Representatives from the countries that make up the World Health Organization (WHO) failed to submit a final draft of a proposed international agreement on how to deal with the pandemic this weekend, leaving parties to debate the document until the World Health Assembly begins. It is likely that it will continue.
The World Health Assembly, the WHO’s annual meeting to address issues of global concern, is scheduled to open on 27 May. Under the leadership of Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO has spent much of the past three years encouraging the establishment of the World Health Organization. A global “pandemic treaty” that gives the United Nations authority to deal with international health emergencies. The idea emerged after the WHO failed to adequately respond to the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. The pandemic began as an isolated outbreak of a new disease in Wuhan, China, and quickly spread as China’s Communist government opposed travel restrictions and obfuscated WHO research. To find out its origin.
According to reports, WHO member states have agreed to implement some of the provisions in multiple drafts of what is officially known as the “WHO Convention, Convention or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response” or “WHO CA+”. I strongly disagreed with this. Two of the most controversial issues are the extent to which the WHO’s powers to declare national public health emergencies should be expanded, potentially curtailing national sovereignty, and the development of medicines and vaccines, This provision requires “equity” in responsibility for stockpiling of personal protective equipment, etc. Expensive medical services.
The WHO acknowledged in a statement Friday that negotiators had not made the progress they had hoped for by May 10. Still, officials insisted they were committed to crafting a workable pandemic agreement and would continue working past the deadline.
“Governments meeting at the World Health Organization Headquarters in Geneva agreed to resume hybrid face-to-face consultations over the coming weeks to advance work on key issues,” the WHO said in a statement. did. claimedcentered around a proposed new global system for pathogen access and benefit sharing (i.e. life-saving vaccines, treatments and diagnostics); pandemic prevention and One Health; and pandemic preparedness. This is a necessary fiscal adjustment to expand countries’ capacity to respond.”
“During more than two years of intensive negotiations, WHO Member States have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to forging a generational consensus to protect the world from a repeat of the horrors caused by terrorism. [Wuhan coronavirus] It is a pandemic,” Tedros said in a statement released on Friday. “I welcome the determination that all countries have shown to continue their efforts and fulfill the mission they have embarked on.”
Roland Dries, one of the co-chairs of the international delegation working on the draft, acknowledged that negotiations were “difficult” but said: “This historic project will make the world safer from the threat of the next pandemic. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity.” ”
Draft pandemic treaty published as of March It contains Broad provisions requiring countries to share intellectual property related to medical technology, share medical supplies, and “facilitate or encourage the transfer of technology and know-how for pandemic-related health products.” The document encourages member states to “facilitate the transfer of relevant technology and related know-how for pandemic-related health products by private rights holders” and to reduce the cost of pandemic-related health infrastructure among developed countries. It establishes a vague responsibility to help “developing” countries pay for We will abide by the treaty. These provisions have caused controversy in the past as China, the world’s second-largest economy, remains a major economic power. Claim The status of a “developing” country.
The draft law also includes the creation of a “global supply chain and logistics network”, which would override economic agreements between sovereign nations.
“Each Party undertakes to avoid national stockpiling of pandemic-related health products that unnecessarily exceeds the quantities expected to be needed for domestic pandemic preparedness and response,” another controversial statement in the text states. It is written in the part.
According to Reuters, the draft agreement that existed last week It contains A more specific request is that “pharmaceutical companies set aside 10% of such items to donate to the WHO, and 10% for WHO to distribute to poor countries in the event of a health emergency.” They want to be able to purchase products at a reasonable price. The 10% figure sparked alarm as some member states reportedly feared the figure was too high to ensure they were prepared for domestic health emergencies.
British health officials issued a statement during negotiations last week suggesting London would not sign the current draft because it threatened British sovereignty. Conservative leader Nigel Farage this week launched a campaign against the adoption of the WHO pandemic agreement, warning that the draft could result in an international push for “forced lockdowns and vaccinations”. I warned you that there is.
Jatoniel Hernandez fills a syringe with a booster shot of the coronavirus vaccine at a COVID-19 vaccination clinic in San Rafael, California, on April 6, 2022. (Justin Sullivan/Getty)
Referring to the WHO itself, Mr Farage said: “It must reform to respect national sovereignty, stop interfering in people’s lives and abandon the frankly appalling Pandemic Treaty.” “The WHO can no longer ignore the growing dissatisfaction of people around the world. Either reform or countries leave completely!”
In the United States, Republican lawmakers have taken the lead in opposing efforts to bind the United States to pandemic agreements, potentially failing to abide by the constitutional provisions necessary for a treaty-level agreement. In March, Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) introduced a bill that, if passed, would require the White House to approve the pandemic agreement as a treaty before it could become a signatory. requires two-thirds approval. approve.
Congressman Tom Tiffany (R-WI) (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In April, more than half of the Senate signed a letter to President Joe Biden opposing the pandemic agreement.
“Among the more than 300 amendments submitted by member states, some would significantly strengthen WHO’s health emergency powers and others would constitute an unacceptable violation of U.S. sovereignty,” the letter said. warned.
Responding to criticism, Tedros said any concerns about erosion of sovereignty were “misinformation” and argued that the pandemic deal would actually strengthen sovereignty.
“The WHO will not even be a party to the agreement. The parties will be governments and only governments,” Tedros said in February. “Far from ceding sovereignty, this agreement actually affirms national sovereignty and national responsibility in its fundamental principles. In fact, this agreement itself is an exercise of sovereignty.”
“If the agreement had existed before, [Wuhan coronavirus]we wouldn’t have lost so much,” he claimed.
RELATED: Attention — President Donald Trump in 2020: ‘Terminating’ relationship with WHO
White House
