The US plan for a WHO health dictatorship is failing … for the moment
by Norbert Häring*
(28 June 2022) A bold proposal by the U.S. government to tighten the “International Health Regulations” (IHR) failed at the 75th World Health Assembly in Geneva because it was resisted by African and other countries that did not want to submit so easily to a health dictatorship from Washington and Geneva. Negotiations will now continue until 2024, in parallel with the proposed “Global Treaty on Pandemics”.
From May 22 to 28, health ministers gathered in Geneva for the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA), the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO) for everything that its director-general cannot decide by himself.
The agenda included some important, even breathtaking topics, of which ordinary media consumers were not informed. According to some alternative media reports, the US government presented a proposal to drastically tighten the International Health Regulations (IHR).
The idea was to grant the WHO director-general and regional directors extensive powers to declare various types of health emergencies almost arbitrarily, without having to involve the concerned governments. Governments with suspected dangerous health incidents would be obliged to accept technical assistance from WHO and international expert teams.
Tight-lipped WHO
Even if one looked hard enough, no substantive account was available on how the debate on the reform of the International Health Regulations unfolded and what was decided about it at the Geneva meeting – neither in the media nor from the WHO. It is as if pandemic policy is of no interest or doesn’t need to engage the general public.
Only in the WHO daily media summary1 of the second last day, May 27, did it say at the very end that delegates had agreed to amend the IHR in such a way that future changes to the requirements should enter into force after only one year, instead of the previous two years .
This was a proposal contained in the U.S. government’s draft reform document, but in a softened version. It was mentioned in passing that a “comprehensive process to make future amendments to the IHR” had already been decided “earlier this week”.
The hunch was confirmed that the US proposal had thus failed for the time being, without the WHO wanting to admit it and without the media wanting to report it.
At the end of the May 28 meeting, a substantial, yet overwhelmingly embellished, first draft report was available on Health Policy Watch,2 of which one could read between the lines what had occurred. Health Policy Watch seeks to inform health policy makers, especially in developing countries. The online magazine is funded by the extremely influential Wellcome Trust in health policy, and by other foundations.
Without explicitly mentioning the US proposal, it states:
“This week’s decisions initiated a process to update vague and often indirect provisions of the 2005 IHR, while negotiations on a broader pandemic agreement will continue.
Earlier this week, this proceeding resolution was unexpectedly opposed by some countries, including the African Group that feared changes to the IHR would be made without sufficient review or input.”
Elsewhere, however, it is stated that the resolutions “are part of a highly technical package proposed by the United States”.
In a May 25 article,3 Health Policy Watch was a bit more forthcoming and acknowledged (“admittedly”) that the U.S. proposals were very far-reaching and therefore had no chance of reaching consensus.
But because they knew where this was going, besides China and Iran, many African countries, including Botswana, objected – to the surprise of the United States – to the U.S. proposal, backed by the EU and other countries, set to shorten the timeframe first and begin the reform process in a structured manner. The final decision is a compromise with these countries.
We can therefore deduce from the synthesis of these few embellished reports that the softened US administration’s package of measures (not at all technical, but extremely political) was only aimed at reducing the timeframe to work out and implement possible changes and on how to negotiate possible amendments. This temporary failure was due to the resistance of the poorest and weakest countries, who did not want to put up with a reform that would disempower them without even being involved in the reform process.
What are the WHO “International Health Regulations” (IHR)?
(Edit.) The IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally binding for 196 countries, including the 194 WHO member states.
According to Article 2, “the purpose and scope of these Regulations are to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade”.
According to Article 12, the “Director-General shall determine, on the basis of the information received, in particular from the State Party within whose territory an event is occurring, whether an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern in accordance with the criteria and the procedure set out in these Regulations”.
The current version of the IHR has been in force since 15 June 2007. It has been unconditionally approved by the Swiss Federal Council. The revised Epidemics Act, in force since 2016, regulates its implementation in Switzerland.
A new timetable
The failure, however, is only temporary. Loyce Pace, US Secretary of Health, said the following:4
“If it doesn’t happen this week, we won’t stop there. We will continue the effort to achieve our goal.”
One can expect that both promises and threats will now be used to pressurize reluctant countries. According to Health Policy Watch, the agreed-upon timetable is that by September, all countries will be able to make their own reform proposals, on which a report will be written by January. In 2023, negotiations will be held and a new IHR reform committee will be assigned to make its own proposals. A decision would be made by 2024.
This timetable roughly parallels the planned negotiations for a Global Treaty on Pandemics, to which the WHO aspires. It is not yet known what it will contain, but it appears that there will be a strong emphasis on mass testing of new and known pathogens and, of course, on vaccination campaigns.
WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus put it this way in his opening address5 to the WHO General Assembly in May 2021: as a consequence of the covid pandemic, surveillance and testing should be expanded, misinformation should be countered, national immunisation strategies should be implemented, and immunisation should be expanded, especially in developing countries, as an act of solidarity.
If the United States succeeds, even partially, with its ideas for reforming the International Health Regulations and a global treaty on pandemics is adopted, pharmaceutical companies can expect – much more often than before – to obtain large advance orders for vaccines and drugs in the future and to accompany mass vaccination campaigns.
The population, on the other hand, can prepare to live in a regime of chronic health emergencies with fundamental rights partially suspended.
| * Norbert Häring is a German business journalist. Since 2002, he has been the economics editor of Handelsblatt. He has also published several books, among others on the subject of monetary policy. |
Source: https://norberthaering.de/macht-kontrolle/wha75-ihr-verschaerfung/, 30 May 2022
(Translation “Swiss Standpoint”)
2 https://healthpolicy-watch.news/97225-2/
4 Ibid