Heard of the WHO Treaty apparently on the way?

[Galant]

Has anyone heard the talk rising about an incoming international World Health Organisation treaty on pandemics?

There have been bits and pieces about this for a while, and better international networking and cooperation is a good thing, but there are concerns about it going too far. People point to the idea of forced lockdowns and travel restrictions - essentially nations all following whatever plans the WHO dictates.

An official 'article' that is big on principles but short on details was released March 30th 2021: https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...-come-together

There's now an official UK petition doing the rounds requiring a debate over the point that no such treaty should be signed without a referendum (that wonderful word everyone loves to hear) - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/614335

GB News' Neil Oliver had a short monologue on the matter representing the rising concerns of many, especially as concerns the political stance and corruption of the UN/WHO -
https://www.gbnews.uk/gb-views/this-...-oliver/294296

On the other hand, at least one legal expert (an Australian) challenges this assertion and states there's nothing in this treaty that would override a nation's rights and control, and couldn't force them to engage lockdowns, travel restrictions etc. Some others reply that even if not legally enforced, politicians might find a very appealing excuse to wash their hands of such difficult decisions in simply deferring to the WHO treaty and plans, avoiding responsibility and accountability.

However, one London School of Economics blog article seems to suggest that while the 'teeth' to enforce this might be lacking at present, the mechanisms to provide that power will need to be brought in:

"Enhanced response will enhance compliance
For this treaty to have teeth, the organisation that governs it needs to have the power – either political or legal – to enforce compliance. In its current form, the WHO does not possess such powers. In order to enforce compliance, some commentators have recommended concluding the treaty at the United Nations level. However, we fear that it has been already decided with the INB (mandated by WHASS) that a treaty will be developed under the roof of WHO.

To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically. If international pandemic response is enhanced, compliance is enhanced. In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak. High-income settings may not be motivated by financial resources in the same way as their low-income counterparts. An adaptable incentive regime is therefore needed, with sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.

Next steps
It will likely take years to negotiate the treaty. The world cannot wait until 2024. The minimum outcome of the treaty negotiations are trustworthy relations between the global south and the global north; the maximum outcome must be trust, built by a process that leads to a pandemic treaty with teeth, and a sensible incentive regime.

To get there, negotiators and all WHO member states need to be willing to compromise and to collectively chose a set of rules with which they are willing to comply in both health emergencies and ‘peacetime’. At the same time, a treaty cannot and will not bind together all the proposed initiatives, and will not fix all the challenges the WHO and global health face.

The world cannot wait for the pandemic treaty to be implemented to accelerate the response to the current pandemic, but we believe that in the process of developing it, trust can be (re)built."

anyone have any thoughts on this?

[jimbouk]

Any country can chose to ignore any internation law at any point. Even if given 'teeth' it's not going to make a difference to countries who don't want to follow it, as we have seen from the ongoing thing which shall not be named.

However if the international medical community can come together better and provide a more co-ordinated response with governments around the world to form a plan to help stop pandemics then great, I'm all for it. If they go to far then countries just walk away so seems to be self-moderating in that sense.

Thumbs up from me.

[Saracen999]

/rant warning

Until and unless (and I ain't holding my breath) we have a genuine world government, I can't for the life of me see how such a treaty is either enforceable or, without a shedload of referenda, democratically desirable.

Also, there are countries that are either going to be suspicious as hell, or outright refuse, anything promoted/promulgated by the West (North Korea and Iran come to mind as obvious candidates but there's quite a few less obvious ons), let alone China. And I doubt Russia's current administration as going to view it with much enthusiasm either, for obvious reasons.

There is also a principle that illustrated one of the problems that caused some of us to be less than EU-fans, which is that what suits one country may, due to industrial circumstances or socio-economic factors, not suit another, and one-size-fits-all solutions imposed from some central body in a top-down way are going to seriously pee off somebody, pretty much regardless of what it says. I mean, never mind the EU, we can't even get it straight in our own country, never mind the world. The north has has a chip on it's shoulder (yes, southerner here) over the north/south divide, the SNP part of the Scots (at least) don't want 'English' government in Westminster ruling them, or deciding lock-down policy for them, so it's hard to how how a totally unelected WHO is any better.

It seems to me that the UN is as close as we get to a world goverment, and the fact that that is little more than an expensive and utterly useless white elephant with loads of mouths all yapping in a meaningless cacophany, while having precious few brains, shows what chance the WHO has of any kind of mandatory lockdown power, even if/when it actually might be the best move. On top of that, we don't even seem to be able to get the idiots that make our laws, or the official opposition, to actually pay much attention to them, apparently believing that the idea is 'do what we say, not what we do'. And yes, I do mean Johnson and Starmer (et.al.) are as big a pair of hypocrits as each other.

Would I personally give a nanosecond's regard to any such dictats from the WHO? No. I wouldn't bother listening to it, let alone following it, on principle, until/unless I have a say in actually electing them.

/rant over (for now ).

[TeePee]

Maybe the WHO should start by acknowledging that Taiwan is a country. As the the damage caused by Covid hysteria continues to mount, the last thing we need is to make it easier for it to happen again. Giving an external agency the power to lock down a country, and force the populace to deal with the consequences is a recipe for disaster.

[Galant]

Yes, I think the first obvious thoughts for me, are:
1. The UN/WHO political side of things. It's horribly messy and corrupt.
2. Giving an international org. like that the power to shut things down etc. is a guaranteed disaster. But does this treaty do that?
3. Even if nations can override the treaty, the more pertinent point might be the desire politicians have to 'outsource' their pandemic decision making. Even if they could override the WHO treaty, would they choose to do so? The COVID pandemic showed the governmental mindset to 'go with the flow', and it's somewhat understandable. What do politicians know about medicine and pandemics. They're just looking for the most defensible political position. This treaty might be the best option for them in that regard by allowing them to defer to the WHO whenever they want/need to. But if they don't want to be responsible for national decisions in these areas, they shouldn't be in politics. Responsibility is the very point.

[Saracen999]

..... Responsibility is the very point.

Exactly.

[kalniel]

3. Even if nations can override the treaty, the more pertinent point might be the desire politicians have to 'outsource' their pandemic decision making. Even if they could override the WHO treaty, would they choose to do so? The COVID pandemic showed the governmental mindset to 'go with the flow', and it's somewhat understandable. What do politicians know about medicine and pandemics. They're just looking for the most defensible political position. This treaty might be the best option for them in that regard by allowing them to defer to the WHO whenever they want/need to. But if they don't want to be responsible for national decisions in these areas, they shouldn't be in politics. Responsibility is the very point.

I can't think of any government that would desire to defer to an external organisation - they always seem to believe that their own decision making is superior to anyone else's.

What governments of several countries do want is an exemption to WHO trade rules and copyright/patents.

[Ttaskmaster]

In my eyes, the World Health Organisation lost all credibility when they had a closed summit with just them, the leaders of countries, and heads of tobacco companies, during which they advocated said leaders banning various smoking cessation products and instead supported tobacco because it was a useful source of revenue.

[Galant]

I can't think of any government that would desire to defer to an external organisation - they always seem to believe that their own decision making is superior to anyone else's.

What governments of several countries do want is an exemption to WHO trade rules and copyright/patents.

The British government seemed to want to defer to outside organisations during the COVID pandemic, the only problem was they were trying to balance the voter input. 'Follow the science' was the cry. That's essentially trying to outsource the decision making to someone else. The problem, of course, is that the government still had to declare who their scientific sources were, and their interpretations of science. They had their top level officers and organisations for studies, as their representatives of science. An WHO treaty could become their official declarer of science, bolstered by a good dose of 'be a team player'.

So yes, I do think in complex matters where the government just needs to 'do something', having an official excuse for any plan would be desirable.

[kalniel]

The British government seemed to want to defer to outside organisations during the COVID pandemic, the only problem was they were trying to balance the voter input. 'Follow the science' was the cry. That's essentially trying to outsource the decision making to someone else.

Quite the opposite - they (incorrectly) heralded the advantages of not being in the EU during the pandemic for precisely the reason that they could take their own decisions and not defer to anyone else.

[TeePee]

Quite the opposite - they (incorrectly) heralded the advantages of not being in the EU during the pandemic for precisely the reason that they could take their own decisions and not defer to anyone else.

Just imagine how much worse things would be if we'd have had to borrow 250 Billion Euros for our contribution to the EU's bailout as well as the 300+ Billion GBP borrowed to pay for lockdowns in the UK.

The power of the media, and 'Dosomethingism', has had a horrific influence on society, and the next decade is likely to be pretty rough.

[Saracen999]

The British government seemed to want to defer to outside organisations during the COVID pandemic, the only problem was they were trying to balance the voter input. 'Follow the science' was the cry. That's essentially trying to outsource the decision making to someone else. The problem, of course, is that the government still had to declare who their scientific sources were, and their interpretations of science. They had their top level officers and organisations for studies, as their representatives of science. An WHO treaty could become their official declarer of science, bolstered by a good dose of 'be a team player'.

So yes, I do think in complex matters where the government just needs to 'do something', having an official excuse for any plan would be desirable.

There's the world of difference between an elected government listening to and accepting scientific advice as persuasive and part of the decision-making matrix (though certainly not the only part), and that same elected government abdicating both decisions and responsibility to an almost entirely foreign and utterly unelected (by the people) quango.

Besides, what are they supposed to do other than listen to their own top scientific advisors - go on TV and announce that all the scientific advice says the best bet is to do this, but to hell with that, we're ignoring them and doing that instead?

Calling on a series of scientific advisors was supposed to give us, the people, some reassurance that politicians weren't just making it up as they went along, but listening to the best advice available. Nonetheless, the hint is in the word, "advisor". They weren't making the decisions, and their only responsibility for the results was having provided the best advice tey could, given the state of knowledge at the time.