June 17, 2024 | The European Conservative | By Brice Hamard
The outcome of the next World Health Assembly will be an historic turning point in the conflict between global health governance and national sovereignty.
At the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA), the World Health Organization (WHO) extended negotiations on the pandemic treaty, officially known as the “Convention and Protocols on Pandemic Preparedness and Response,” for up to a year to overcome differences and preserve progress. While the WHA agreed on revisions to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) on June 1st, 2024, an international pandemic agreement remains elusive. These documents could significantly alter how countries respond to pandemics, raising alarms about the erosion of national decision-making and the influence of private interests on health policies. The recent failure to finalize the treaty after two years underscores deep divisions and significant resistance. Both the treaty and IHR amendments aim to enhance global pandemic cooperation but risk national sovereignty. The treaty requires a two-thirds majority at the WHA and ratification by national parliaments, while IHR amendments need only a simple majority, bypassing parliamentary scrutiny and raising concerns about reduced national oversight.
The newly adopted IHR amendments facilitate a significant expansion of the ‘medical-industrial complex,’ aiming to trigger ongoing “pandemic emergencies” through the broad use of “relevant health products” such as medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical devices, and gene-based therapies. It defines a “pandemic emergency” as a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) caused by a communicable disease that spreads widely, exceeds health system capacities, causes substantial disruption, and requires rapid international action. Each state must establish a national IHR authority to coordinate these regulations, with the WHO director-general now having the authority to declare pandemic emergencies.
Critics argue that these amendments are not a victory for health freedom but rather a step towards greater centralization and the influence of private interests in global health governance. The build-up of the medical-industrial complex in support of the equitable distribution of “relevant health products” represents a concerning shift towards global control over national health policies. This development should not be celebrated but rather scrutinized for its potential to undermine national sovereignty and prioritize corporate interests over genuine public health needs.
The pandemic treaty, meanwhile, has been in development since late 2021 to establish a legally binding framework for global pandemic response. Led by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) and co-chaired by Malebona Precious Matsoso and Roland Driece, negotiations extended beyond the initial May 10th deadline into a hybrid format but concluded without consensus on May 24th, 2024. According to Article 55.2 of the IHR, draft treaties must be available four months before decisions are finalized. However, the WHO’s practice of continuing negotiations up to the last working day before the assembly begins highlighted a disregard for adhering to this legal framework.
The draft treaty has not eased concerns over national sovereignty. Despite revisions, the core intent remains unchanged, with the latest version using the word “shall” 137 times, indicating enforceable and binding commitments for member states. This language underscores the treaty’s potential to mandate actions by sovereign nations, a major point of criticism. The treaty’s provision granting the WHO’s director-general significant authority to declare health emergencies is also highly controversial. Critics argue that such power should not be vested in a single, unelected individual. Although Article 24 asserts that the WHO cannot direct or alter national laws or impose mandates like vaccinations, travel bans, or lockdowns, the extensive use of “shall” suggests otherwise, contributing to the unease. Furthermore, the IHR amendments still grant significant discretionary power to the director-general, raising concerns about potential overreach. Sovereignty involves a state’s ability to assess situations and implement measures. Under the proposed WHO framework, the director-general would assume this role, effectively making decisions on behalf of states. This shift from a supportive organization to a coordinating global health authority is alarming, with no established mechanisms to oversee or regulate the director-general’s actions.
Respecting state sovereignty is a red line that must not be crossed. Several states have expressed strong resistance, announcing their refusal to sign the agreement or proactively adopting unprecedented legislation to protect their autonomy. In Slovakia, Prime Minister Robert Fico declared that Slovakia would not support the current version of the pandemic treaty or the IHR amendments. In the United States, Louisiana passed legislation rejecting any jurisdiction from the WHO, United Nations (UN), and the World Economic Forum (WEF) within its borders. The Louisiana Senate passed bill SB-133 with a 37-0 vote, and the House followed with a 69-22 vote, broadly rejecting the agendas of these international bodies. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has also stated unequivocally that Florida will never support the pandemic treaty.
At the federal level, U.S. Senator Ron Johnson introduced the “No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act” to ensure any agreement from the INB is classified as a treaty, thus requiring Senate ratification. Johnson also led a letter to President Biden, signed by 49 senators, urging the administration to withdraw support for the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments. The letter warns against ceding significant authority to the WHO, emphasizing the necessity of Senate ratification for any international agreements, and argues that accepting these proposals would reward the WHO for its failures during the pandemic.
Beyond preserving sovereignty, other crucial prerequisites must be addressed. A critical analysis of the WHO’s handling of the COVID pandemic is essential. During this period, many were subjected to mandates, including compulsory vaccinations with vaccines that were insufficiently tested and, as such, did not meet established standards, particularly regarding informed consent. It is now widely acknowledged that these vaccines did not prevent transmission, contrary to initial claims. Thus, a comprehensive evaluation of the WHO’s pandemic response is necessary. Furthermore, ensuring the WHO’s financial and political independence is vital, given significant concerns about its funding sources and the absence of anti-corruption measures.
The WHO’s financial framework, heavily reliant on voluntary contributions from private entities and philanthropic organizations, has sparked concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Critics argue that this reliance may align the WHO’s priorities with its major donors’ interests, particularly the pharmaceutical industry. The WHO’s funding primarily comes from two sources: mandatory contributions from member states based on GDP, constituting just 20% of the total budget, and voluntary contributions from member states, intergovernmental organizations, philanthropic foundations, and corporations, making up the remaining 80%. These voluntary contributions are often earmarked for specific programs according to donors’ preferences. Additionally, the WHO benefits from a foundation operating as an independent legal entity with undisclosed budgetary details.
The involvement of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation since 2000 marked a pivotal moment. The foundation has become a substantial contributor to the WHO’s budget and influences various organizations like the Gavi Alliance, UNICEF, PATH, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. In a 2019 interview at Davos, Gates highlighted vaccines as the best investment, with a 20-to-1 return on every dollar spent. That same year, he invested $55 million in BioNTech, which developed the COVID vaccine with Pfizer, and Forbes reported that the pandemic generated over $10 billion for Gates.
During the 76th WHA in May 2023, member states agreed to a 20% increase in their contributions, raising the total commitment to $6.83 billion for the 2024-2025 budget. However, the WHO’s funding structure still raises concerns about undue influence. Key contributors include the United States ($1.3 billion), Germany ($865 million), the EU ($468 million), the UK ($396 million), and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ($830 million). This financial structure results in significant influence from Gates-funded initiatives, with 20.09% of contributions directly linked to these programs.
This financial dependency raises significant questions about the impartiality of WHO policies. Estimates suggest the treaty could increase annual funding requirements to $30 billion, highlighting the influence of major donors. This situation underscores the urgent need for a critical evaluation of WHO governance to ensure public health interests are not compromised by private influences.
The WHO’s leadership is not elected by a global electorate but appointed through internal processes. The organization lacks inherent power under international law unless sovereign states voluntarily enter into agreements or treaties. International law operates similarly to contractual law, relying on mutual agreements between states. This framework is underpinned by “Pacta Sunt Servanda” (agreements must be kept), as enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. Specifically, Article 26 mandates that agreements must be honored, and Article 27 asserts that a state cannot invoke its internal law to justify failing to perform a treaty. Therefore, the WHO’s authority is derived entirely from the power that member states confer upon it. If a state chooses not to incorporate these international agreements into its domestic legal framework, the WHO remains powerless to enforce any regulations upon that state’s citizens.
The agreement on the IHR revisions represents a significant loss for ‘We the People’ and a victory for Big Pharma. While this battle is lost, the war is far from over. There are 196 States Parties to the IHR: the 194 Member States of WHO, Liechtenstein, and the Holy See. Discussions will move to the national level, where each country will decide whether to accept the new rules. Regarding the treaty, negotiators remain undeterred and will reconvene in July. The WHA has extended the INB’s mandate, setting a final deadline for the next World Health Assembly in 2025, or possibly an earlier special session in 2024. If the treaty receives the necessary votes, it will proceed to national parliaments for ratification. Concerned citizens must actively engage with their representatives to oppose both texts and ensure national sovereignty and public health autonomy are preserved.
During the 77th WHA, Free Humanity, a grassroots freedom movement, organized “The Road to Geneva: People’s Convoy,” culminating in a rally on June 1st in front of the UN headquarters in Geneva. The rally featured speakers such as Robert Malone, Bret Weinstein, Jean-Frederic Poisson, Florian Philippot, and James A. Lindsay, advocating for individual health freedom and sovereignty. The potential re-election of Donald Trump, who previously withdrew the U.S. from the WHO, also loomed over the discussions.
For effective mobilization, citizens need to be informed. In France, mainstream media have been silent on this issue. Only a few conservative movements, such as VIA, Les Patriotes, and Impulsion Gaulliste, are actively campaigning against the WHO’s plans. When a media blackout surrounds such a sensitive issue, political figures must use their visibility to act as whistleblowers. Unfortunately, too few have taken up this responsibility.
Dutch MEP Rob Roos has been a prominent critic of the treaty, sharing his concerns on multiple occasions, including at a U.S. Senate roundtable and during conferences across Europe. The Romanian party AUR was an early critic of the pandemic treaty and co-organized the International Crisis Summit IV in Bucharest last November, condemning the WHO’s mismanagement and proposals. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage, honorary president of Reform UK, has been a leading voice on this issue in the UK. He discussed the issue during a Q&A session with Impulsion Gaulliste at NatCon Brussels in April and subsequently launched a petition in May to mobilize public sentiment and advocate for a parliamentary debate. X CEO Elon Musk said in a tweet that countries should not “cede authority” to the WHO, hopefully this will inspire other influential people to finally step up.
From this 77th WHA, we will have to remember our errors, as we got carried away by the treaty not getting adopted, and did not pay enough attention to the IRS amendments. The coming months leading up to the next WHA will be critical for nation-states. Should the assembly decide not to continue negotiations on the treaty, heightened vigilance will be necessary as the WHO may attempt to advance its agenda through more IHR amendments. The outcomes of these discussions will significantly impact both global health governance and national sovereignty. It is imperative that concerned citizens remain engaged and proactive in safeguarding their national interests and public health autonomy during this pivotal period.
Brice Hamard is a legal counsel specializing in European and International law. He is also the executive director of the French conservative think tank Impulsion Gaulliste. His X/Twitter handle is @HamardBrice.
La Linterna Azul 