Australian Disease Body Calls for Global Pandemic Rules Enforced by the WHO

A sign of the World Health Organisation (WHO) at their headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, on Dec. 7, 2021. Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

A major Australian research institute has called for the World Health Organisation (WHO) to be granted more power to enforce global pandemic rules to prevent future emerging diseases.

In a submission (pdf) to the Australian government as part of a consultation process, the Australian Institute for Infectious Disease (AIID) said the International Health Regulations (IHR) needed to be reformed to facilitate early detection and response to future pandemics and avoid the mistakes made during the COVID-19 outbreak.

The AIID explained that the current global health rules had many shortcomings hindering countries’ efforts in discovering and dealing with new widespread diseases, including a lack of capacity to ensure governments comply with their obligations under the IHR and limited global oversight and coordination.

The AIID outlined a number of measures that nations could implement to ensure the IHR’s reform could achieve the desired results.

At the same time, the AIID supported Australia’s full participation in the process of developing and reforming the global pandemic rules.

Professor Brendan Crabb, director and CEO of the Burnet Institute–one of the AIID’s founders, said the submission was “a clarion call” for a more secure future in the face of global health threats.

“It underscores the urgency of working collaboratively at the international level to build a more resilient world against the threat of pandemics,” he said in a statement.

AIID’s Recommendations

The AIID suggested governments improve the sharing of pathogen samples, genomic sequences, and data as well as access to the benefits arising from their use so that countries could develop more effective countermeasures to emerging diseases.

The Institute also advised countries to maintain regional stockpiles of vaccines and protective equipment to prepare for emergencies and produce new supplies when an early disease was reported.

Another essential recommendation of the AIID was to strengthen the WHO in power and resources to improve its collaboration with other international organisations.

However, the AIID noted that the strengthening of WHO should not require the agency to undertake responsibilities or functions that are better performed by other organisations.

Health workers conduct COVID-19 tests at the Bondi Beach testing clinic in Sydney, Australia, on Dec. 28, 2021. Jenny Evans/Getty Images

Other measures included adopting a “One Health” approach and Universal Health Coverage, enhancing the sharing of international and regional financing and resources, investing in “diverse” health workforces, and facilitating cheaper vaccine production and distribution.

It is worth noting that the Institute advised countries against naming disease strains after specific locations to avoid “negative consequences and stigma” that came with early reporting.

While the submission mentioned the negative consequences of the action, it did not explain what they were or how they affected the detection and response of future pandemics.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO made a contentious decision to avoid the previously common practice of naming health threats after a locality with names such as Spanish flu, West Nile virus, and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.

As such, the WHO did not name the COVID-19 virus as the “Wuhan (the city where the disease first broke out) virus” or “China virus.”

It was reported that Chinese communist officials fiercely opposed associating the pandemic with China or Wuhan, claiming such an action was “xenophobic.”

In November 2021, the WHO also avoided the “Xi” Greek alphabet letter and used Omicron to name the new COVID-19 variant.

At that time, a WHO spokesperson said the letter Xi was not used because it was a “common last name.”

There was speculation the WHO skipped the Xi letter to avoid diplomatic issues with the Chinese regime as the Chinese communist leader’s name happened to be Xi Jinping.

Concerns About WHO Eroding Member Countries’ Sovereignty

While some organisations have advocated for more power for the WHO, many politicians and health experts are concerned that a stronger WHO could overstep its boundaries and strip away the sovereignty of member countries.

During a press conference in Washington, D.C, in May, many U.S. politicians denounced the Biden administration’s conforming to the WHO’s regulations and requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic.

They argued that such an act equated to surrendering U.S. sovereignty to the WHO.

“The World Health Organisation is a corrupt organisation. They are nothing more than a puppet for the Chinese government,” one of the speakers alleged.

“We are a sovereign country. Another country will not determine how, if, and when we can protect ourselves during future pandemics,” he added.

“No other country is going to use American taxpayers’ dollars as their piggy bank and slush fund and spend it however and whenever they see fit.”