Worthy Christian News > World News > WHO Moving Towards Global Health Directives Despite Mounting Criticism, Critics Say (Worthy News In-Depth)

WHO Moving Towards Global Health Directives Despite Mounting Criticism, Critics Say (Worthy News In-Depth)

By Stefan J. Bos, Chief International Correspondent Worthy News

GENEVA/WASHINGTON/THE HAGUE (Worthy News) – Prominent critics, including politicians and experts, fear the World Health Organization (WHO) will make another bid for global control with an amendment of the International Health Regulations and the signing of what is now called the “WHO Pandemic Agreement.”

Although the WHO watered down some provisions of its pandemic agreement, critics say the changes don’t do enough to address the concerns over the policy.

Together, the amendments and agreement would give WHO sweeping powers before and during pandemics to dictate the actions of national governments. “The devil is in the details, and WHO refuses to spell out those details,” Reggie Littlejohn, founder of the Anti-Globalist International movement, said in published remarks about the pandemic agreement. “The amendments to the regulations and the adoption of the agreement look like the institution of world government, ‘global governance’ as they call it,” Frank Gaffney, cofounder of the Sovereignty Coalition, added.

The agreements will top the agenda at the World Health Assembly, the 194-member body governing the WHO, which convenes in Geneva at the end of May. The current version of the agreement, dated April 22 of this year, gives WHO emergency powers to take 10 percent of a country’s “pandemic-related health products” and to force the sale of another 10 percent of such products at “affordable prices.” The agreement also requires parties to make “annual monetary contributions,” but it does not specify terms, conditions, or amounts.

Additionally, the document contemplates the forced licensing of technology, commits countries to a radical “One Health approach” covering all forms of life, and prohibits “national stockpiles of pandemic-related health products that unnecessarily exceed the quantities anticipated to be needed for domestic pandemic preparedness and response.”

A signatory to the agreement must “set aside a portion of its total procurement of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics, or vaccines in a timely manner for use in counties facing challenges in meeting public health needs and demand.”

OPEN-ENDED LANGUAGE

The agreement, which has open-ended language, is intended to work in conjunction with the International Health Regulations regarding “public health surveillance.”

Amid pressure, several proposals that would have given the WHO the power to issue binding directives to member states have been dropped. However, experts say significant issues remain, such as the affirmation of the WHO as “the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

Proposals that critics said aimed to construct a “global censorship” and “information control” operation led by the WHO were also dropped, but the texts still commit member states to enhance their abilities to counter “misinformation and disinformation,” which in practice have meant silencing critical media outlets, Worthy News learned.

However, the WHO has defended the pandemic treaty, saying, among other things, that “member states are primarily responsible for the health of their citizens” and that its role will be limited to being “the directing and coordinating authority on international cooperation around health work.”

Experts criticizing the treaty say it remains a “major threat to individual freedom, national sovereignty and sanctity of human life.” In the event of a new “health crisis” or “global pandemic,” the proposed treaty would give far-reaching powers over the member states regarding the alleged crisis or pandemic.

U.S. Congressional Republicans and their allies oppose President Joe Biden’s administration’s involvement in the talks. They say the process needs to reflect more efforts to review or learn from the WHO’s track record during the pandemic.

They also argue that the proposed agreement would strengthen the WHO’s hand at the expense of U.S. interests – including free speech and freedom of religion. Republicans have expressed concerns, for instance, about previous WHO-recommended lockdowns in churches.

NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

“We must ensure that the final draft does not violate our national sovereignty or infringe upon the rights of the American people,” said Republican Congressman Brad Wenstrup, a doctor and chair of a special subcommittee investigating the COVID-19 pandemic.

Thousands of miles (kilometers) away in the Netherlands, long seen as one of the most liberal European nations, a similar discussion is taking place.

According to its legislator, Fleur Agema, the Dutch anti-Islam Party for Freedom (PVV), which won parliamentary elections in November, is against a pandemic treaty. “It looks like this treaty is a directive. Richer countries, such as the Netherlands, will have to give money to poorer nations to ensure their pandemic preparedness is in order, while we do not even have it in order ourselves,” she stressed.

Many legislators share her views. Yet despite being part of a caretaker government, Dutch Health Minister Pia Dijkstra has refused to back down and says the Netherlands, as one of the co-initiators, will sign the pandemic treaty anyway.

She said the Netherlands is “an international leader when it comes to international cooperation in the field of public health,” and there is “consensus” in the European Union on this issue.

Despite many objections, critics fear that many countries will still sign the WHO treaties.