Goldhedge
Legendary
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2023
- Messages
- 8,551
BRIEFING PAPER: The WHO Pandemic Treaty And IHR Amendments
1. HEADLINES
The World Health Organization (the WHO) is currently developing two international legal instruments intended to increase significantly its authority in managing public health emergencies, including pandemics:
(1)Amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (the IHR Amendments); and
(2) A pandemic treaty, termed ‘ÇA+’ by the WHO (the Treaty).
The current draft of the IHR Amendments proposes significant new supra-national powers to be exercised exclusively by the WHO during public health emergencies, and broadens and brings forward in time the circumstances in which those powers could be triggered.
The draft Treaty is intended to support the bureaucracy, financing and governance that would be needed to underpin the expanded IHR and is thus predominantly (albeit not exclusively) practical in nature.
The IHR Amendments, if adopted, will fundamentally change the relationship between national governments and the WHO and would hardwire into international law a top-down supranational approach to public health — in particular as relating to public health emergencies of international concern — including pandemic preparedness and pandemic response policies. It would place the WHO at the helm of that approach, giving an unelected and democratically unaccountable organisation sweeping national- and international-level powers to control, direct and interfere in the affairs of its member States and to override fundamental rights of individual citizens.
Whereas to date the WHO has been empowered to issue recommendations, the proposed updates would empower the WHO to give legally-binding directions effective at the level of individual States, regions or globally, for example, to:
●mandate financial contributions to fund pandemic response activities
●require the surrender of intellectual property and technologies
●mandate the manufacture and international sharing of vaccines and other health products capable of “improv[ing] quality of life”
●override national safety approval processes for vaccines, gene-based therapies, medical devices and diagnostics
●require citizens to disclose their medical statusPage of 113© UsForThem, 2023
• forcibly quarantine or prevent citizens from travelling
●medically examine, inject or otherwise medicate citizens
These proposals, if adopted, will also greatly expand the WHO’s public health surveillance mechanism with a global workforce whose continuing employment will depend on the need (actual or perceived) to identify more viruses and variants of concern. This global workforce will be subsidised by taxpayer funds but can also expect to receive substantial funding from private and corporate interests that stand to gain from the vaccine-based responses envisioned for infectious disease outbreaks.
The WHO’s aim is to have both the Treaty text and the IHR Amendments ready for adoption at the 77th meeting of the World Health Assembly(the WHA) in May 2024. 12.
2. PROCESS AND TIMING
Both draft instruments are currently passing through a standard WHO process of open and closed committee meetings and internal and external reviews, after submission of proposals by interested States.
The IHR is an existing legal instrument, so to pass these amendments theWHA, the decision-making body of the WHO, will only need a simple majority of member States. All existing signatories to the IHR (including the UK) will then have 10 months in which to opt out, or otherwise be considered to have accepted the amendments.
The Treaty will be a new legal agreement. As a new treaty, adoption by the WHA requires a two-thirds majority of member States. Each State will then need to comply with its own national treaty ratification procedures.
Scholars have noted that both processes appear rushed and that negotiating a new multilateral treaty in less than three years is highly unusual as is the fact that States were given only four months to table amendments to the IHR.
To date, such public commentary as there has been has been largely centred on the Treaty. However, and while the two complementary sets of proposals need to be assessed together, in many respects it is the IHR Amendments which contain the more concerning proposals from the perspective of national sovereignty and individual human rights.
To appreciate their significance, these two documents need to be assessed in the context of an evolving (and increasingly privatised) funding structure for the WHO, which according to WHO insiders is impacting the ethos and self-perceived purpose of that organisation. Also significantly relevant has been the corporatisation of public health, and in particular in the field of pandemic preparedness where public health officials can rapidly build reputations and careers and where many of the most significant financial opportunities lie for private investors.
11 more pages
While international cooperation and coordination in public health makes sense, proposals for an unprecedented ceding of rule-making powers and national sovereignty from national governments to the unelected World Health Organisation and related erosions of cornerstone human rights are gravely concerning.
1. HEADLINES
The World Health Organization (the WHO) is currently developing two international legal instruments intended to increase significantly its authority in managing public health emergencies, including pandemics:
(1)Amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (the IHR Amendments); and
(2) A pandemic treaty, termed ‘ÇA+’ by the WHO (the Treaty).
The current draft of the IHR Amendments proposes significant new supra-national powers to be exercised exclusively by the WHO during public health emergencies, and broadens and brings forward in time the circumstances in which those powers could be triggered.
The draft Treaty is intended to support the bureaucracy, financing and governance that would be needed to underpin the expanded IHR and is thus predominantly (albeit not exclusively) practical in nature.
The IHR Amendments, if adopted, will fundamentally change the relationship between national governments and the WHO and would hardwire into international law a top-down supranational approach to public health — in particular as relating to public health emergencies of international concern — including pandemic preparedness and pandemic response policies. It would place the WHO at the helm of that approach, giving an unelected and democratically unaccountable organisation sweeping national- and international-level powers to control, direct and interfere in the affairs of its member States and to override fundamental rights of individual citizens.
Whereas to date the WHO has been empowered to issue recommendations, the proposed updates would empower the WHO to give legally-binding directions effective at the level of individual States, regions or globally, for example, to:
●mandate financial contributions to fund pandemic response activities
●require the surrender of intellectual property and technologies
●mandate the manufacture and international sharing of vaccines and other health products capable of “improv[ing] quality of life”
●override national safety approval processes for vaccines, gene-based therapies, medical devices and diagnostics
●require citizens to disclose their medical statusPage of 113© UsForThem, 2023
• forcibly quarantine or prevent citizens from travelling
●medically examine, inject or otherwise medicate citizens
These proposals, if adopted, will also greatly expand the WHO’s public health surveillance mechanism with a global workforce whose continuing employment will depend on the need (actual or perceived) to identify more viruses and variants of concern. This global workforce will be subsidised by taxpayer funds but can also expect to receive substantial funding from private and corporate interests that stand to gain from the vaccine-based responses envisioned for infectious disease outbreaks.
The WHO’s aim is to have both the Treaty text and the IHR Amendments ready for adoption at the 77th meeting of the World Health Assembly(the WHA) in May 2024. 12.
2. PROCESS AND TIMING
Both draft instruments are currently passing through a standard WHO process of open and closed committee meetings and internal and external reviews, after submission of proposals by interested States.
The IHR is an existing legal instrument, so to pass these amendments theWHA, the decision-making body of the WHO, will only need a simple majority of member States. All existing signatories to the IHR (including the UK) will then have 10 months in which to opt out, or otherwise be considered to have accepted the amendments.
The Treaty will be a new legal agreement. As a new treaty, adoption by the WHA requires a two-thirds majority of member States. Each State will then need to comply with its own national treaty ratification procedures.
Scholars have noted that both processes appear rushed and that negotiating a new multilateral treaty in less than three years is highly unusual as is the fact that States were given only four months to table amendments to the IHR.
To date, such public commentary as there has been has been largely centred on the Treaty. However, and while the two complementary sets of proposals need to be assessed together, in many respects it is the IHR Amendments which contain the more concerning proposals from the perspective of national sovereignty and individual human rights.
To appreciate their significance, these two documents need to be assessed in the context of an evolving (and increasingly privatised) funding structure for the WHO, which according to WHO insiders is impacting the ethos and self-perceived purpose of that organisation. Also significantly relevant has been the corporatisation of public health, and in particular in the field of pandemic preparedness where public health officials can rapidly build reputations and careers and where many of the most significant financial opportunities lie for private investors.
11 more pages
