The WHO Power Grab Has Been Slowed, Not Stopped

June 24, 2024 | Washington, D.C.

by Kristen A. Ullman, President, Eagle Forum

The 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) wrapped up its self-proclaimed “historic” meeting in Geneva on June 1, 2024. Despite their lofty goals of passing two complimentary pandemic “agreements,” the World Health Organization (WHO) failed to pass the Pandemic Treaty, instead kicking the can down the road, and was only able to strong-arm consensus for a modified version of the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments.

Those of us who have spent years sounding the alarm against the WHO’s global governance scheme may want to take a short victory lap for at least delaying the Treaty and getting several of the worst elements of the IHR removed. But while their most nefarious plans have been slowed, they have not been stopped. We must take a hard look at who won (and how) and the next steps for sovereignty-loving people everywhere.

Failure of the Treaty

WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus no doubt suffered a temporary setback when the delegates failed to reach an agreement on his beloved Pandemic Treaty. The delegates gave themselves another 12 months to negotiate the details and will begin again in earnest in July. One of the key sticking points seems to be a “continuing reluctance of African countries (and some others) to roll back healthcare to a pre-WHO colonialist model,” according to Dr. David Bell of the Brownstone Institute. But these poorer countries will be lobbied heavily in the months to come to agree with the WHO.

At stake is access to the billions of dollars for “pandemic preparedness and response,” including a commitment to “equity” (i.e., required funding from richer nations to those in need). The WHO and its partners, such as Big Pharma, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, are all in favor of passing the Pandemic Treaty to cement their control over the money and power for global public health. We must remain vigilant and outspoken in our opposition to this Treaty and demand that any document agreed to by the WHA must be approved by the United States Senate before being signed by the Administration.

IHR Amendments

To save face from his failure to deliver on the Treaty at this meeting, Tedros pushed through a modified package of amendments to the International Health Regulations. Not only are the amendments themselves problematic, but he violated the very rules of the WHO in order to declare them passed.  If the World Health Organization does not have respect for its own procedures, why do we think it will have any respect for our Constitution?   

Article 55.2 of the IHR rules requires that any amendments must be made available to the member nations “at least four months” before they are eligible for adoption. That deadline passed on January 27, 2024. The WHO ignored its own rules by releasing the final text just hours before the final vote on the last day of the Assembly. This violation denied governments and civil society the necessary time to properly analyze the changes.

In addition, the Director-General failed to have a roll-call vote to adopt the last-minute changes. Those in the room describe it as having only 30 percent of the member states present – far fewer than the necessary quorum – when Tedros announced that a “consensus” existed for their adoption. He reportedly had the microphones turned off during that moment. Only after he declared the approval of what amounts to a treaty were six nations allowed to express their opposition to the accord. With the use of high-handed and actually illegal techniques, Tedros only reaffirmed his goal of transforming the WHO from an incompetent advisory body into a highly politicized one with a global public health dictator at the helm willing to do anything to get his way.

Although some of the most dangerous elements from previous drafts of the IHR were watered down, the approved amendments lay a foundation for the WHO to affect our personal and national sovereignty through increased surveillance, censorship, and funding. For example:

• Article 1, Definitions. The Amendments to the IHR expand the WHO’s authority beyond actual pandemics to potential pandemics – as decided by the Director General. This expanded definition creates authority for the WHO before, during and in between pandemics, i.e., all the time!

• Article 4 – Responsible Authorities. All State Parties are required to create a new “National IHR Authority” who “shall coordinate the implementation of these Regulations within the jurisdiction of the State Party . . . including . . .adjusting their domestic legislative and/or administrative arrangements.” Congress specifically rejected the idea that WHO could “commit the United States to enact any specific legislative program” when it agreed to join the WHO in 1948. How can the WHO require us to pass a law creating a new bureaucrat to tell each state what to do during a public health emergency?

• Annex 1, A.2.c. – Surveillance and Censorship. State Parties will be required to “develop, strengthen and maintain core capacities…in relation to…surveillance…and risk communication, including addressing misinformation and disinformation.” Once again, the WHO is attempting to censor speech that goes against their narrative, while failing to define any of these important terms including what is to be surveilled.  What will become of our constitutional rights to free speech and privacy?

• Article 35 – Health Documents. This section details the requirements of “Health Documents,” including those in digital format. While stopping short of mandating Digital IDs, this section can be read as a precursor to the World Economic Forum’s goal of requiring a digital passport to access healthcare, conduct banking, vote, shop, travel and even own a computer.  Digital IDs are a form of mass surveillance and totalitarian control and are currently being rolled out by the World Health Organization in collaboration with the European Union.

Thankfully, due in part to the vocal opposition in the United States and abroad, the agreed-to amendments no longer strike out the language stating the WHO recommendations are “non-binding” in Article 1. One of the most egregious provisions in the earlier draft was the removal of the words “non-binding” that appear in the 2005 IHR that would have had the effect of radically transforming the IHRs from a series of recommendation to orders. We know, however, that this is their ultimate goal. We must remain vigilant as the WHO continues to negotiate the Pandemic Treaty.

Battle for Our Sovereignty

This battle for our sovereignty is not over. As Dr. Bell points out, “the world continued its unfortunate stumble back to old-fashioned public health fascism” in Geneva. While we are grateful the IHRs were not as bad as originally proffered, the agreed-upon amendments “lay vital groundwork for the further subversion of public health toward a recurrent but lucrative cycle of fear-mongering, suppression, and coercion.”

*Special thanks to Reggie Littlejohn, JD, co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition and Founder and President of Anti-Globalist International for her attendance in Geneva and excellent analysis of the IHR amendments.