As more and more people are moving past COVID-19, the World Health Organization has called for a globally binding treaty to deal with any future pandemics. While some feel that such a treaty is necessary, others feel that it could create a dangerous global government.

From Just the News. Negotiations have begun to establish a globally binding agreement to combat future pandemics, raising concerns that such an accord would undermine national sovereignty and centralize too much power in the hands of the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations’ health agency.

View Comments (3)

In a recent open letter, the World Council for Health, a coalition of scientists, doctors, lawyers, and civil society advocacy organizations, lambasted the idea as dangerous and illegitimate.

“The proposed WHO agreement is unnecessary, and is a threat to sovereignty and inalienable rights,” the council wrote. “It increases the WHO’s suffocating power to declare unjustified pandemics, impose dehumanizing lockdowns, and enforce expensive, unsafe, and ineffective treatments against the will of the people….”

The agreement would effectively create one world government under the guise of creating a standardized global pandemic response, according to Stuckelberger, a member of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva and Lausanne….

Others argue a pandemic treaty can address the holes exposed by the world’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic….

Gostin and other supporters of such a new, “transformative” agreement note pandemics don’t recognize borders and argue the only way to fight them effectively is for the world to collaborate in better ways.

WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has criticized nations for adopting “‘me-first’ approaches that stymie the global solidarity needed to deal with a global threat,” referring to COVID-19….

Skeptics worry an agreement could require countries to send a certain amount of its vaccines abroad, arguing it’s fine to share surplus vaccines but the priority must be helping a country’s own people first.

Others are concerned the treaty could supersede certain state and national laws and possibly require some form of health passports or digital IDs.

However, at this point there’s no actual document with specific items to be included in the agreement. The treaty is an idea being negotiated, and it’s unclear what a preliminary — let alone final — version would look like….

A major complaint of those opposed to the treaty idea is that it will give the WHO greater authority to declare a pandemic using a looser definition, forcing countries to impose certain restrictions in a uniform, global manner….

On the other hand, University of Virginia law professor Margaret Riley, who teaches health law, noted that “done well, a treaty of this sort might help the WHO be more effective.”

Critics, including Republican lawmakers in the U.S, have scrutinized the WHO for being under China’s influence.

Whatever the treaty contains, one major issue for supporters is how to enforce compliance….

Negotiations for the treaty began last month, and the next meeting will be held by August to discuss progress on a working draft. The goal is to deliver a progress report to the World Health Assembly in 2023 and adopt the agreement by 2024.

Earlier this month, the Council of the European Union authorized the opening of negotiations for a global pandemic treaty, signaling the E.U.’s support for the initiative.

The U.S. will take part in the talks and has expressed support for them, but has signaled it will oppose a legally binding treaty with the force of international law. India and Brazil have also expressed concerns….

Do you think that the WHO’s treaty is a good idea? Share your thoughts and prayers below.

(Excerpt from Just the News. Photo Credit: iStock)