Fighting Pandemics: Why the WHO Deal Is Controversial

“Countries should not cede their powers to WHO.” Does Elon Musk’s warning make sense, or does it help spread “fake news,” as the World Health Organization (WHO) CEO said on Thursday afternoon, hours after the quirky billionaire’s tweet? For more than a year, WHO and various countries around the world have been negotiating a new international agreement to combat pandemics. Its content remains partially unclear, which raises a number of suspicions. We sum up.

What is the origin and purpose of this agreement?

It all started on December 1, 2021, almost two years after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. The World Health Assembly that met that day, that is, all 194 member countries of WHO, noted the principle of the future agreement to “strengthen prevention, preparedness and response to pandemics”. Once approved, this “will enable countries around the world to build national, regional and global capacity and resilience in the face of future pandemics.”

In particular, such an agreement will aim, among other things, to improve cooperation between laboratories in different countries to share data related to the virus, to improve the ability to quickly detect a new pathogen, or to promote a more equitable distribution of vaccine doses on the planet. .

The goal is to be better “armed” to respond and avoid repeating the “failure” faced at the start of Covid-19. WHO declared highest alert (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) only on January 30, 2020. “The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed many shortcomings in the global system to protect the population,” estimated end of 2021 D- r Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General.

Where are we with the negotiations?

The “preliminary draft” was presented to various countries on 1 February. Consideration of the text takes place in two sessions: from 27 February to 3 March, then from 3 to 6 April. If adopted by states, it “will serve as the basis for negotiating a pandemic agreement,” the WHO says.

The final text will then be considered by the World Health Assembly next year. WHO is aiming for adoption no later than May 2024. Thus, this will be the second such type of health agreement since the 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Entering into force in 2005, it, in particular, obliges states to take measures (tax or otherwise) that encourage people to smoke less.

Why is this controversial?

Long before Elon Musk’s tweet, criticism is often heard: this agreement will lead to a loss of sovereignty for the States, forced to follow certain directives imposed by the WHO, if a “pandemic” is declared. “As with all international instruments, it will be governments who will set the terms of this new instrument when the time is right and if it is adopted, and it is they who will take the necessary measures, subject to their own laws and regulations.” , wants to assure the international authority on its website.

Nevertheless, the passage in article 4 of the draft treaty entitled “guidelines and law” might raise suspicions. It states that countries remain sovereign in their response to the pandemic … but “provided that activities carried out within their jurisdiction or under their control do not harm their populations or other countries.” Therefore, everything depends on the interpretation of the term “harm”, which can be clarified in the coming months.

“During the Covid-19 pandemic, we saw that states had very different policies and that there was a lot of discussion about the harmful nature of the policy. The word “harmful” seems to me dominated by ideological and political considerations. It is so debatable that it would be better to stick to the reference to respect for human dignity and human rights,” comments Hélène de Pouter, lecturer in public law specializing in international law before pandemics at the University of Burgundy-Franche-Comté, for 20 minutes.

At the same time, several hundred amendments were made to update the International Health Regulations, adopted in 2005. But the Review Committee fears that some of them “may inappropriately affect the sovereignty of States Parties and make mandatory measures aimed at do not constitute recommendations,” he said in a report published on February 6. Negotiations are also ongoing here.