The World Health Organization (WHO) has watered down some provisions of its pandemic agreements ahead of the upcoming World Health Assembly on May 27. Critics in the United States, however, say the changes don’t do enough to address the concerns over the policy.
Provisions in prior drafts of the WHO pandemic treaty and International Health Regulations (IHR) together aimed to effectively centralize and increase the power of the WHO if it declares a “health emergency.”
Some WHO watchers remain wary, however.
“Practically all the bad things are still there,” Dr. Meryl Nass, a U.S.-based physician and vocal critic of the WHO agreements, told The Epoch Times.
“The language is gentler, but since there is so much to be decided later, it is not clear the gentler language is meaningful.
“My best guess is that they are desperate to get something passed, so the options are likely to be either a vanilla version of the treaty ... or a delay. But they fear delay because people are waking up.”
He urged any countries that don’t support the agreements to refrain from encouraging other states to oppose it.
He refuted criticisms that the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments would cede any sovereignty from member nations to the WHO.
Critics Remain Unconvinced
Despite these assurances, however, the efforts to vest more power within the WHO continue to face resistance.
“Although the latest iteration is far better than previous versions, it’s still highly problematic,” the attorneys general wrote. “The fluid and opaque nature of these proceedings, moreover, could allow the most egregious provisions from past versions to return.
“Ultimately, the goal of these instruments isn’t to protect public health. It’s to cede authority to the WHO—specifically its director-general—to restrict our citizens’ rights to freedom of speech, privacy, movement (especially travel across borders), and informed consent.”
The Latest Draft
Struck from the latest draft is a provision that member nations “recognize WHO as the guiding and coordinating authority of international public health response” and commit to follow the WHO’s directives during a health emergency. The latest draft also states that WHO recommendations are nonbinding.
The WHO had sought powers in the previous IHR draft over “all risks with a potential to impact public health.” The latest draft seeks to limit the WHO’s authority to what it has been previously, namely the spread of diseases.
However, the global concept of One Health remains in the pandemic treaty, which could expand the WHO’s authority into new areas including global warming, the environment, farming, and food supplies.
One Health is defined in the pandemic treaty as an “integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems.”
Also removed from the latest draft was language that eliminated respect for personal liberty in favor of “equity.” Listed among the core principles of the IHR agreement, the phrase “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” had been struck in prior drafts and replaced with “the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence.”
Many countries and several U.S. cities instituted vaccine passports that barred the unvaccinated from entering certain public places, such as museums and restaurants. Austria passed a law during the COVID-19 pandemic criminalizing vaccine refusal.
The WHO agreements have also been criticized for promoting censorship, committing members to take steps to “counter misinformation and disinformation” about pandemics.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments, media organizations, and tech companies collaborated to silence reports that the virus may have originated in a lab in China and that the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t stop the virus from spreading or that they may have harmful side effects.
Other provisions that were toned down include an effort to place the WHO at the center of a global surveillance system to track potential diseases, regulations to expedite vaccine production, requirements for digital health passports, commitments by member states to fund the WHO’s expanded pandemic infrastructure, and the transfer of medical technology and resources from rich countries to poor countries, including to China.
Remaining in the agreements are stipulations that the WHO is “the directing and coordinating authority on international health work,” vesting power in the WHO director-general to declare a pandemic emergency.
The Kingsleys’ brief suggests that the WHO agreements establish that the actions taken by governments during the COVID-19 pandemic—including lockdowns, travel restrictions, school closures, censorship, and forced vaccinations—are legitimate responses to a pandemic.
“The proposals start from the premise that the array of Covid interventions actioned during the pandemic are a suitable blueprint to direct future pandemic response behaviour,” they wrote.
