Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave no clear answer Wednesday to a congressional question about whether President Joe Biden’s administration plans to submit a binding global document on the pandemic for Senate ratification.
The question, posed by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), came in the context of the upcoming World Health Assembly (WHA), the annual meeting of the World Health Organization (WHO). For the past three years, the WHO has tried to use the momentum for clear protocols that emerged after the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic to galvanize the world to agree to a legal structure that would give the UN health agency authority over public health emergencies that could become epidemics or pandemics.
The proposed “pandemic treaty” is highly controversial, with WHO member states unable to agree on what to call it. Nomenclature It is now the “WHO Convention, Agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”, or “WHO CA+”.
The debate over what kind of document the pandemic agreement in the United States would be essentially centered on whether it would be a treaty. need All treaties, or binding agreements with foreign countries, must receive two-thirds support from the Senate. The president cannot unilaterally sign the US into a treaty. Presidents have previously circumvented this requirement by designating international agreements such as the Paris Climate Accords and President Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal) as “executive agreements.”
The House Freedom Caucus sent a letter to Biden urging him to oppose the WHO’s push for a “global pandemic treaty.” https://t.co/3l9IUel17X
—Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) May 24, 2022
During Wednesday’s hearing, Smith was expected to question Blinken about whether Biden plans to use an exception in the “executive agreement” rule to circumvent Congress.
“The World Health Assembly… is violating its own rules of procedure. Will it submit the flawed WHO pandemic treaty to the Senate for ratification?” Smith asked. The “violating its own rules” comment was in reference to the failure of WHO member states to reach agreement on the latest pandemic document. Publish The statement said the talks went beyond the scheduled time and “they agreed to resume hybrid and in-person discussions over the coming weeks to advance work on key issues.”
The Secretary of State offered no clarification, arguing that such discussions were not necessary at this point because participating countries were far from agreeing on international law to regulate the pandemic.
“On the pandemic agreement, as things stand, I don’t see a conclusion coming anytime soon,” Blinken responded. “We just don’t have an agreement. We’ll continue to work on it, but we’ll continue to work to make sure that we protect our own interests and our own values, including intellectual property.”
Under questioning @Who Regarding the Pandemics Convention, Chris Smith, Chair of the Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations, said: From @SecBlinken “I don’t think there will be a conclusion… there’s just no agreement on it,” he said. pic.twitter.com/prYstBl10s
— House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority Group (@HouseForeignGOP) May 22, 2024
The WHO began developing a “pandemic treaty” in 2021 with the support of 23 member states. However, agreement on the details of such an agreement has not materialized since, as concerns were expressed about expanding the WHO’s powers following its disastrous response to the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. One specific provision that has generated contention is an attempt to expand the WHO’s powers to declare a situation a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)” when the country in which the event occurs resists the declaration.
Supporters of such provisions say they would help clarify health emergencies like the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, where the Chinese government reportedly pressured the WHO not to declare a PHEIC (both sides deny the reports). Opponents argue that stripping governments of their power to manage public health emergencies is an unacceptable infringement of sovereignty.
Another point of contention, as Blinken mentioned, is attempts to create a “fair” international structure for the distribution of medicines, vaccines and other medical supplies, as well as challenging pharmaceutical companies’ ownership of intellectual property.
RELATED: President Donald Trump in 2020: ‘We’re ending our relationship with the WHO’
White House
The pandemic agreement and attempts to revise the International Health Regulations (IHR) are expected to be top of the agenda at the World Health Assembly, which is expected to begin on Monday.
Congressional leaders have expressed strong concerns about the pandemic agreement, with more than half of senators signing a letter to President Biden in April. prompt In the House of Representatives, Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) introduced the bill in March 2023, explicitly calling for President Biden to submit the pandemic agreement to the Senate as a treaty. As of May 14, the bill is Accumulated More than 50 co-sponsors.
When Tiffany introduced the bill, Biden’s representative in the WHO negotiations, Pamela Hamamoto, asserted during the meeting that “the United States is committed to the pandemic agreement, which will form a key component of the global health regime for future generations.”
