The WHO didn’t get its pandemic treaty through. Critics say it still managed to consolidate ‘unchecked authority.’
WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and other globalists have
campaigned feverishly in recent months to promote an international pandemic agreement, lashing out at those who dared to suggest the legally binding pact would undermine American sovereignty and burden U.S. taxpayers with yet more financial obligations, as well as at those who noted that the WHO is an untrustworthy, corruption–prone, and Chinese communist-compromised organization.
Ghebreyesus, who leaned on
concern-mongering about “Disease X” to move the needle, sought a successful vote on the globalist pact at the 77th meeting of World Health Assembly from May 27 to June 1 in Geneva, Switzerland. His hopes were dashed as the Assembly couldn’t agree on the wording or passage of the pact.
Blaze News
previously reported that the WHA did, however, manage to adopt a package of amendments to the International Health Regulations allegedly aimed at strengthening “global preparedness, surveillance and responses to public health emergencies, including pandemics.”
Critics have expressed concern that
the amendments, adopted by “consensus” contra an actual vote, might not be as advertised or even be legal under the WHO’s own rules.
American biochemist Dr. Robert Malone
claimed Monday that the “hastily approved IHR [amendments] consolidate virtually unchecked authority and power of the Director-General to declare public health emergencies and pandemics as he/she may choose to define them, and thereby to trigger and guide allocation of global resources as well as a wide range of public health actions and guidances.”
‘The WHO’s failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country.’
The IHR make up a legally binding international instrument authorized under Article 21 of the WHO Constitution to which all 194 member states of the WHO, including the U.S., are parties. While amendments submitted to the WHA can be advanced by consensus, decision-making by vote “is a legally available option.”
WHO member states
agreed in January 2022 to consider potential amendments to the IHR. This decision was prompted, in part, by concerns over “the negative effects of discrimination, misinformation and stigmatization on public health emergency prevention, preparedness and response as well as unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade, and recognizing the need for strengthened coordination.”
The amendments were negotiated parallel to the so-far unsuccessful pandemic pact but crafted in the same spirit.
According to Liberty Council, the proposed amendments took “major steps in the wake of COVID-19 to conform and integrate each nation’s pandemic responses by directing them to develop ‘core’ capabilities in areas of Surveillance (vaccine passports/digital health certificates), Risk Communication (censoring misinformation and disinformation), Implementation of Control Measures (social distancing/lockdowns), Access to Health Services and Products (greater sharing of resources and technologies between countries), and more.”
The Kaiser Family Foundation
reported that the Biden administration was actively engaged in the negotiations despite the urging of Republican lawmakers, such as Sens. Dr. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), to spike the amendments, noting they would “substantially increase the WHO’s health emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty.”
Cassidy, Johnson, and the entire Senate Republican Conference told President Joe Biden in a
May 1 letter, “The WHO’s failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country. The United States cannot afford to ignore this latest WHO inability to perform its most basic function and must insist on comprehensive WHO reforms before even considering amendments to the International Health Regulations.”
‘We consider any such agreement to be a treaty requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate under Article II Section 2 of the Constitution.’
Like Dr. Malone and the
Heritage Foundation, the Republicans indicated that the adoption of new IHR amendments at the 77th WHA would be in violation of the WHO International Health Regulations, specifically Article 55, which states, “The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.”
“As the WHO has still not provided final amendment text to member states, we submit that IHR amendments may not be considered at next month’s WHA,” wrote the Republican lawmakers. “Should you ignore this advice, we state in the strongest possible terms that we consider any such agreement to be a treaty requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate under Article II Section 2 of the Constitution.”
Extra to facing potential congressional pushback, the Biden administration negotiated the amendments with the foreknowledge that the U.S. might not be bound by them depending on the results of the 2024 election. After all, President Donald Trump is
expected to once again move to withdraw America from the WHO.
‘The final version of the IHRs significantly enhances the WHO’s authority.’
The WHO
said in a statement Saturday that the WHA and its 194 member countries “agreed [on] a package of critical amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), and made concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year, at the latest.”
“The amendments to the International Health Regulations will bolster countries’ ability to detect and respond to future outbreaks and pandemics by strengthening their own national capacities, and coordination between fellow States, on disease surveillance, information sharing and response,” said Ghebreyesus. “This is built on commitment to equity, an understanding that health threats do not recognize national borders, and that preparedness is a collective endeavor.”
Despite the insinuation of consent among member nations, the Sovereignty Coalition
suggested that roughly 30% of member states were present and Ghebreyesus declined to conduct a roll-call vote.
The amendments ultimately adopted by 77th WHA include a new definition for “pandemic emergency”; another “equity”-driven international wealth redistribution mechanism; the creation of a new bureaucracy to oversee the implementation of the other half-measures; and the creation of IHR authorities for member countries to “improve coordination of implementation of the Regulations within and among countries.”
While acknowledging that the language of the amendments was weakened during the negotiations, Liberty Counsel indicated that “the final version of the IHRs significantly enhances the WHO’s authority.”
The U.S. State Department
claimed the amendments will “make the global health security architecture stronger overall while maintaining full respect for sovereignty of individual states.”
The Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that if “approved at the WHA, the [IHR] revision does not require further Congressional approval or ratification in the U.S.”
The British government
indicated that each member state has the right to evaluate “each and every amendment before making a sovereign choice of whether to accept or opt out of each — or all of — the amendments.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
