By: Greg Staley
Written On: 2022-05-22
Are the worlds nations doomed to have their health responses governed by the unelected World Health Organization as they push for an International treaty around pandemic responses? That depends who you ask but as always, let Diverge Media point you to the facts.
At this point, you have likely heard about the World Health Organization (WHO) and their proposal to make an international treaty with nations around the world in relation to their pandemic responses – but what does this actually look like? What ideas are being proposed for this treaty?
According to Tedros Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the W.H.O, what this treaty ends up looking like will depend largely on the member states who sign onto it to decide. However, at it’s heart it is “a commitment to sharing data, information, resources, knowledge, and tools; and strengthening global, regional, and national health systems to make them ready to respond.”
In essence, this treaty will call for a globalized health response which will include developing nations sending their countries tax dollars to the W.H.O to strengthen “global, regional, and national health systems.”
This call for a globalized health response is echoed in another article in the British Medical Journal, this time written by 32 Health Ministers which include the likes of Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom and the Ukraine.
In their opinion article for the BMJ, the health ministers wrote that “Undeniably, individual countries and the global community were insufficiently prepared for this pandemic” (COVID). They added that despite laudable ad hoc-initiatives such as ACT-A and COVAX, the “global community has so far failed to ensure an equitable distribution of medical countermeasures.
So what do the Health Ministers propose for this treaty that they hope will be “equipping and empowering the WHO, once and for all,” in their goal of being a pivotal player in global public health?
Well, they hope that they can “build a system that will ensure a rapid, joint, effective, and equitable global response to future health crises that reaches every corner of the world.”
The Health Ministers propose to build this system by calling for a “legally binding treaty, convention, or agreement, under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO)” which they say “has the potential to provide the world with an ambitious framework to better prevent, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics and epidemics.“
The Health Ministers say they see several benefits with this type of treaty. Among those benefits is the ability to drive support for “stronger compliance through a regular review process, and ensuring that pandemic preparedness and response remain a regular feature on world leaders’ agendas.”
So, when reading between the lines, we can see that the treaty will be legally binding and enforce compliance with health responses through a regular review process. This means if Canada signs the treaty we will be forced to provide details of our health systems and our people to an unelected outside regulatory body that will no longer be an outside regulatory body if this treaty is adopted as planned.
Perhaps this sounds a bit extreme – but this is exactly what Health Ministers from around the world are calling for. In fact, the Ministers writing in the BMJ wrote that “we need to share data, samples, technologies, and benefits.” They write that “a new instrument could potentially include a multilateral framework for sharing surveillance and monitoring data, genetic data and pathogens.” In essence, if the Ministers get their way, it sounds like the COVID nanny state the world has become accustomed to will be here to stay forever.
Conspiracy Theory or reading between the lines?
The Ministers writing into the BMJ also echo the Director-General of the W.H.O when stating the importance of a One Health approach. They write that “Our health is a continuum across human, animal, plant, and planetary health” and that “to reduce the risk of zoonotic diseases in the future, the human, animal and environmental health sectors must cooperate more closely.”
Now, I’m not so sure It’s a good idea for the W.H.O to be collaborating with the livestock sector here in Canada. For instance, what happens if they find a zoonotic disease in the livestock here in Canada? We will be required to share that info with the W.H.O and then who decides what we do within our borders in regards to our response to that health concern?
If we don’t follow the W.H.O protocols that they propose on a given health issue will the W.H.O put our nation on blast to the global community and say that we are an unsafe place to buy from or that Canada is an unsafe destination to travel to?
What if the W.H.O finds an outbreak in Canadian livestock and orders that all the livestock within a designated area is to be destroyed – will we have to follow those dictates as well? At the end of the day, you don’t cede your sovereignty to international organizations no matter how fuzzy and warm their ideas make you feel. Canada is an independent nation and our health response should remain the same – independent.
Dr. Leslyn Lewis, a Conservative Party of Canada leadership candidate also feels that signing the treaty is a bad move for Canadians. Dr. Lewis has written a petition titled “stop the treaty” and in it, she writes that “Canada must not sign away our sovereignty on health care.”
In the petition, Dr. Lewis tells Canadians that “the treaty includes 190 countries and would be legally binding.” She writes that “It defines and classifies what is considered a pandemic and would give the W.H.O legal power over Canada’s pandemic response, including the ability to force lockdowns and dictate which drugs or vaccines can be used.”
Dr. Lewis adds that “If a pandemic is declared, the WHO takes over the global health management of the pandemic.”
In closing, if you think that Canada should be in charge of handling health concerns within our borders and not some unelected organization – it may be time to pay attention to this treaty. The treaty is scheduled to be adopted by 2024 and governments around the world are coming together to discuss it again on the 1st of August of this year.
Diverge Media is an independent media company dedicated to bringing you the stories that matter. We don’t receive taxpayer dollars from the government via subsidies for our work – a move that we believe destroys journalistic integrity. Therefore, we rely entirely on the generous donations of our readers/viewers to help fund our work. To support Diverge media, please consider leaving a donation below!