WHO on First?
As the World Health Organization rushes to put the finishing touches on amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the Pandemic Preparedness Agreement (ie “treaty”), it is important to remember the goal of the WHO is not to facilitate coordinated reactions to public health emergencies but to dictate the world’s response to “all risks that have the potential to affect public health” including non-medical risks like food choices, biodiversity, gun violence, and climate change. Despite their protestations to the contrary, the amendment to the International Health Regulations and the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty are threats to not only our national sovereignty but to personal sovereignty as well.
The International Negotiating Body (INB) and Working Group on the International Health Regulations have been toiling for years to expand the WHO’s authority over issues affecting global health despite their abject failure in dealing with COVID-19. Almost every action the WHO took in response to the pandemic, such as quarantines, lock-downs, and information control was in direct conflict with its previous framework. Through the IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty, the WHO plans to give itself the ability to define and declare what is a public health emergency and mandate what actions each nation must take.
Thankfully, the blowback from concerned doctors, elected officials, and citizens from around the globe can no longer be ignored.
In December 2023, South African Members of Parliament served formal notice to the WHO rejecting the 2022 IHR amendments. The notice states that the procedural irregularities by the WHO violated the right to public participation and the role of parliamentary oversight in decision-making enshrined in South Africa’s constitution.
Dozens of doctors and hundreds of citizens in India have petitioned their government to provide open access to the proposals from the WHO, widen their delegation to the Negotiating Body, and ensure that the Indian Parliament enacts legislation to affirm any WHO Convention, agreement, or treaty.
A resolution in the Philippines has been introduced by S. Dan Fernandez, Chair of the Committee on Public Order and Safety, urging the Philippines Government to reject the IHRs as they “pose a threat to public order and safety, are violative of well-established public health protocols, and are prejudicial to fundamental democratic principles.” Representative Fernandez has also sent a letter to the WHO outlining his country’s rejection of the IHR amendments.
In Europe, 11 Members of the Estonian Parliament sent a letter to the WHO Director-General to notify him of Estonia’s rejection of the IHR amendments. Symposiums, conferences, and public awareness campaigns against the WHO have been held in almost every European country including Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK.
Here in North America, the opposition to the WHO keeps growing. In Canada, over 90,000 citizens signed a petition in just four months imploring the House of Commons to “urgently implement Canada’s expeditious withdrawal from the UN and all of its subsidiary organizations, including WHO.” Mexicans have also submitted a petition to their government asking them to exit the WHO. And of course, in the United States, there are dozens of organizations on both the left and right, such as the Sovereignty Coalition, Stand for Health Freedom, and The Great FreeSet, thousands of doctors and hundreds of thousands of citizens who are speaking out against the WHO’s plans to become the Global Health Director.
To add further insult to injury, it appears that the WHO has violated its own procedures. Article 55 of the IHR requires that amendments under consideration for the upcoming assembly (being held in May 2024) be made available to participants at least four months before the assembly. The deadline for these amendments to be made public was January 27, 2024, but the Director General failed to communicate the latest drafts to the public. The Administration and Congress should therefore reject all amendments that were not made available by the deadline.
As worldwide opposition to the WHO’s plan to “build a healthier, safer, and more equitable world” by taking over public health policy for the entire globe, Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus is pressuring the negotiators to act quickly and dispel criticism. During opening remarks of what the WHO called an Informal Briefing on the Member State-led Process in January 2024, he reminded the Working Group, “This is our chance – maybe our only chance – to get this done because we have the momentum. . . . This is a generational opportunity that we must not miss.”
He encouraged them to “be bold”, “be creative” and “overcome hurdles, entrenched positions, and old ways of thinking.”
How transformational does he see the IHR amendments? He made it clear by saying “If the final products do not change the status quo, and if they do not help to ensure collective security and equity, then we will have missed our chance to make history.”
Director General Tedros acknowledged the “work is not easy, and it is occurring in a very difficult environment” and claims that the negotiators are “operating amid a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories.” He sees the concerns over expanding the definition of “public health emergency,” changing non-binding recommendations to binding requirements, and removing the principles of “respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” with principles of “equity” and “inclusivity” as part of the infodemic that must the WHO must stop.
In addition, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, a co-chair of the Working Group, decried the “well-coordinated campaign to try and undermine this process and the INB process and indeed, to try to undermine the work of the WHO”.
This “well-coordinated campaign” is made up of concerned citizens from around the world who are slowly learning of the WHO’s nefarious plans. While time is running out for both the WHO and those who oppose their actions, it is not too late for both the United States and countries around the world to put an end to the WHO takeover of global public health.
Here in the United States, Congress should defund the WHO, the United Nations and reject the amendments to the International Health Regulations and the Pandemic Treaty. The House has taken the first step by defunding the WHO in the State/Foreign Operations spending bill and needs to ensure that this bill becomes law. Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) has introduced H.R. 79 to remove the US from the WHO and prevent any funds from going to the WHO. The Disengaging Entirely From the United Nations Debacle “DEFUND” Act, introduced in both the Senate (S. 3428) and House (H.R. 6645) by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), Chip Roy (R-TX), and Mike Rogers (R-AL), will protect national sovereignty by withdrawing the United States from the UN and the WHO, prevent all voluntary contributions to these organizations, remove the United States from all UN conventions or agreements, and require ratification by the US Senate as a condition of rejoining any UN-affiliated entity. Finally, the Senate must insist that any final amendments or agreements presented by the WHO that bind our nation are considered as a treaty and subject to ratification by the Senate. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) offered an amendment last March that was a pledge to hold a ratification vote, but it was defeated when not a single Democrat voted for it.
With only months remaining before the May 2024 meeting at which the Member Nations will be encouraged to adopt the IHR amendments and accompanying Pandemic Treaty, the time for action is now. Thankfully, people from all corners of the earth are waking up and taking action. Remember, the sovereignty you save will be your own.
------------------------------
Kris Ullman is the president of Eagle Forum. Kris served as Executive Director of Eagle Forum’s D.C. office from 1995-1998. She has served on the Eagle Forum Board of Directors since 2017.
