Commentary
Rejection is a fact of life.
It’s an unwelcome fact that spares no-one including the World Health Organisation (WHO).
They’ve been banging on the doors of countries like determined encyclopaedia salesmen offering up benefits of the pandemic instrument and the International Health Regulations (IHR).
Yet while a number of the doors have swung open wider than the proverbial jaws of an insatiable crocodile, some are being slammed shut.
The rejection saga unfolds in some countries like a tragic opera.
Related Stories
First to the landscapes of Slovakia where the WHO’s plea for solidarity has met a cold reception.
Robert Fico, prime minister of Slovakia, said in a speech on Nov. 17 that Slovakia “will not support strengthening the powers of the WHO at the expense of sovereign states in managing the fight against pandemics.”
Venture southward to the realm famous for hobbits and orcs, where the New Zealand government has artfully engaged in a delicate dance reserving its stance against specific IHR amendments.
This nuanced rejection, reminiscent of a diplomatic minuet, has unfolded amidst bureaucratic intricacies with the government saying that there needed to be a “national interest test” before New Zealand accepts any United Nations agreements, or those from its agencies “that limit national decision-making, and reconfirm that New Zealand’s domestic law holds primacy over any international agreements.”
In Estonia’s corridors of power, 11 MPs have orchestrated a symphony of rejection, articulating their dissent through a letter denouncing the IHR amendments and proposed instruments. It’s a meticulously composed refusal, delivered with the precision of a political sonnet.
And across the European Union, another 11 MPs have joined the rejection chorus, spotlighting procedural flaws in the IHR amendments.
In South Africa, two MPs have emerged as champions of the WHO withdrawal bill, wielding it like a legislative sword against the backdrop of a pandemic-stricken landscape (pdf). The rejection takes the form of legislative defiance, a narrative of sovereign withdrawal.
In the Philippines, a parliamentary bill has gained momentum, hinting at a potential rejection putting WHO’s resilience to the test as legislative currents shift in the archipelago.
Japan has seen some parliamentarians opposing the IHR amendments with a precision reminiscent of the delicate strokes of a calligraphy brush.
Australia has seen diverse groups coalesce around the rejection banner, presenting the WHO with a collective “people’s letter“ denouncing proposed IHR amendments. This is a rejection, not of individuals, but a rejection by the collective voice of the people.
While the Australian Labor government is fully supportive of the WHO, a handful of Australian senators wish to withdraw from the body.
“Australia should reject the pandemic treaty. It should reject these amendments to the international health regulations, and Australia should immediately withdraw from the World Health Organisation,” South Australian Liberal Senator Alex Antic remarked.
Finally, across the Pacific, U.S. Congressman Andy Biggs has introduced Bill HR79, a legislative anthem calling for the defunding and exit of the WHO.
Thus we find ourselves, witnessing rejection’s universal dance, even within the hallowed halls of the WHO.
How Will WHO Handle Rejection?
There is a symphony of dissent echoing worldwide, each rejection a nuanced note in the complex composition of global health diplomacy.So what does the rejection mean for the world?
Primarily, these rejections undermine the credibility of the WHO.
The WHO operates on a model of collaboration and consensus, so a rejection disrupts the established framework.
The consequences?
It introduces complexities in executing the pandemic instrument and IHR, making the process notably challenging.
Now, in the realm of diplomatic intricacies, this rejection introduces a wrinkle. The WHO, faced with the challenge, might roll up its sleeves for further discussions, negotiations, and a round of revisions.
It’s a diplomatic tango, a dance of nuances where the WHO aims to address concerns and find that sweet spot of consensus.
But, and here’s the kicker, the WHO might also decide to take a bold step forward without waiting for the entire membership to give a nod of approval.
It’s a gamble, a high-stakes move where the urgency of the global health situation might prompt the WHO to act unilaterally, even if it means not everyone’s on board.
In essence, the rejection isn’t just a rejection; it’s a seismic event with repercussions that echo through the corridors of global health governance. The WHO’s credibility takes a hit, and the road ahead involves navigating the diplomatic maze with finesse.
So mark your calendars—the sixth gathering of the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) is on the horizon, scheduled for Dec. 7-8.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
