It is a warning message regarding a pandemic plan that would be “hidden”. According to viral posts on social networks, the World Health Organization (WHO) is preparing a treaty that would “control the internal policies” of states in the event of a future pandemic. The posts on Facebook, Twitter invite people to sign a petition to oppose France’s signing of this plan.
“The countries that ratify this treaty will be subject to a health tyranny during the occurrence of a new epidemic decreed by the WHO”, is indignant in particular the retired infectiologist Stéphane Gayet, struck off by the Order of Physicians in July 2022. , in a tweet shared more than 3,400 times.
The petition, launched by a Swiss association, the International Association for Natural, Scientific and Humanistic Health, is concerned regarding a treaty that might “allow a non-governmental organization, the WHO, to impose new health measures worldwide “. And defends the idea that “each country must be able to adapt its health policy”.
FAKE OFF
This draft agreement, still under discussion, on the prevention, preparation and response to pandemics has nothing hidden. The preliminary draft on the negotiating table during the last session between February 27 and March 3, 2023 is available online.
The principle of an agreement is known and was adopted by the World Health Assembly on December 1, 2021, with the objective of “strengthening the global health architecture” in order to better fight once morest pandemics. Since then, the 194 member states of the WHO, including France, have set up an intergovernmental body to draft and negotiate the terms. The WHO has a Frequently Asked Questions page on the subject.
A draft agreement “interesting in certain aspects”
What does this draft agreement contain and what does it mean internationally? Although it is still a little early to decide, Hélène De Pooter, lecturer in public law specializing in international law in the face of pandemics, at the University of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, underlines that it is “interesting on certain aspects”, but remains “vague” on many others, which will have to be clarified.
A slightly more advanced draft agreement might be formulated by the States by May 2023. The final draft agreement is to be considered by the World Health Assembly in 2024. It also indicates that it is necessary to to look at other negotiations, conducted in parallel, and which concern the International Health Regulations. Adopted in 2005, this text must be modified to respond to pandemics: 300 amendments have been tabled for this purpose.
Reservations expressed
Positive points on reading the draft agreement for Hélène De Pooter: the promotion of the “One Health” approach on the issue of harmony between man and nature, although still “very imprecise”, or promoting the sharing of pathogens and genetic sequences on a global scale. A central theme of the negotiations is to obtain more equity “in order to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of health products linked to pandemics according to risks and needs and not according to financing capacities”, adds the master. of conferences.
However, it has reservations on several aspects and points to a still “incomplete” project, which might be improved on “the question of the safety of laboratories where dangerous pathogens are studied, on the methods of concluding pharmaceutical contracts, on the phenomenon of the infodemic (“information epidemic”), on the question of the balance to be found between the protection of health and the preservation of human rights”.
In addition, draft article 15, which provides that the director general of the WHO declares pandemics, is problematic. “The responsibility for declaring pandemics should be shared, she explains, and should emerge from a broad consultation that can leave room for various stakeholders and should not just rest on the shoulders of a single person “.
“Nuanced” response on the loss of sovereignty
Asked regarding the loss of sovereignty of countries, at the heart of the fears of those who were able to oppose health measures during the Covid-19 pandemic, the WHO refers to its site. It is explained that it is “the governments which will determine the provisions of this new instrument, when the time comes and if it is adopted”, and that they “will take the necessary measures taking into account their own laws and regulations”.
On this point, Hélène De Pooter provides a “nuanced” answer. In draft article 4, “we do have a reaffirmation of the independence of States in the definition and management of public health, she notes, but immediately followingwards, the pendulum swings in the other direction. »
It is added that “the sovereign right of States exists only insofar as the activities of States do not harm their populations or other countries”. “There, I ask myself the question: what does harm mean? We saw during the Covid-19 pandemic that States had very different policies and that the harmful nature of a policy was much debated. The word harmful seems to me to be at the mercy of ideological and political considerations. It is so debatable that it would be better to stick to a reference to respect for human dignity and human rights,” she comments.
Decision-making methods not yet known
Would the agreement make it possible to “control internal policies” as opponents fear? Again, the answer is nuanced, because the project is not complete. Draft article 20 provides for the creation of a COP, a conference of parties, on the model of climate COPs. “As the text stands, the COP would be responsible for defining policies within the framework of the agreement and would have decision-making power,” notes Hélène De Pooter. This word suggests that the acts of the COPs might be binding, otherwise we would speak of recommendations. »
Problem, the modalities of decision-making are not yet known. “Each state party to the agreement will have one vote, but will decisions be taken unanimously? Will they be taken without a vote, ie by consensus? To the majority ? Will they be binding or not for a State that voted once morest the decision? We don’t know yet. It deserves to be followed,” she concludes. A system for monitoring compliance with the agreement by a governing body responsible for “studying cases of non-compliance with this agreement” is provided for in draft article 22, but, likewise, the text is under negotiation. and its terms have not yet been specified.
Alerts on amendments to the International Health Regulations
Another source of concern concerning, this time, the International Health Regulations: “Several countries have tabled amendments which, from my point of view, give an authoritarian turn to the regulations, with reinforced control of States and a limitation of their autonomy” , warns the lecturer in public law.
An alert also shared by the review committee for amendments, convened by the director of the WHO. This committee fears that these amendments “establish” a quasi-judicial procedure “and risk” unduly infringing the sovereignty of the States parties “”, she reports. For example, Bangladesh and Malaysia have proposed making WHO Secretariat recommendations mandatory.
A skeptical review board
“These amendments go in the direction of strengthening the power of the WHO and reducing the margin of appreciation of member states,” she criticizes, adding that the review committee was also skeptical. The United States and the African group have also proposed creating bodies to monitor compliance with the regulation and possibly challenge states that do not respect it.
India has tabled an amendment “which seems quite toxic”, she adds. The country proposes “the deletion of the reference to respect for the dignity of persons, human rights, fundamental freedoms and wants to replace these principles with concepts, which I find vague, such as the concept of coherence”, which does not does not exist in international law. “It would be a serious regression” if this amendment were adopted, she underlines.
