Who indeed rules the world?
In a world grappling with unprecedented health challenges, the World Health Organization (WHO) is ambitiously seeking to broaden its influence and financial resources. At the heart of this initiative are significant revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the introduction of a new Pandemic Treaty.
Aimed at enhancing global health security, these reforms have sparked a debate about the balance between international cooperation and national sovereignty in public health.
The WHO’s plans, initially scheduled for completion by 2023, have encountered delays leading to a late January appeal by Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
He called on member states to compromise, emphasising the urgency of finalising the negotiation process.
Tedros attempted to counter criticism by suggesting that this resistance stems from misunderstandings or deliberate misrepresentations of the WHO’s intentions. However, it appears that Tedros and his team are confronting a growing realisation: their influence over global health policy is waning.
This pushback is not limited to smaller, less influential nations but has extended to the powerhouses that significantly fund the WHO.
Lawmakers in both the United Kingdom and the United States have expressed grave concerns about the WHO’s expanding “command and control” approach to public health.
In Australia, minor party One Nation has expressed these concerns, along with a handful of other senators such as Alex Antic and Gerard Rennick from the Coalition and Ralph Babet from UAP. They fear that the proposed reforms could lead to an unprecedented centralisation of authority at the expense of national sovereignty.
European Parliament member Rob Roos has highlighted the potential dangers of the WHO’s ambitions at a presentation in late February in Washington D.C., framing the proposed amendments to the IHR and the ongoing negotiations for a pandemic treaty as a slippery slope towards diminished national autonomy in health matters.
The background to these instruments can be followed from Dec. 1, 2021, when 194 WHO member states agreed to accelerate efforts toward a treaty or similar global framework that would enhance the WHO’s authority, especially that of its director-general, in managing future pandemics. Despite the European Parliament’s support for a binding pandemic treaty, the dialogue is fraught with contention.
Over 300 amendments, according to Mr. Roos were initially proposed by the Biden administration.
These are currently under deliberation and are expected to culminate in a vote at the WHO’s general assembly by the end of May. These amendments, if passed, would bypass the need for ratification by national parliaments, potentially allowing the WHO to sidestep national democratic processes.
Critics, including Swiss lawyer Phillip Kruse, argue that the negotiations have largely ignored a vast body of data and scientific evidence highlighting the detrimental impacts of the WHO’s pandemic management strategies including lockdowns, mask mandates, and experimental injections.
The proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the IHR are stirring controversy by aiming to centralise global health authority.
Critics argue that this could formalise the contentious, unilateral public health measures seen during the COVID-19 crisis under the guise of preparedness for future pandemics. These changes could empower the WHO to impose broad mandates on member states for any public health emergency, from flu outbreaks to climate change, without clear standards or accountability.
The negotiation process has been marred by a lack of transparency and procedural irregularities. The WHO initially planned to publish the final IHR amendment text well ahead of the World Health Assembly in May 2024, allowing time for national debates and formal approvals.
However, this timeline was unilaterally altered by the WHO’s Working Group in October 2023, substituting the promised final draft with a preliminary set of amendments and an interim draft. This abrupt shift has raised questions about the move’s legality and compatibility with existing IHR procedures.
The situation is further complicated by the apparent disappearance of the interim drafts and a notable silence from UK officials involved in the negotiations. Mr. Roos has also written to the director general of the WHO asking for these drafts without a response.
The UK government’s refusal to disclose the negotiators’ identities or to engage transparently with parliamentarians exemplifies a broader disregard for democratic processes and accountability. This secretive approach, coupled with financial and influence concerns, suggests that the WHO’s funding and policy directions are increasingly being shaped by those who fund it including pharmaceutical companies, China, and “philanthropists.”
Criticism from watchdogs like Human Rights Watch, which accuses the draft treaty of being unduly influenced by corporate and wealthy nation priorities, underscores the tension between public interest and private gain.
As the deadline for adopting these sweeping changes approaches, the lack of transparency and engagement from the WHO and involved nations like Australia indicates a troubling preference for circumventing democratic oversight.
The ongoing saga of the WHO’s attempts to reform global health governance raises urgent questions about the future of international cooperation in public health.
With critics warning of a drift towards centralised control and away from national sovereignty, the world watches closely as the WHO navigates these choppy waters.
The outcome of these negotiations will not only shape the WHO’s role in future pandemics but also test the limits of global governance in an era of heightened nationalism and scepticism towards multilateral institutions.
