On January 20, the WHO Executive Board released a resolution entitled “Global Burden of Mental Disorders and the need for a comprehensive, coordinated response at the country level.” The document calls for, among other measures, collaboration between national governments and the global health body in developing a “comprehensive mental health action plan” for the world.
The resolution asks the WHO Director-General to draft a “comprehensive” plan which includes model legislation and policy measures for member states. The program would encompass everything from education and human rights to health-care delivery and employment, with the WHO boss instructed to integrate all relevant sectors of society and government into the “comprehensive” scheme.
Just a few days before the WHO released its controversial resolution, a team of academics published a peer-reviewed paper in the journal PLoS Medicine calling for exactly what the global health body envisions: An international regime to deal with mental health. Led by Vikram Patel of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Judith Bass from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, the authors even called for a world “People's Charter for Mental Health."
“The time has come for recognition at the highest levels of global development, namely the U.N. General Assembly, of the urgent need for a global strategy to address the global burden of MNS [mental, neurological, and substance-abuse] disorders,” the authors wrote, citing data on global mental-health trends. “The fact that MNS disorders affect people in all countries should offer considerable incentive for investments by both public and private sectors in this initiative."
Meanwhile, the government of India was among the busiest promoters of the global scheme. It was joined by the Obama administration and other governments around the world in helping to advance the WHO’s resolution, according to Indian media reports.
Critics, however, slammed the developing push to grant the UN and its organs more authority over mental health. Across the political spectrum, commentators actually worried about giving global bodies and the massively powerful psychiatry industry any expanded powers — let alone the ability to craft global policy. And as the debate heats up, scrutiny is expected to continue growing.
“Even within individual national boundaries, the Psychiatric/Psychological complex has vastly more authority that it needs or deserves,” noted Brandon Turbeville in a widely publicized report, blasting the track records of both the UN and the psychiatric industry. “When one multiplies that oppressive authority with the global jurisdiction of the United Nations, as well as the U.N’s tendency to introduce tyrannical guidelines in its own right, we can see a clear recipe for disaster.”
Turbeville, the author of “Codex Alimentarius— The End of Health Freedom” — a book exposing a well-developed UN plot to limit the availability of vitamins and promote controversial genetically modified food — also highlighted an array of global bodies working to implement oppressive policies. And a UN mental-health program would almost certainly follow in their footsteps, he warned.
Another organization which regularly criticizes the UN offered a dire warning about the emerging mental-health scheme, too. According to analysts at the Daily Bell, the sudden onslaught of “propaganda” promoting a global psychiatric plan managed by world bodies is no surprise — but it definitely has the potential to become a threat to individual liberty and national sovereignty.
“It's merely the latest example of a fear-based, power-elite dominant social theme,” noted a Daily Bell staff report, pointing out that powerful forces are continually seeking to consolidate control at the global level. “First the elites create the ‘problem’ via various kinds of social chaos and war; then the problem is documented in an elite ‘scientific journal;’ and finally, an elite globalist facility is trotted out as a resource — one that will create yet another layer of bureaucracy that will further expand elite, globalist control.”
The analysis also noted that, in a worst-case scenario, the UN and its emerging “mental-health” apparatus could conceivably even seek the power to lock certain people away in mental institutions or send them to “re-education camps.” However, with the Internet exposing the machinations of the world elite, it is becoming increasingly difficult to transform authoritarian propaganda into action, the commentators wrote.
Still, the UN has been expanding its power and domain since it was created. It already has agencies and bureaus dealing with every imaginable area of human life, from war and food to the environment and economic development. The UN’s global health regime, the WHO — despite suffering a major setback in public opinion following its discredited swine-flu hysteria — still wields immense authority.
Critics also point to the mindset and beliefs of key players within the global bodies. The first director of the WHO, Brock Chisholm, for example, is widely reported to have said something along the lines of: “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification.”
Other senior UN personalities have for decades made statements which are equally alarming to critics. Meanwhile, almost all elements of the increasingly powerful UN’s operations have come under fire — from UN troops raping and massacring civilians around the world to massive corruption scandals among top officials to controversial "population control" efforts and everything in between.
The UN, of course, is a collection of the world’s governments — most of which are led by tyrants of various persuasions and more than a few of which still use bogus psychiatric labels to imprison dissidents. Giving such an entity the power to govern global mental-health policy, critics say, would be absolutely insane.