WHO Pandemic Treaty Update

As senator he sponsored S2487, the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2002. And he co-sponsored a bill that would have created a U.S. National Director of Pandemic Preparedness and Response, S1821, that cited WHO declarations and proposed a “pandemic fund” to be presented to the WHO. He also co-sponsored the Vaccines for the New Millenium Act, which proposed to create international funding mechanisms for development and manufacture of vaccines. This act specified working with organizations like the World Bank and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) to make advance purchases of vaccines It also  called on the president to “address the issue of regulatory approval” of vaccines, specifically stating that could happen through the FDA, the WHO, or another international body. None of these bills passed, but they show a long history of commitment to global health security, which has culminated in this moment in history, with Biden ready to see his life’s work come to fruition  with the stroke of a pen.

His friendliness toward increased global authority was amplified during his time in the vice presidency under Barack Obama. In 2016, then-President Obama issued an executive order: Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats. The executive order explicitly stated, “The roles, responsibilities, and activities described in this order will support the goals of the International Health Regulations,” and it would be carried out in coordination with international organizations such as the WHO, the UN, and the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL). The order was a response to the Global Health Security Agenda international effort to increase disease surveillance and “security,” which is strikingly similar to the WHO plans today. This agenda however, was not a treaty or legally binding agreement. 

In 2021, one of President Biden’s first acts in the Oval Office was to issue an executive order on Organizing and Mobilizing the United States Government to Provide a Unified and Effective Response to Combat COVID-19 and to Provide United States Leadership on Global Health and Security. This order accompanied his re-commitment of the United States’ participation in the WHO, which former President Trump had withdrawn. In fact, the order declares the federal government’s efforts in “engaging with and strengthening the World Health Organization.” Biden also “reconvened” a Global Health Security Agenda Interagency Review Council that had been created in the 2016 executive order cited above, when Biden was Vice President.

If nothing else, you can admire Biden’s unwavering commitment to a globalist vision. In 1992, he wanted the U.S. to “breathe life into the UN Charter” to give it more power. Today, he wants the UN’s World Health Organization to have more power over independent nations and is behind the U.S. proposal for it to have a “Compliance Committee.” Is that in the best interest of Americans? Would an unaccountable, unelected “Compliance Committee” for international laws that Americans have no say in, uphold the U.S. Constitution or destroy it?

Global health security goes well beyond the WHO

Plans for a global health security state are not new. They have been in the works for decades. Consider these words from Bill Gates about “The Next Epidemic” after Ebola, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015:

“Through the United Nations, some global institution could be empowered and funded to coordinate the system. The United Nations and the WHO are studying the lessons from the Ebola epidemic and ways to improve international crisis management; these evaluations can provide a starting point for discussions of ways to strengthen the WHO’s capacity and about which parts of the process it should lead and which ones others (including the World Bank and the G7 countries) should lead in close coordination. The conversation should include military alliances such as NATO, which should make epidemic response a priority. The final arrangement should include a reserve corps of experts with the broad range of skills needed in an epidemic.”

You can see that the vision for what is being put into place right now setting up the World Health Organization as a global health security hub has been promoted and nurtured for decades by very powerful people running or influencing countries and international organizations. Note that Bill Gates is a powerhouse behind GAVI, mentioned above in the vaccine bill co-sponsored by then-Senator Biden. 

At the WHO, the Working Group on the amendments to the IHR understand their job is not being done in a vacuum. There are many different arms of the global health security octopus, spanning different government or private organizations as well as various international agreements. In a recent document analyzing the amendments proposed to the IHR, they provide a great summary.

IHR amendments update

The International Health Regulations (IHR) already exists, and it’s one avenue already in place for expanding the authority and reach of the WHO. The IHR is recognized as “crucial to improving the global health security architecture” by those analyzing amendments to the document. The last time it was amended was 2005, and even though it greatly expanded the scope of what the WHO could do, the Senate was not consulted. The amendments happened on the heels of the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks in the U.S. which were quickly followed by a scare of bioterrorism created by anthrax found in federal facilities, and then a declared pandemic of SARS in 2003. Those holding the globalist vision rode the waves of anxiety and fear generated by those events right to the World Health Assembly with amendments that created the new ability for the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), and solidified authority for the WHO to initiate investigations in a country suspected of having an outbreak before any reports are made by their government. The threats to national sovereignty were noted by some, but largely went unnoticed and were not reported by news outlets.

In 2022, the United States proposed 13 amendments to the IHR, which were met with global backlash. Many people believed the U.S. withdrew their amendments, but they did not. They were simply taken off the table for the May 2022 meeting, so there could be more discussion and input from other WHO participating nations. They were resubmitted in September 2022 to a newly formed committee for consideration and review. (You can refresh your memory on the amendments at Did we win against the WHO?, or at SHF’s printable resource summarizing them, as the amendments were resubmitted unchanged.)

Interestingly, the Review Committee for the IHR noted that “during a public health emergency of international concern, the regulations may work better if they are not mandatory and [the Committee] advises against changing the nature of the recommendations.”

In its report analyzing all of the submitted amendments, the Review Committee gave pushback on some U.S.-proposed amendments, including those that would lower the threshold of necessary information on outbreaks before the WHO would investigate or make declarations. It noted, ”removing the requirement for WHO to verify the information it has received from other reports with the State Party in which the event allegedly occurs may reduce the availability of relevant information for WHO’s consideration and may also affect the relationship between WHO and the State Party.”

The report also noted that a proposed reduction in time to investigate or respond is “likely to be unrealistic,” and basically rejected the massive expanse of unilateral power proposed by the U.S. to expand the ability to declare emergencies to include “regional” or “intermediate” alerts. This report has been submitted to a Working Group for the IHR (WGIHR) which will meet periodically to consolidate the amendments to present for adoption at the 2024 World Health Assembly. The second meeting of the WGIHR, where they will discuss the Review Committee’s report, is scheduled to occur in the days before the INB meets again to discuss the Zero Draft of the pandemic treaty.

Pandemic treaty update

A working Zero Draft of the pandemic treaty was recently released, ahead of the fourth meeting of the International Negotiating Body (INB), which is the committee tasked with creating the document to present to the World Health Assembly for adoption in May 2024. The WHO is calling it the “WHO CA+”. This stands for the “convention, agreement, or other international agreement,” which is a deliberate wording that can only be interpreted as a word game to try to reduce the amount of scrutiny governments will give it. In the U.S., the Constitution requires treaties have Senate input, oversight, and ultimate say in whether the U.S. should sign on by a ⅔ majority. But the vast majority of international agreements, over 90%, do not go through the Senate. These are known as “executive agreements.” We have every reason to believe President Biden will act as if the treaty is an agreement he is already authorized to sign, trying to bypass approval of Congress and with it, the will of the American people.

Not surprisingly, the document is full of concerning provisions that would threaten American sovereignty, transfer massive amounts of tax dollars to or through the WHO, and endanger the health of Americans.

Summary of provisions in the pandemic treaty Zero Draft

1. This document could trump or prohibit other international agreements. Countries are allowed to make other agreements, only “provided that such instruments are compatible with their obligations under the WHO CA+.” What happens if an agreement is not “compatible”? 
2. A “global compensation program” for pandemic vaccine injuries is proposed. There have been discussions of removing liability from manufacturers at a global level. This is horribly worrying, since it mirrors the 1986 Act and the PREP Act in the U.S., which removed liability from vaccine manufacturers. The PREP Act’s CICP has left hundreds of thousands of Americans without recourse if they are injured by these medical products, and this treaty would expand that to a global scale. 
3. It would create a new “WHO Global Pandemic Supply Chain and Logistics Network” that would be sustained in “inter-pandemic times” and scaled up during declared pandemics.
4. The agreement would encourage and incentivize transfer of “technology and know-how” to manufacturers, “information sharing through open science approaches,” and require recipients of public funding for research to share data and reveal contract terms. It would create a new WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System” where parties would upload genetic sequences of pathogens deemed potentially pandemic to a central database controlled by the WHO. Notably, the PABS system would require nations to adopt and implement laws to recognize its use.
5. It would greatly bolster the health data of Americans going to an unelected, unaccountable global body. 
6. It could take suppression of speech of Americans to a global level as the WHO will “counteract misinformation, disinformation, and false news,” while also strengthening “research into the behavioral barriers and drivers of adherence to public health measures, confidence and uptake of vaccines, use of therapeutics and trust in science and government institutions.” It encourages regular screenings of the population for “misinformation” through “regular social listening and analysis.” It would require nations to “contribute to research and inform policies on factors that hinder adherence to public health and social measures, confidence and uptake of vaccines…” Where is the room for any individual to question a policy, or the safety of a vaccine?
7. The WHO would have a say in how we spend American tax dollars domestically. The draft requires nations to set aside a minimum of 5% of its health budget for pandemic prevention, preparedness, response, and health systems…and working to achieve universal health coverage.” It also proposes a set percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) for “international cooperation” on pandemics.
8. The document proclaims that there is a “need for resilient health systems, rooted in universal health coverage,” to stop health systems from being overwhelmed in a pandemic. “The Parties shall strive to accelerate the achievement of universal health coverage.” How can a country who has voted down universal health care time and time again comply with this agreement? Part of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and of course the WHO mission (being the health agency within the UN), is universal health coverage for all people. This is not the system the U.S. has, but there are never-ending attempts at it, and even last year a committee met to discuss barriers to universal health care again. Loyce Pace announced to the World Health Assembly in 2022 that the U.S. is working toward universal health care. Are we?
9. The agreement directs nations to “strengthen its national public health and social policies…including mobilizing social capital in communities for mutual support.” In other words, the global unelected body is encouraging countries to use its people as assets to roll out the determined public health measures. In the U.S., this is already taking shape through training of “trusted” members of communities such as pastors, teachers, and hairdressers. 
10. It moves money from richer countries to poorer ones, requiring member states to finance other health systems to build their capacity.
11. It creates a governing board of unelected officials, (which was referred to as “supreme” in an advance copy of the Zero Draft), which would be advised by a new “Consultative Body” which would include representatives of the United Nations, and be open to organizations or individuals in the public or private sector. 
12. Most troublesome, the document gives authority to the Governing Body to address compliance and non-compliance with the treaty, but does not lay out any enforcement provisions, essentially giving a blank check to this unelected arm of the UN over U.S. actions. Further, amendments to the document could be made at any time by the Governing Body. Unlike other WHO documents, including the IHR, no exceptions or reservations would be allowed. This is a huge reason why  these documents cannot be signed without the advice and consent of the Senate. This is not an executive agreement. It will have major impacts on the lives of Americans, U.S. policy, the relationships we have with other countries, and how our tax dollars are spent.

This document will be the icing on the cake after potential IHR amendments (which will be the missing teeth). It could be argued that the 2005 IHR Amendments should also have been examined by the Senate. This next round of amendments will commit even more money and policy decisions to an unelected global body.

Conclusion 

Many Americans are concerned that the international agreements would override American sovereignty. Given the record of the current president, Americans have reason to worry. Lawmakers have concerns as well, and have filed bills in both the House and the Senate to stop the global health security train: to withdraw from the WHO entirely, to defund the WHO, or to put into law that the U.S. cannot sign onto a pandemic treaty without advice and consent of the Senate. 

The president’s power to make international agreements is checked by Congress. It’s time for Americans to call on our lawmakers to educate them as to (1) what is going on, (2) how quickly it is moving, and (3) help them understand how urgent it is to support legislation to stop the WHO power grab, and not allow the president to ignore the Constitution by signing international agreements that would destroy what it stands for. Ultimately, Congress needs to know that this is of utmost importance to you, to the American voter.