ExclusiveBehind WHO Treaty: How Obama Helped

World Health Organization advocates are pushing members to sign agreements which would grant a UN subsidiary broad expanded powers if adopted. The deadline for signing is fast approaching so they are stepping up the pressure but the opposition is going fast. On March 20th, WHO ambassador and former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown hailed a 100-plus pantheon of global leaders campaign. The campaign involves establishing a new global medical treaty. It also aims to revise existing international health regulations. The treaty and regulations would make the WHO the central authority during pandemics and other WHO declared health crises. If adopted, the result would send tens of billions of dollars to this UN subsidiary. Critics say that the WHO has deliberately avoided calling the agreement a treaty. This is because treaties typically require approval from national legislatures. This means a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required in the United States. So to circumvent this requirement, they are trying to get the agreement approved in Geneva, Switzerland. They will try to do this at the World Health Assembly's annual meeting from May 27th to June 1st. There are some supporters of the campaign but there are many critics. One of the primary concerns that critics have raised is that once that organization declares a health emergency then countries would surrender authority to the WHO. Of course, WHO advocates say such concerns are unfounded but is that true? The Associated Press said that member nations would not lose sovereignty but the language in the draft of the treaty appears mandatory to surrender authority to the WHO. It states throughout the document that the parties commit to and the parties shall with the word shall used more than 160 times. In addition, the International Health Regulation Amendments state that all the members recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during a public health emergency of international concern. They undertake to follow WHO's recommendations in their international public health response. Sovereignty concerns also include the requirement that health measures mandated by the WHO shall be initiated and completed without delay by all parties. Dr. David Bell, a public health physician who formerly worked with the WHO on infectious disease diagnostics, is one of the main opponents of the agreement. Dr. Bell warned they are trying to make out that this is some mild feel-good agreement that won't really affect anyone and therefore doesn't need to go to national legislatures. Dr. Bell has been tracking the progress of the agreement with a critical eye. Supporters of the agreement say that the WHO will have no authority to enforce its directives or recommendations. They also say that it cannot force lockdowns or quarantines on member nations. However, a 2022 petition that was signed by 15 state attorneys general argued that the HHS could have such authority once the WHO declares a health emergency. The state attorneys general wrote in a protest of an HHS decision on January 19th, 2017. The decision was made just one day before Obama's second term ended. That day, Obama gave the WHO director general the authority to declare a public health emergency in the United States. Critics also worry that the process of handing over new powers to the WHO has been needlessly rushed. But this rush avoids public discussion and debates. Dr. Bell co-authored a report by a research group at the University of Leeds in the UK. The report argues that based on the WHO's own data, the evidence does not support the urgent need for or benefit of giving the WHO more power. According to the authors, recent advancement in diagnostic testing partly explains the increase in pandemics reported by the WHO. Dr. Bell noted they require countries to comply because they're saying that during COVID countries didn't act fast enough and therefore they have to be told what to do. However, the WHO has not explained how it would have saved more lives if it had the authority that it now seeks. Dr. Bell also said the whole narrative that they need this at all is not supported by any evidence that they put forward. Many policy analysts have argued that the WHO's actions during COVID-19 did little to help the public and it may have even exacerbated the crisis. The State Attorneys General believe that instead of reporting public health information, the WHO repeated the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda regarding COVID-19. To enable the WHO to fulfill its new duties, member nations must also pay billions of dollars to the WHO. The Leeds University report states that massive annual financial requests support this agenda. These include $36 billion in new member contributions and $10 billion for One Health interventions. A One Health approach would effectively expand the authority of health officials into areas such as farming, pollution and climate change. However, Dr. Merle Nass, a physician who has been critical of the WHO, said that several countries, including New Zealand, Slovakia and the Netherlands, have raised concerns about the agreement and too many corners may have been cut in order to try and get approval for the new health deal this spring. So, we must wait to see if the WHO can get the agreement signed amid the fast-growing opposition. Okay, that's the news to me. Thank you so much for watching FrontPage and may the truth set you free.