More than 100 former world leaders and public figures are urging World Health Organization (WHO) member states to finalize a new “pandemic deal” in time for the 77th World Health Assembly, to be held in Geneva , in Switzerland, from May 27 to June 1.

In an open letter dated March 20, the leaders wrote:

“An agreement on the pandemic is essential to preserve our collective future. Only a strong global pact on pandemics can protect future generations from a repeat of the Covid-19 crisis, which claimed millions of lives and caused widespread social and economic devastation.”

Critics of the draft pandemic agreement told the Defender that the letter is misleading because it discusses the draft agreement, or “pandemic treaty”, but does not refer to amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (RSI).

Changes to the IHR, proposed in 2023, are being negotiated at the same time as the agreement. Critics of the letter said it was intended to distract from what they see as the more onerous proposals contained in the IHR amendments.

Dr David Bell, a public health physician, biotechnology consultant and former director of global health technology at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, told the Defender the letter was “utterly shameful” and “misleading”.

Mr Bell said:

“The letter follows the lead of the Director-General in misleading the public by asserting, correctly, that the pandemic agreement does not include provisions that transfer authority from countries to the WHO, even though these provisions do in the proposed amendments to the IHR which accompany the agreement on the pandemic.

“The proposed amendments to the IHR specifically mention border closures, compulsory vaccination and other measures today associated with confinement. They specifically mention that documents are needed to cross borders and cite digital passports as one of the possible solutions.

Dutch lawyer Meike Terhorst told the Defender that the open letter “only refers to the pandemic agreement to sow confusion”.

“The real issue lies in the amendments to the IHR, because on the basis of these amendments the WHO Director-General should obtain independent legislative and executive powers, while any legal control is made impossible,” said Ms Terhorst . “The secrecy surrounding the plans suggests that it is a coup.

Are the negotiations in difficulty?

Some critics have suggested the open letter could be a sign that negotiations for the pandemic deal are failing.

“Neither document has consensus among member states,” said Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, executive director of Children's Health Defense (CHD) Africa and founder of Transformative Health Justice. “With eight weeks until the World Health Assembly, the WHO is clearly concerned that the agreement could be derailed.

The BMJ reports that “little progress” has been made on the draft pandemic deal, and that the intellectual property waiver “remains a sticking point for member nations who are at loggerheads in the discussions” .

“Supporters of the agreement fear that the final draft will be watered down during negotiations and that weaker wording will result in recommending that countries take certain actions rather than compelling them to do so under international law,” according to The BMJ.

Others noted growing global opposition to the proposed agreement and changes to the IHR. Iran, New Zealand, Slovakia and the Netherlands recently rejected proposed 2022 IHR amendments, while in South Africa a “WHO withdrawal bill” was proposed .

In the United States, the Louisiana Senate voted unanimously on March 26 against allowing the WHO, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum to have any influence over the state of Louisiana. Louisiana.

“The fact that all Democrats voted in favor shows how popular this sentiment is with their voters,” said the president of the European Commission. Dr. Meryl Nass, internist and founder of Door to Freedom, “I think this sends a message to politicians around the world that favoring the WHO will come with a significant political cost.”

Pandemic agreement does not threaten sovereignty, but IHR amendments do

Independent journalist James Roguski told The Defender that the letter from world leaders to the WHO is “largely correct” because the proposed pandemic deal is not an “attack on national sovereignty.”

However, Mr. Roguski and Dr. Kat Lindley, president of the Global Health Project and director of the Global COVID Summit, emphasized that the IHR amendments pose a threat to the sovereignty of nations.

According to Ms Lindley, the amendments to the IHR will make WHO “the global authority on health in the event of further pandemics, which they clearly believe will occur again and again” and could pave the way for “ future vaccination mandates and the imposition of digital health passes.”

read the article