How The WHO Is Using A COVID-19 Pandemic Treaty To Create A New ‘Global Health Security Architecture’

In December 2021, at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the World Health Organization (WHO) announced their intention to initiate a draft of a new pandemic treaty “to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.” The goal of this draft was to lessen the likelihood of the world suffering through another years-long pandemic with devastating global health, social, and financial impact.

Then, in May 2022, the 75th WHA meeting was met with deep reservations about the rumored scope of the pandemic treaty, including concerns that nations would be forced to surrender their sovereign rights to govern to the WHO. Some speculated whether the WHA could establish global vaccine passports and have the power to unilaterally impose national lockdowns and/or restrictions on international travel. And when Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the WHO should be “at the center of global health security architecture,” he further fueled critics of the proposal. 

The meeting concluded without any such treaty being drafted, let alone imposed on member nations. This is just the start of the process, which is now in the hands of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). The proposed pandemic treaty is not set to be ratified until 2024, at which point it would need to be ratified by the United States Senate for it to take effect in the U.S.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. has proposed amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR). Crossing international borders, these amendments would place mandates on member nations requiring reporting and accountability for emerging infections. One key feature was a requirement of robust surveillance for new pathogens and including notifying WHO of all details (including genetic sequence data) within 48 hours of a possible public health emergency. (A response to the alleged Chinese cover up of the existence of the SARS-CoV-II virus.) The amendments would also require WHO members to immediately investigate any possible emergency and report the findings to all member nations. 

The proposed amendments also clarified that these rules apply to “potential or actual public health emergencies of international concern,” and would delegate power to the Director-General to make that preliminary determination upon consultation with the State Parties involved in the “public health emergency,” before bringing it before the newly established “Emergency Committee” to approve temporary recommendations.

The amendments also proposed that the WHO Director-General should consult with international agencies in order to “avoid unnecessary interference with international travel and trade,” particularly when it comes to healthcare workers and supplies. This would assign to six WHO Regional Directors the power to handle regional health emergencies and establish a Global Compliance Committee to ensure compliance with IHR directives and reduce adoption time for amendments to six months.

As proposed, the U.S. amendments to the IHR would significantly expand the WHO Director-General’s power to declare a global health emergency by removing the requirement of approval of the member nation of origin. However, as some have pointed out, the proposed amendments do not address the fact that current WHO policies permit the automatic declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern in the event of a new SARS outbreak, automatically inspiring additional lockdowns and other potentially harmful countermeasures before assessing the threat of the new respiratory virus. Moreover, the U.S. Senate would not have to ratify these amendments as it would in the case of a new treaty, as it would merely be the decision of the U.S. representative on the INB on whether or not to vote for the amendments. This has generated concerns about legislative oversight into impactful policy changes.

On May 24, 2022, at the WHA meeting, the WHO formally renamed the working group in charge of these amendments as the Working Group on IHR Amendments (WGIHR). The WGIHR is tasked with proposing “a package of targeted amendments” to be presented for consideration at the 77th World Health Assembly meeting in 2024. 

On May 27, 2022, largely in response to reservations expressed by the African group around equity and technological gaps, the WHA nearly scrapped the proposed amendments altogether. The WHA did, however, adopt a U.S. proposal for reduction in the implementation time for new amendments from 24 months to 12 months, and allowed countries ten, rather than nine, months to reject an amendment.

Because of this, for the time being, there have been no substantive changes to WHO policies, nor has the WHO’s power been broadened. So should we still be concerned? Yes. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an erosion of trust in the WHO over ineffective (and often harmful) management, in addition to their unwillingness to thoroughly investigate the origins of COVID-19, seemingly giving in to Chinese resistance.

For the WHO to have the authority to enact any new policies with broad global implications that reach far beyond just health, the agency must rebuild that trust.

It can start by establishing full transparency, admitting its many mistakes, and

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases