International Health Regulations Amendments Will Give WHO Unprecedented Power to Override National Sovereignty, Expert Warns

International Health Regulations Amendments Will Give WHO Unprecedented Power to Override National Sovereignty, Expert Warns

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Experts told The Defender the proposed amendments to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations would give the agency unprecedented power over national governments and override national sovereignty.

Two World Health Organization (WHO) committees recently convened to discuss proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) and the “zero draft” of a new global “pandemic treaty.”

Media have focused primarily on the pandemic treaty, with the Biden administration recently reaffirming its commitment to finalizing it, and with The Associated Press (AP) reporting the treaty would not threaten national sovereignty.

However, some experts warn the public should be more concerned about the proposed IHR amendments — which are more likely to be adopted — as they would give the WHO unprecedented power over national governments and override national sovereignty.

Experts also say there are clear differences between the proposed IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty, even though the two are often conflated in public discourse.

Previous versions of the IHR have been in place since 1969. The current version was first enacted in 2005, in the aftermath of SARS-CoV-1.

According to author and researcher James Roguski, “It seems nearly everyone is having difficulty maintaining clarity between the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and the proposed ‘Pandemic Treaty.’”

Roguski, who has extensively researched both proposals, recently wrote on his blog that the “Zero Draft” of the Pandemic Treaty “is a real thing” but is also “a skillfully crafted decoy” designed to draw attention away from the proposed IHR amendments.

He called these amendments — which the WHO’s Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) discussed on Feb. 20-24 — “a clear and present danger.”

According to Reclaim the Net, the WHO, through the proposed IHR amendments, is “pushing to greatly expand its surveillance powers,” including requiring states “to build “collaborative surveillance networks.”

“The unelected health agency also wants increased influence over the targeting of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’” via the proposed amendments.

According to the Brownstone Institute, the proposed amendments would “expand the definitions of pandemics [and] health emergencies, including the introduction of ‘potential’ for harm rather than actual harm” and would change the recommendations of the IHR for states “from ‘non-binding’ to mandatory.”

The WHO’s director general would be empowered to “independently declare emergencies, and would grant the WHO “control over certain country resources.”

A total of 307 IHR amendments have been proposed. On his blog, Roguski compiled a list of the top 10 reasons to oppose the amendments. These include:

• Changing the WHO “from an advisory organization … to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally binding.” (Articles 1 and 42)
• 
  
• Removing language preserving “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” (Article 3)
• 
  
• Giving the WHO “authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine and to implement contact tracing, quarantine and treatment.” (Article 18)
• 
  
• Instituting “a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format” (multiple articles and annexes)
• 
  
• Empowering the WHO’s Emergency Committee “to override decisions made by sovereign nations regarding health measures.” (Article 43)

‘They really want the global digital health certificate’

In an interview with The Defender, Roguski noted the strong push for global health certificates in the proposals that have been submitted for the IHR amendments.

Roguski said the proposed IHR amendments indicate the “‘powers that be’ are actively seeking to ‘normalize’ the implementation of a global digital health certificate.”

“They really want the global digital health certificate,” Roguski said. “Primarily, that’s coming from the European Union.”

The Czech Republic, on behalf of the EU, proposed in Article 23, regarding “health measures on arrival and departure,” called for Passenger Locator Forms (PLFs) “containing information concerning traveller’s destination,” preferably in digital form, “for the purpose of contact tracing.”

They also proposed that the WHO’s Health Assembly “may adopt, in cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] … and other relevant organisations, the requirements that documents in digital or paper form shall fulfill with regard to interoperability of information technology platforms, technical requirements of health documents, as well as safeguards to reduce the risk of abuse and falsification.”

The WHO lists ICAO as an officially recognized “stakeholder.”

In reference to Article 36, concerning “certificates of vaccination or other prophylaxis,” the Czech Republic and the EU proposed documentation not just for vaccination, but “test certificates and recovery certificates” in cases “where a vaccine or prophylaxis has not yet been made available for a disease in respect of which a public health emergency of international concern [PHEIC] has been declared.”

A PHEIC is the official name for a global pandemic declaration by the WHO. The IHR (2005) defines it as “an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.”

More......