Proposed US amendments to World Health Organization treaty would erode American sovereignty – LifeSite
(LifeSiteNews) — A friend of mine – an esteemed journalist – recently mentioned that he has been hearing terrible things about the proposed U.S. amendments to the International Health Regulations of the World Health Organization (W.H.O.). He asked me if they really are that bad.
Yes, they really are that bad. If passed, they really will result in a significant erosion in U.S. sovereignty – in our ability to determine for ourselves whether something constitutes a health emergency and, if so, the best approach to that emergency. Further, the attempt to slip this surrender of sovereignty through quietly as a series of amendments to the current International Health Regulations circumvents the treaty process, thus performing an end-run around our legislature and the legislatures of the world.
We know that, if passed, these amendments would sound a death knell to our sovereign independence as a nation by looking at two factors:
1) What the amendments say; and
2) Who would be enforcing them.
We know that the W.H.O. is deeply compromised by its relationship with China. Ceding sovereignty to the W.H.O. would in effect be ceding sovereignty to the Chinese Communist Party.
I would like to take a quick look at what the actual amendments themselves say. These Amendments were submitted by the Biden Administration on April 12, 2022, by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
There is much to cause concern in this document. Here are just a few items:
1) As a general matter, the term, “Public Health Emergency of international concern” is ill-defined and could include not only a viral pandemic, but also a rise in crime rates or gun violence, climate change, mental health issues, or even cell phone addition. There is no limit on issues that arguably may affect “public health.”
2) The following wording is STRICKEN from Article 9:
Before taking any action based on such reports [of a health event], W.H.O. shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 10.
The fact that this is stricken means that the W.H.O. can take action without consulting or obtaining verification from the country affected.
2) Article 12: A “report” of a health-related event can come from anywhere, including “the public domain.” So, for example, if people in a certain area begin posting on social media that they are experiencing strange symptoms, the W.H.O. can use this as an excuse to intervene.
3) Article 12. 2. “If the Director-General determines [STRICKEN – and the State Party are in agreement regarding this determination] that the event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, the Director-General shall … seek the views of the Emergency Committee on appropriate temporary recommendations.”
Under this provision, the Director-General has sole discretion to determine if an event is a “public health emergency of international concern” without the agreement of the country in which the event took place.
4) Article 12.6 is new. It establishes “an intermediate public health alert” that could be used to justify W.H.O. intervention in non-emergency situations.
5) New Chapter IV – The Compliance Committee. According to IV.3., this Committee shall be appointed, not elected. According to IV.1(b), it “[s]hall be responsible for … Monitoring, advising on, and/or facilitating assistance on matters relating to compliance with a view to assisting State Parties to comply with obligations under these regulations.”