Commentary
Critics of a proposed pandemic treaty say it would cede U.S. autonomy to the China-led World Health Organization (WHO). Mainstream media say it would not.
Since February 2022, WHO members have been working on a
pandemic response accord that would exist under the Constitution of the World Health Organization. The draft accord will be submitted for consideration in 2024 by the 77th World Health Assembly, the WHO’s decision-making body. The accord will, according to the WHO’s
Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, combine both legally binding and non-legally binding elements.
Article 19 of the
WHO Constitution gives the World Health Assembly the authority to adopt conventions or agreements on any matter within WHO’s competence. Broadly speaking, this would mean that the WHO can draft conventions and agreements on any aspect of health.
Article 21, however, expands these powers by giving the World Health Assembly authority to adopt regulations concerning “sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease.”
In other words, the WHO would be authorized to determine when and how lockdowns are carried out.
Article 21 empowers the World Health Assembly to regulate “nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices,” meaning they would decide how words are defined. So, for example, certain powers and measures would become effective when a pandemic or health emergency is declared, and the WHO decides what amounts to a pandemic or health emergency.
The same article goes on to allow the World Health Assembly to adopt regulations concerning “standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use.” The WHO would then decide how testing is carried out, how often, when, and which types of tests. Additionally, the WHO would determine what is considered a positive or a negative test result.
A subsection under Article 21—“standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce”—implies that the WHO would be able to suppress drugs and treatments it did not approve of, regardless of their efficacy.
The next subsection—“advertising and labeling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce”—could be significant, because pharmaceutical labeling in the United States typically includes warnings about side effects. Until COVID-19, almost no drug was ever labeled with or advertised with the slogan “safe and effective.”
Conservatives believe the pandemic treaty will infringe on U.S. sovereignty, while mainstream media
say this is untrue. According to The Associated Press, the treaty “would be considered a
legally-binding document,” but the AP claims there is no enforcement mechanism. However, the United Nations Foundation stated that while the accord would not force countries to cede control to the WHO, it “would also establish means to
encourage governments to comply.” And this seems to be the part that is raising concern.
Although no specific verbiage in the treaty says that the WHO could impose lockdowns, such fears are warranted. Looking at the response to COVID-19, the WHO pushed for—and nearly every country adopted—the flawed China model of lockdowns, school closures, masks, and social distancing. An international agreement would only serve to intensify such a response and make it more uniform across countries. For this reason, the Mises Institute, a libertarian economics think tank, described the treaty as “
the end of national sovereignty and freedom.” Even Amnesty International has criticized the treaty, saying it did not
respect human rights.
In February, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
introduced bill S.444 to Congress, requiring the Senate to ratify any convention or agreement on international pandemic prevention with the WHO. Other congressional representatives, such as
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), have issued their own statements demanding that the United States not join the treaty. Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho) introduced a resolution to prevent the president from signing the treaty.
Speaking before Congress in March, Cramer said: “The World Health Organization has proven itself incapable of holding the Chinese Communist Party accountable for its role in the COVID-19 pandemic. Relinquishing U.S. sovereignty to an international entity like this would dilute
American excellence.”
Similar debates are going on in the United Kingdom, where members of the
British Parliament are also pushing back on the treaty, which they believe would grant the WHO the authority to enforce lockdowns across the country.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
