s.) The old paradigm worked…
…until it didn’t:
the U.S. is now less reliant on oil from the Middle East owing to the
shale revolution, while China is the largest importer of oil; security
relations are in flux (see here): Saudi holdings of U.S. Treasuries and
bank deposits are down as the kingdom went from funding the U.S.
government and banks to owning equity in firms; and the Saudi crown
prince said recently that the kingdom could reduce its investments in
the U.S. (see here). Similar patterns hold in other GCC countries.
The “new paradigm” between China, Saudi Arabia, and GCC countries is
fundamentally different from the one struck aboard USS Ouincy. Naturally
so, as China is now dealing with a rich Middle East, whereas FDR was
dealing with a Middle East that had just started to develop. With
wealth, power and priorities shift:
back then, “liquidity and security” were more important for an emerging
region; today, “equity and respect” are more importantforwhat has become
an eminent region.
That is what China offered: “all-dimensional energy cooperation” means
not just taking oil for cash and arms but investing in the region in the
“downstream sector” and leveraging the regional know-how for cooperation
in the “upstream sectors” -“upstream” could potentially mean the joint
exploration of oil in the South China Sea.
Furthermore, Xi’s “all-dimensional energy cooperation” also means
working in cooperation on the “localized production of new energy
equipment” (see here).
Put differently, “oil for development” (plants and jobs) crowded out
“oil for arms” – the Belt and Road Initiative met Saudi Arabia’s Vision
2030 in a big win-win…
Third, the “newparadigm” will not be funded with U.S. dollars:
President Xi noted that “the Shanghai Petroleum and Natural […] will
be fully utilized for RMB settlement in oil and gas trade”. President
Xi’s comments that “China will continue to import large quantities of
crude oil on a long-term basis from GCC countries, and purchase more
LNG” underscores the gravity of the underlined quote: combined, the two
basically say that China, already the largest buyer of oil and gas from
GCC countries, will buy even more in the future, and wants to pay for
all of it in renminbi over the next three to five years.
Again, think of the timing of this statement in a diplomatic sense:
President Xi communicated his message on “renminbi invoicing” not during
the first day of his visit – when he met only the Saudi leadership – but
during the second day of his visit – when he met the leadership of all
the GCC countries – to in part signal … GCC oil flowing East +
renminbi invoicing = the dawn of the petroyuan.
Given the scope of priority areas in which China plans to work with GCC
countries -the sale of clean energy infrastructure, big data and cloud
computing centers, 5G and 6G projects, and cooperation in smart
manufacturing and space exploration as per Xi’s speech – there will be
many avenues through which GCC countries will be able to decumulate the
renminbi they earn from selling oil and gas to China.
And if, perish the thought, any GCC country were to accumulate some
surplus cash in “non-convertible” renminbi, just as President Xi’s plane
was landing in Riyadh, the PBoC revealed that during 2022, it had
re-started gold purchases with gusto.
Why do China’s gold purchases matter in the context of renminbi settlement?
Because at the 2018 BRICS Summit, China launched a renminbi-denominated
oil futures contract on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange, and
since 2016 and 2017, the renminbi has been convertible to gold on the
Shanghai and Hong Kong Gold Exchanges, respectively. Not a bad deal,
Paraphrasing Forrest Gump, “you can spend it on solar panels, wind
turbines, data centers, telecommunications equipment, or space projects
to create jobs, or you can just recycle it at some bank or just convert
it to good old gold bars. Money is as money does, and convertibility to
gold beats convertibility to dollars”.
President Xi’s “three- to five-year horizon” means that by 2025, the GCC
may be paid in renminbi for all of the oil and gas that they will be
shipping east to China.
Fourth, “plumbing” references in Xi’s speech add further gravity to the
When was the last time you heard a head of state talk about swap lines
and central bank digital currencies (CBDC)? And not just any CBDC, but a
specific one: “the m-CBDC Bridge project”.
The m-CBDC Bridge project, or as the BIS likes to refer to it, Project
mBridge. is a masterclass in plumbing: undertaken by the PBoC. the Bank
of Thailand, the HKMA, and the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates,
the project enables real-time, peer-to-peer, cross-border, and foreign
exchange transactions using CBDCs, and does so without involving the
U.S. dollar or the network of Western correspondent banks that the U.S.
dollar system runs on. Pretty interesting, no?
In a very Uncle Sam-like fashion (see here!. China wants more of the
GCC’s oil, wants to pay for it with renminbi, and wants the GCC to
accept e-renminbi on the m-CBDC Bridge platform, so don’t hesitate –
join the mBridge fast train…
And finally, President Xi’s reference to starting “currency swap
cooperation”, reminded me of using swap lines as analogues of the
Lend-Lease agreement whereby the U.S. lent dollars to Britain to buy
arms to fight Germany during WWII:
now we fight climate change and if you don’t earn renminbi to build
NEOM. no problem at all, we can swap your local currency for my local
currency whereby I lend you some renminbi and then you can buy the stuff
you need, and when you will start selling me oil for renminbi, you can
pay off the swap lines. All I care about is that you don’t pay for
imports from me in U.S. dollars, because I have enough U.S. dollars
already and I don’t want to add to my sanctions risk.
The “m-CBDC Bridge project” offers further leads down the monetary
I didn’t understand “why” when I first read about Russia requesting oil
payments from India in United Arab Emirates dirhams, but now I do:
dirhams “appeal” to Russia because the Central Bank of the UAE is a
member of m-CBDC Bridge, and so dirhams can be sold for renminbi using
central bank digital currencies and thus away from the Western banking
system. This does not necessarily have to go through the m-CBDC Bridge
project per se, but the existence of it implies that some CBDCs are
already interlinked to facilitate interstate payments “off the Western
system”. Then, perhaps inspired by Russia’s payment request, on December
6th, Bloomberg ran a story about India and the UAE working on a
rupee-dirham payment mechanism to bypass the U.S. dollar in bilateral
trade, a mechanism that will include payments for oil and gas purchases
from the UAE.
Do take a step back and consider… that since the beginning of this
year, 2022, Russia has been selling oil to China for renminbi, and to
India for UAE dirhams; India and the UAE are working on settling oil and
gas trades in dirhams by 2023; and China is asking the GCC to “fully”
utilize Shanghai’s exchanges to settle all oil and gas sales to China in
renminbi by 2025. That’s dusk for the petrodollar…
… and dawn for the petroyuan. Now on to the topic of commodity
In money and banking, the word “encumbrance” is typically used in the
context of transactions involving collateral: if collateral is pledged
to a specific trade, it’s referred to as “encumbered”, which means it
can’t be used to do other trades. If encumbrance becomes extreme,
collateral gets scarce, which typically shows up as interest rates on
scarce pieces of collateral trading deeply below OIS rates…
Under Bretton Woods III, a system in which commodities are collateral,
encumbrance means that commodities can get scarce in certain parts of
the world – and that scarcity shows up as inflation “printing” far
To see what encumbrance means in the context of the oil and gas markets
today, let’s start with the geographic scope of OPEC+, that is, OPEC
plus Russia: the original founding members of OPEC were the Islamic
Republic of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Venezuela in 1960,
which were later joined by Qatar (1961), Indonesia (1962), Libya (1962),
the United Arab Emirates (1967), Algeria (1969), Nigeria (1971), Ecuador
(1973), Gabon (1975), Angola (2007), Equatorial Guinea (2017), and Congo
(2018). Russia joined OPEC in 2016 – a union that forged OPEC+. Think of
OPEC+ as follows: Russia, Iran, the GCC, Latin American producers, North
African producers, West African producers, and Indonesia. I left out
Iraq, where ISIS is complicating the overall picture, but the rest of
the groupings show how China is starting to dominate OPEC+:
First, Russia and China have their famous special relationship, and
since the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, China has been paying for
Russian oil in renminbi at a steep discount. As President Putin
remarked. “China drives a hard bargain”.
Second, Iran and China have also had a special relationship since March
27, 2021 – the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership – a 25-year “deal”
under which China committed to invest $400 billion into Iran’s economy
in exchange for a steady supply of Iranian oil at a steep discount. The
deal included $280 billion toward developing downstream petrochemical
sectors (refining and plastics) and $120 billion toward Iran’s
transportation and manufacturing infrastructure. Specifically, under the
agreement, “China will be able to buy any and all Iranian oil, gas, and
petrochemical products at a minimum guaranteed discount of 12 percent to
the six-month rolling mean price of comparable benchmark products, plus
another 6 to 8 percent on top for risk-adiusted compensation” (see
here). This means that Iran is selling its oil to China at about the
same price as Russia, or maybe in reverse, as the Iran deal predates the
post-Ukraine prices for Russia!
Third, Venezuela has been accepting payments for oil in renminbi since
2019 (see here) and has also been selling oil to China at steep
discounts (see here).
Fourth, Xi’s GCC “pitch” was similar to the Comprehensive Strategic
Partnership with Iran – investments in downstream petrochemical
projects, manufacturing, and infrastructure – plus some higher
value-added projects for Saudi Arabia to aid Riyadh’s Silicon Valley
aspirations. Because the GCC aren’t sanctioned, China didn’t ask for any
steep discounts, but it did ask for renminbi settlement.
Let’s stop here for a moment. Russia, Iran, and Venezuela account for
about 40 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves, and each of them
are currently selling oil to China for renminbi at a steep discount. The
GCC countries account for 40 percent of proven oil reserves as well –
Saudi Arabia has a half of that, and the other GCC countries the other
half – and are being courted by China to accept renminbi for their oil
in exchange for transformative investments – the “newparadigm” we
discussed above. To underscore, the U.S. has sanctioned half of OPEC
with 40 percent of the world’s oil reserves and lost them to China,
while China is courting the other half of OPEC with an offer that’s hard
The remaining 20 percent of proven oil reserves are in North and West
Africa and Indonesia. Geopolitically, North Africa is dominated by
Russia at present (see here). West Africa by China, and Indonesia has
its own agenda (see below).
Commodity encumbrance here means that over the next “three to five
years”, China will not only pay for more oil in renminbi (crowding out
the U.S. dollar), but new investments in downstream petrochemical
industries in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the GCC more broadly mean that in
the future, much more value-added will be captured locally at the
expense of industries in the West. Think of this as a “farm-to-table”
model: I used to sell my chicken and vegetables to you, and you sold
soup for a markup in your five-star restaurant, but from now on, I’ll
make the soup myself and you’ll get to import it in a can – my oil, my
jobs, your spend, “our commodity, vour problem. “Our commodity, our
Commodity encumbrance has had its first major casualty in Europe
already: BASF’s decision to permanently downsize its operations at its
main plant in Ludwigshafen and instead shift its chemical operations to
China was motivated by the fact that China is securing energy at
discounts, not markups like Europe.
Collateral encumbrance means encumbrance from the perspective of someone
pledging collateral to a dealer. Dealers in turn rehypothecate pledged
Commodity rehypothecation will work the same way: heavily discounted oil
and locally produced chemicals invoiced in renminbi mean encumbrance by
the East, and the marginal re-export of oil and chemicals also for
renminbi to the West means commodity rehypothecation for a profit, i.e.,
an “East-to-West” spread…
We are starting to see examples of commodity rehypothecation already:
China became a big exporter of Russian LNG to Europe, and India a big
exporter of Russian oil and refined products such as diesel to Europe
(see here and here).
We should expect more “rehypothecation” in the future across more
products and invoiced not just in euros and dollars, but also renminbi,
dirhams, and rupees.
But commodity encumbrance has a darker, “institutional” aspect to it too…
What I described above is a de facto state of affairs, in which Russia,
Iran, and Venezuela have effectively pledged their resources to the
BRICS and BeltandRoad “cause”, and China is courting the GCC to do the
same under a “new paradigm”.
But there is also a de jure version of the commodity encumbrance theme,
and here is where a recent speech by President Putin comes in. On June
22, 2022, at the BRICS Business Forum – a WEF-like meeting of the “G7 of
the East” – President Putin noted that “the creation of an international
reserve currency based on a basket of currencies of our countries is
being worked on” (see here).
This “reserve currency project” took off after China failed to reform
the SDR, and its antecedents were chronicled in a recent book by Zoe Liu
and Mihaela Papa: Can the BRICS De-Dollarize the Global Financial System
(see here). The book was funded by the Rising Power Alliances Project at
the Fletcher School of Tufts University, which in turn was funded by the
U.S. Department of Defense.
It would seem to me that if the DoD has a keen interest in the topic of
de-dollarization, market participants should have one as well, and
should also add commodity encumbrance to the list. Now back to Putin’s
“BRICS coin” idea…
When a G7 rates strategist or trader starts looking at the “G7 of the
East”, he or she will realize that institutions and people are
different, but they do exist.
Regarding the development of an “international reserve currency” a la
the SDR, Sergei Glazyev has been in charge. Since 2019, Glazyev has been
serving as minister in charge of integration and macroeconomics of the
EEC, that is, the Eurasian Economic Commission. He strikes me as someone
similar to Liu He. who President Xi introduced to a former U.S. national
security advisor saying: “This is Liu Fie. Fie is very important to me”.
Given his recent progress report on “BRICS coin”, Sergei Glazyev seems
to be very important to President Putin.
Regarding “institutionalized commodity encumbrance”, the comments I
could find about the “BRICS coin” project from Glazyev revolve around
the methodology to determine the weight of each participating currency
in the “coin”. Specifically:
“should [a nation] reserve a portion of [its] natural resources for the
backing of the new economic system, [its] respective weight in the
currency basket of the new monetary unit would increase accordingly,
providing that nation with larger currency reserves and credit capacity.
In addition, bilateral swap lines with trading partner countries would
provide them with adequate financing for co-investments and trade
financing” (see here). Hm. Swap lines again to facilitate trade and
investments, and a de jure vision for commodity encumbrance in exchange
for boosting a country’s “credit line” in an alternative economic system.
It seems to me that “new paradigms” come in pairs…
Attention needs to be paid to the goings-on of the global East and
South, especially given that this year Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran
have all started their application to the BRICS (see here). Furthermore,
following this year’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in
Samarkand, the SCO
– “the NATO of the East” – granted dialogue partner status to “half the GCC”
– Saudi Arabia and Qatar – and started procedures to admit Iran as a
In Riyadh, President Xi referred to “a garden of civilizations” in the
context of the Belt and Road Initiative (see here). Unless they involve
Adam, Eve, and a snake, gardens typically refer to a happy and peaceful
place. Now consider that if Russia and Iran get along, China and Iran
get along, Russia and Saudi Arabia get along, and China and Saudi Arabia
get along, then the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Iran engaging
in what the FT called “friendly talks” last week (see here) means more
momentum for Belt and Road, BRICS+, and “BRICS coin”.
Indeed, for the Belt and Road Initiative to work, the region has to be a
peaceful “garden of civilizations”, and for “the enemy of my enemy is my
friend” to work, a Great Power needs to befriend the enemy of a rival
Great Power. But that strategy is increasingly hard to implement in the
Middle Eastern “region” of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): the great
powers of the Eurasian landmass – China and Russia – are bound by a
“special relationship”, and each of them have good a relationship with
each of the great powers of the Middle East, and all of them have much
to gain from building a new economic and monetary system.
The China-GCC Summit is one thing, and China’s strategic partnership
with Iran is another, but both Saudi Arabia and Iran applying to pillar
institutions of the multipolar world order – BRICS+ and the SCO – at the
same exact time, plus the idea of “BRICS coin” as a commodity-weighted
neutral reserve asset that encourages members to pledge their
commodities to the BRICS “cause”, should have G7 bond investors
concerned, because these trends may keep inflation from slowing and
interest rates from falling for the rest of this decade.
Finally, the de facto and de jure commodity encumbrance themes described
above have an even graver inflationary undertone if you consider the
over the past decade, all growth in global oil production came from U.S.
shale and other non-conventional sources such as Canadian tar sands. We
know from official comments following President Biden’s visit to Saudi
Arabia that the kingdom is currently “pumping” at capacity and will be
able to boost output by only one million barrels per day by 2025 and
then “no more”. In light of that, consider that production from shale
fields has peaked and recall some recent comments from the largest shale
operator in the U.S. that more drilling would harm the shale industry
(see here). It appears to me that unless the U.S. nationalizes shale oil
fields and starts to drill for oil itself to boost production, over the
next three to five years, we’re looking at an inelastic supply of oil
.. .and of that inelastic supply:
(1) China will get a bigger share at a discount, invoiced in renminbi.
(3) China will export more downstream products at a wider margin, and…
(5) China will lure more firms like BASF with discounted energy bills.
(7) Iran, with Chinese capital, will do more downstream exports too, and…
(9) GCC countries, with Chinese capital, ditto, most likely for renminbi.
The “new paradigm”, as I see it, comes with a theme of “emancipation”:
both sanctioned and non-sanctioned members of OPEC, with Chinese
capital, are going to adopt the “farm-to-table” model in which they will
not just sell oil but will also refine more of it and process more of it
into high value-added petrochemical products. Given supply constraints
over “the next three to five years”. this will likely be at the expense
of refiners and petrochemical firms in the West, and also growth in the
West. All this means much less domestic production and more inflation as
steadily price-inflating alternatives are imported from the East.
And this is not just about oil and gas…
Earlier this year, President Widodo of Indonesia (an OPEC member since
1962) called for an OPEC-style cartel for battery metals for EVs.
Resource nationalism is in the air, but markets don’t seem to price it
as a potential driver of inflation.
Considerthat shortly after President Widodo floated his ideaon October
30, 2022, on November 15, 2022, the G7 gave lndonesia $20 billion to
move away from coal (see here). Then, on December 14, 2022, the G7 gave
Vietnam $15 billion too (see here) to do the same. Great Powers are
spending a lot to keep commodities and friend-shoring locations in their
orbit at affordable prices. One would suspect these “outlays” are a part
of the G7’s $600 billion earmarked to counter China’s Belt and Road
Initiative (see here). Here is the point: major amounts of money are
being mobilized to cut off big, fat tail risks to inflation, and to
…five-year forward five-year breakeven inflation expectations do not
price geopolitical risk. I also believe that most inflation traders may
not appreciate that the future path of inflation in the West is being
“bought” in $15 to $20 billion “clips” one commodity and one region at a
time – commodity encumbrance is a real risk.
Commodity encumbrance cuts in the other direction too…
Consider that on November 3, 2022, Canada ordered three Chinese firms to
exit lithium mining (see here). In simple terms, commodity encumbrance
…a total war for the control of commodities.
President Xi’s “next three to five years” of implementing the “new
paradigm” and the risks of resource nationalism and “BRICS coin” means
this for G7 rates:
when you look at the yield curve and think about the five-year section
and then the forward five-year section, by the time the forward
five-year section starts, President Xi may have accomplished his “next
three- to five-year” goal of paying for China’s oil and gas imports
exclusively in renminbi and may have advanced commodity encumbrance by
developing downstream petrochemical industries in the Middle East
“region” of Belt and Road and also the rollout of “BRICS coin”.
I don’t think five-year forward five-year rates are pricing the future
correctly: breakevens appear to be blind to geopolitical risks and the
likelihood of the above.
If the above scenario won’t come to pass, it will be due to a big,
But a fight like that takes time to conclude, and in its wake, forward
five-years should still be different. Or maybe not, if yield curve
control funds reconstruction, but under that scenario, bond investors
will be subject to financial repression…
Five-year forward five-year breakeven inflation expectations now make
little sense. For two generations of investors, geopolitics did not
matter. This time is different: it’s time to get real and it’s time to
start pricing the secular end of “lowflation”…
Recognize two things: first, that inflation has been driven by
non-linear shocks (a pandemic; stimulus; supply chain issues involving
laptops, chips, and cars; post-pandemic labor shortages; and then the
war in Ukraine), and second, that inflation forecasts treat geopolitics
in the reaiview mirror. Don’t be too DSGE…
…think about inflation with geopolitics, resource nationalism, and
“BRICS coin” in mind as the next set of non-linear shocks that will keep
inflation above target, forcing central banks to hike interest rates
above 5% and keep them high as they…
…”clean up” the inflation mess caused by Great Power conflict.
This year was just the beginning. Next year sets the stage for BRICS and
the BRI: in April. China will host the fourth Belt and Road Forum (the
WEF of the East). Following forums in 2017 and 2019, but not 2021 due to
Covid, the coming forum will be hosted by a China that, while in
lockdown, forged a bond with all of OPEC+.
(2) Globalists plot to vest permanent power in WHO, via International
Health Regulations (IHR)
Bill Gates Global Takeover Is Official
Published: December 26, 2022 in Health News by 1news.info.
The WHO is actually a specialized agency within the United Nations. It
was initially established in 1948 to “further international cooperation
for improved public health conditions,” but we can now see that the
long-term goal of the WHO is to serve as a foundation or hub for a one
world government under the auspice of coordinating and ensuring global
This becomes self-evident when you review the proposed amendments1 to
the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) and the new pandemic
treaty, which Nass and Corbett review in the featured video.
I also provided details about the treaty in “What You Need to Know About
the WHO Pandemic Treaty.” Below, I will primarily focus on the proposed
amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
Health Regulation Amendments Will Legalize Tyranny
In a December 16, 2022, Substack article,2 James Roguski also reviewed
how a temporary crisis (the COVID-19 pandemic) — which, by the way, is
long since over — is being used by the WHO to seize permanent power.
The WHO’s ‘recommendations’ are legally binding by all member states,
and supersede all national and state laws, including the U.S. Constitution.
Here’s a quick overview of some of the most dangerous and egregious IHR
amendments they intend to implement, and what it will mean for you and
I. For additional details, see the three references listed here:3,4,5
Eliminating the concepts of respect for human dignity, human rights and
fundamental freedoms — The first principle in Article 3 of the original
IHR states that health regulations shall be implemented “with full
respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”
The proposed amendment to this Article will strike “with full respect
for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” Now,
health regulations will be based on “principles of equity, inclusivity
and coherence” only.
What does that mean? Think “You must wear a mask/social
distance/isolate/get jabbed to protect others,” even if you’re not sick,
or for whatever reason don’t want to do any of those things.
Autonomy over your body will be eliminated. You’ll have no right to make
personal health decisions. Even if you suspect you might die from the
intervention, you have to comply because it’s all about what’s “best”
for the collective.
Individuals won’t matter. Human dignity will not be taken into
consideration. Human rights will not be taken into consideration, and
neither will the concept that human beings have fundamental freedoms
that cannot be infringed.
Another amendment is that public health measures will no longer be aimed
at achieving “the appropriate level of health protection.” Instead, the
new objective will be to attain the “highest achievable level of health
protection” without any consideration of proportionality. It’s easy to
see how this amendment will be used as justification for the removal of
individual rights and freedoms.
Dictatorial powers will be given to the director-general of the WHO —
The director-general will have sole power to declare the beginning and
end of a public health emergency of international concern (PHEI), and
the sole power to dictate responses (including travel restrictions, mask
mandates, lockdowns, business closures and vaccine requirements), and
the allocation of resources to that PHEI, including funding and what
drugs are to be manufactured and used.
These dictates will override and overrule any and all national laws
within member states, including the U.S. Constitution.
The obligations under the amended IHR are legally binding, and any
member nation that refuses the director-general’s recommendations can be
punished through a variety of mechanisms, including economic sanctions
and embargoes. Note that the term “recommendation” is defined as
“legally binding,” which means they’re actually dictates, not suggestions.
Dictatorial powers will be given to unelected regional directors of the
WHO — Similarly, appointed (not elected) regional directors will have
the power to determine what constitutes a public health emergency of
regional concern (PHERC), and their decisions will also overrule all
other laws and Constitutional rights.
Eliminating privacy rights — One of the amendments (page 25) authorizes
the disclosure of private and personal data, including genomic data,
“where essential for the purposes of assessing and managing a public
health risk,” i.e., contact tracing and related efforts.
Expanding censorship — The WHO will “strengthen capacities to … counter
misinformation and disinformation” at the global level. In other words,
censorship of information will be expanded. The WHO will dictate what
“truth” is, and since its decisions are legally binding, countries must
Mandating vaccine passports and digital IDs globally — The IHR
amendments will also give the WHO the power to mandate the use of
“health certificates,”6 i.e., vaccine passports. The vaccine passport,
in turn, will operate as your digital identification, which will be tied
to every aspect of your life, including your bank accounts and social
In short, it will usher in a surveillance and forced compliance system.
The G20 also recently declared that digital vaccine passports
standardized by the WHO will be part of international pandemic
prevention and response moving forward.
The Trail of Corruption
Ever since its founding in 1948, the WHO has been infiltrated by
industry. From Big Tobacco to the nuclear industry and pharmaceuticals,
industry has historically dictated the WHO’s global agenda and continues
to do so in the present day, putting profits and power ahead of public
In April 2020, then-President Donald Trump suspended U.S. funding to the
WHO,8 but then directed the U.S. funding for WHO to GAVI, which is a
Gates controlled charity that likely just sent the funds to WHO.
President Joe Biden restored U.S. funding once he took office.9
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation even before Trump pulled funding was
still the WHO’s No.1 funder, as Gates contributes via multiple avenues,
including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the vaccine alliance
GAVI, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE), UNICEF and Rotary
Gates contributes such a large portion — currently about $1 billion of
the WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget10 — that Politico in 2017 wrote
a highly-critical article11 about his undue financial influence over the
WHO’s operations, which Politico said was causing the agency to spend:
“… a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects with the
measurable outcomes Gates prefers … Some health advocates fear that
because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big
business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to
undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”
Indeed, as noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his book “Vax-Unvax,”12
“The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has
made Bill Gates an unofficial — albeit unelected — leader of the WHO.”
And, in that role, Gates is able to ensure that the decisions the WHO
makes end up profiting his own interests and those of his Big Pharma
A ‘One World’ Health Plan
In October 2022, the WHO announced a new initiative called One Health
Joint Plan of Action. The plan was launched by the Quadripartite, which
is made up of:
Beyond the amendments to the IHR, this initiative will also expand the
WHO’s powers. The One Health Joint Plan of Action combines multiple
globalist organizations and synchronizes their plans, while at the same
time combining their resources and power to create a centralized global
Decentralized health care and pandemic planning make sense, as both
medicine and government work best when individualized and locally
oriented. As it stands, however, the opposite global agenda is being
While the Pandemic Treaty and the IHR amendments expand and centralize
power over human health with the WHO, the One Health Joint Plan expands
the WHO’s power to also address “critical health threats” to animals,
plants and the environment.
When you add that together with the planned elimination of human rights,
you can see how the One Health Joint Plan can be used to enforce climate
lockdowns, for example, or travel restrictions to protect wildlife or
the environment. To learn more about this plan, see my previous article,
“WHO Assembles Superpowers With ‘One Health Plan.'”
Jeremy Farrar Selected To Be WHO’s Chief Scientist
December 13, 2022, the WHO announced that Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of the
Wellcome Trust, has been chosen as its new chief scientist.13 The
announcement came mere days after the publication of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s
deposition transcript,14 which showed he and Farrar colluded to suppress
discussion about SARS-CoV-2 origin. …
Agenda 21 is based on the ideology of “communitarianism,” which argues
that “an individual’s rights should be balanced against rights of the
community.” Community, however, in the mind of the globalists, is made
up of NGOs, corporations and government, which are to dictate what
happens around the world. The people are not really part of the equation.
So, the communitarianist philosophy of Agenda 21 and the IHR amendment
that removes human rights and freedoms come together like two pieces of
a puzzle. The WHO’s biosecurity powers can then be used to pave the way
for the more freedom-robbing aspects of Agenda 21.
(3) Dr. Astrid stuckel Berger: the WHO, the UN and its Plan for a global
Astrid stuckel Berger
Friday, 23. December 2022
18. AZK – Dr. Astrid stuckel Berger, “The WHO, the UN and its Plan for a
global coup d’état against our freedoms”
As a longtime WHO collaborator Dr. Astrid stuckel Berger has witnessed
first-hand how the top health authority, the world works. The grievances
in the WHO became internationally well-known Whistleblower. In her talk,
she describes how she taught at the WHO, that, in the event of a
pandemic, the human rights respected, no panic, stoked, and in any case
a Lockdown should be imposed. However, as in the case of Corona the
exact opposite occurred, have you understood, that there is a
dictatorship was in preparation. You will hear your exciting
revelations. [read more]
Introduction by Ivo Sasek
And I say, the last speaker, she is a charming and highly competent
Whistleblower. And I’ll tell you the WHO and the United Nations have to
fear every reason to be this Lady now, not because she is dressed as a
Tiger, but because they will Express themselves fearlessly to the topic
you will talk about – and listen well to the title, there is already so
much in it: “The WHO, the UN and its Plan for a global coup d’état
against our freedom”. We welcome with great thanks and admiration for
this brave woman, woman doctor, Astrid stuckel Berger. Thank you that
you are there, we see a brief summary of your resume. Please be nice.
Dr. Astrid Stuckel Berger
Private lecturer and a PH-service [explanation: a doctoral degree in
English-speaking countries] Dr. Astrid stuckel Berger has developed over
the years into an internationally recognized expert on global public
health and health policy issues. She has more than 25 years of
experience as a researcher and trainer in the field of public health at
the medical faculty of the University of Geneva and as a Professor at
universities in Switzerland and abroad. In addition to WHO she is
co-founder and current President of the Geneva International Network on
Ageing (GINA), as well as former Chairman of various NGO committees at
the United Nations, where she represents since 2002, an academic, an
American NGO. Within the United Nations, she worked three years, and in
particular with the WHO, to schools, to the Minister of health and
epidemiological centers of the regional offices in the implementation of
the new international health regulations, and in dealing with
emergencies of international importance, such as pandemics. She was
appointed rate as an independent expert in the ethics Committee of the
WHO on the ethical compliance of international research proposals. Over
the years she also worked as a consultant for the WHO in several areas,
such as: Mental health, healthy aging and the social determinants of
health [explanation: the Economic and social conditions that influence
the health status] active. On the European level, it is in addition to
the implementation of research projects as an EU expert for health and
Innovation for seniors, active, and in particular of the ethical and
legal aspects. She was awarded by the Secretary-General of the United
Nations for their achievements during the International year of older
persons 1999. She is the author of a dozen books and more than 180
scientific papers and Reports for the UN, the EU or of the governments,
of which 40 reports and health policy papers for the United Nations and
Lecture by Dr. Astrid stuckel Berger: “The WHO, the UN and its Plan for
a global coup d’état against our freedoms”:
I greet you warmly in the world.
I want to thank Ivo Sasek, and his Team to bring all these people from
all these countries here.
It’s like quantum media the world has the feeling to be here, and we
have the feeling of being in the world, so the technology should be used
in a good way.
I would like to tell you first, we are really in a historical, biblical,
apocalyptic time. What I’m about to present to you, is dramatic, but it
is also necessary.
It is a Great is not Reset, but a great awakening.
The human consciousness is in need of this. This has not always been
here, this is new. This global System enables us to see how tyranny is
to grow global. I would like to take on Mr Pfaff reference, because in
American history (specification of the Live-Translation: history of the
UN) has impressed me something: the General Roméo A. Dallaire was
witness to the genocide in Rwanda. There was nothing he could do, he
wanted to stop it. He has called on the UN Secretary-General. The
genocide has taken place before his eyes, even though he was actually
there for peace and security. I may personally meet and we have a Panel,
a discussion platform, a round of established peace between the
generations. He (Dallaire) told me something that has stayed with me
always, he said: “I know that there is a God, because I shook in Rwanda,
the devil’s Hand. I saw him, smelled him and I have touched him. I know
that the devil exists and therefore I know that there is a God.“
So this is an example of a model of someone in a war situation is but I
would like to make the Good, and so it is today. André Malraux, a French
writer has said, we are in a spiritual century or not. And I would say
the bottom line is, we have already won. And we must remain in this high
vibration and stop. I’ll show you a Plan, but stay in the high vibration.
We now live under a tyranny of the WHO and the UN.
I have to say one thing at the very beginning.
The States are not States. The States are already registered as a
company, been to several places around the world, including European States.
Switzerland has been listed as a Confederation, for example, in 1993 in
Brussels and also in 2014….so you begin to understand. I’m going to
give you a General overview of this crisis, the COVID-19 is called,
where we are, 3 years later, still under the state of Emergency, so on a
national and on an international level. And this is completely
unjustified. You’ll still see people with a mask, with disinfectant gel
for hands, with Plastic dividers in the Restaurants. And it is all about
the regulations, health regulations, the WHO, the have been installed,
for example, in the Swiss epidemics act, but also in all other health
care legislation in the world. Click here to see a graphic that is quite
extensive, and you will see that step by step, year after year, always
something to be done. The American and Israeli expert Aaron Antonovsky
is specialized to analyze coherence [explanation: relationships], as a
key element for the mental health. And I’m trying to draw this sense of
consistency, a little bit for you.
In the first Phase, the fear was created and propagated, in which a
Virus is inflated and the people were afraid that you will die from it.
The media have increased the Drama, really, and it has been shown the
photos, for example, it has been shown in the hospitals, coffins, to
make people scared.
Professor Ioannidis, one of the Top epidemiologists in the world, from
Stanford University, has shown that there were 2020, more Dead than in
other years and published for the first time with the WHO and also at
Further evidence [explanation: a Systematic evidence of the benefit of a
diagnosis, or therapy] is that the COVID Virus mutates rapidly, so that
it actually disappears in a couple of months back.
I have to compare in 2002, an article written by SARS-CoV 1 and SARS-CoV
2 together. And this Coronavirus mutates so quickly that it has only
reached 24 countries, and after 8 months it was gone again. There were
no pandemic, only about 700 and some Dead. It was impossible for a
vaccine because the Virus mutates again and again.
You really have stoked fear that the people are ready to do anything
just so that this Virus drops you in the head.
And by the way, the Virus was isolated also never. According to the
postulates of Koch, and also to the what, the WHO prescribes to
international regulations, would have to be isolated the Virus.
There are four criteria:
To isolate, characterize, very important, the causality [explanation:
the relationship between cause and effect] to investigate.
If it has found the Virus, it is injected in animals and observed
whether it developed the same symptoms again and again. The man has not
made. And what was also criticized ultimately, it was never done a study
on the Transmission.
So you could say that The PCR Test is a complete lie. Kary B. Mullis,
the inventor of the PCR Tests, has said that you can’t use for
diagnosis. He is a Nobel laureate. The CDC, the health authority in the
United States, has said (in 2020) also: the use of the PCR test is very
limited. You can investigate so that no bacteria or viruses. This is not
suitable for the diagnosis. To search only for something Specific;
therefore, only for the Research. And the WHO has said.
So we have the tyranny of the year 2020.
And in 2021, we have a huge global study with the open sky (field
experiment). This is not a clinical study. This is impossible. This is
not ethical. In the ethics, you must do this on a very limited number of
spaces, specifically, for example, with 80 people.
I myself was in the ethics Committee of the WHO and I can tell you,
there is absolutely nothing Ethical about this approach, with COVID, and
it would not be safe to come through this way. The first is a
pharmaceutical company can’t make yourself study when it is itself
involved in this. And, above all, when it was sold after the funds. And
in ethics, it is also so that you have to pay, if there are side
effects. This company does not. And you will also be liable for the
damage caused. And, as you can see it in Red, you really have a
conscious, enlightened wants to have the decision-making, as it has wife
Beate workers said this Morning. And you must have signed it, because it
is afterwards a legal document. And furthermore, there is no privacy.
Because everyone says Yes, if he is vaccinated or not.
And you can’t be traveling without vaccinated to, in this case, the
private data. This is unacceptable and against international law.
In the name of that you have to take care of all, that was now in the
first Phase, the fear-inciting and after the injection of an
experimental substance to persons weak as children. Actually, you don’t
have to be inoculated older people, because the antibody. I’ve done
research about it, and as you can see, it is even bad for you.
So the second Phase is then the total control. You can see already, that
you exercise with this vaccination already control. And between 2022 and
2024 happen now several things at the same time, coming from the WHO and
> the digitization of the world
> the QR-Code anywhere and
> this continuous Narrative [explanation: the repetitive narrative] of
the Virus. …
And now we go on to this global Plan of how it will be implemented, how
the process is. There are two key documents. The international health
regulations, which are available in multiple languages, where you
describe how to manage a pandemic at international and national level.
Always in the name of security. The Second is the Constitution of the
WHO. The was made in 1948, finished, and seven times changed. You have
to look closely. And the article 19 to 22 are the door, the Opening for
the complete dictatorship. The Global, in cooperation with the UN.
Because the article 57 of the UN Charter on this together. And they are
currently working on a document that I’m about to show you. You want to
call it the “Treaty” (Treaty/agreement) or Convention for the pandemics.
The Name is CA+. I think this means “Convention agreement”
[explanation/Translation: agreement to the Convention]. This is the
third Version that I’m about to show you. So let’s look at the one by
the other and look after also works like the System.
First, the international health regulations in 1969, it had made since
the first Version and in order to regulate the travel of people between
countries. And in 2002, after SarsCov1 it has created a much more
comprehensive second Version, which came into force in 2005 and is used
for today. And as I have taught, we have made actually, first, that each
state is its own answer. And that also respects the human rights, the
protection of the passengers, for example and that makes a Lockdown that
relates to the company or the airlines. It was actually more, to protect
exactly this. That’s why I immediately understood that there is a
dictatorship in preparation.
One thing you need to know, because that will be important for the
future: That the Constitution of the WHO may decide to in articles 19 –
22, especially 21, a set of rules with two-thirds of the votes of all
present in the WHO, which is immediately valid. As well as this
international health regulations, if a special international Situation,
and this act is urgent. And that’s why you always keep this state of
This global vaccination schedule is in the connection, or even driven by
GAVI, the vaccine Alliance of Bill Gates. He has, of course, yet another
organization, you will be led by Bill Gates, it is: Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation. So, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who is also a Bill
Gates, the name was previously: Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for
population reduction. The father of Bill Gates was of the Fabian
society, which is responsible for the depopulation. You can research it.
And the mother was in the area of reproductive and sexual health. You
see a business plan, and now they have speeded up the Whole thing with
vaccines, therapies and diagnostics. The company’s plan, the state is
prank against humanity.
From a political point of view, the WHO Constitution is the second most
important document that you should know. In this document …
What can we do? So we need to know that nowhere in the texts of the UN
or the WHO, is, that one can escape. We can say, like Trump simply: “We
will not have to pay more.” Because our state will pay heads with our
tax money, without asking us, must we not say to our States: “We want
you to represent us and our tax used the funds to Finance this. Why do
you have such company in our name created?“
The second way is from the System to withdraw. Click here to see the
United Nations System.
It is not easy to make an international court of justice, because the
two international courts for civil law and criminal law and the
Nuremberg Tribunal, the organs they are associated with these UN-at the
very top. And with five countries (the UN security Council) to decide
the still on everything. The WHO is an Agency, but it is everywhere, the
portal of Entry. You can find this illustration in German, in French,
English. If you enter as the “United Nations System PDF” then you can
find it all.
So, we need to go back, in a different Dimension. We need to understand
that this is very long so. The UN was created by the masons from France,
Ireland and Scotland, but also with the United States and other forces
We know that the world Bank and the international monetary Fund, are
also part of this global network. And the BIS (Bank for International
settlements) in Basel is the Bank of all banks.
We know that you don’t censor that you want to our Well-being, that the
lies are always there. And as Andreas Thiel has already said, we need to
come back to the base, to the life. In order to live, the means are
quite simple, we choose. All of this to Happen to move us out of this
System, from the Matrix to withdraw. What has been said Ivo, is also a
bit of a departure from the Vatican System, from that of Roman law.
von Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger