WHO Makes Key Concessions Ahead of Pandemic Treaty Vote: But Is It Enough?

The World Health Organization (WHO) has watered down some provisions of its pandemic agreements ahead of the upcoming World Health Assembly on May 27. Critics in the United States, however, say the changes don’t do enough to address the concerns over the policy.

Provisions in prior drafts of the WHO pandemic treaty and International Health Regulations (IHR) together aimed to effectively centralize and increase the power of the WHO if it declares a “health emergency.”

The release of the latest draft of the amendments, dated April 17, is the first public update on the IHR draft, which was initially made public in early 2023.

“In most areas, and for all of those which most concerned us from a legal perspective, the interim draft reflects a major retreat by the WHO Working Group from the text of the original proposals,” British solicitors Ben and Molly Kingsley wrote in an April briefing paper regarding the new amendments.

Some WHO watchers remain wary, however.

“Practically all the bad things are still there,” Dr. Meryl Nass, a U.S.-based physician and vocal critic of the WHO agreements, told The Epoch Times.

The Latest Draft

Struck from the latest draft is a provision that member nations “recognize WHO as the guiding and coordinating authority of international public health response” and commit to follow the WHO’s directives during a health emergency. The latest draft also states that WHO recommendations are nonbinding.

The WHO had sought powers in the previous IHR draft over “all risks with a potential to impact public health.” The latest draft seeks to limit the WHO’s authority to what it has been previously, namely the spread of diseases.

However, the global concept of One Health remains in the pandemic treaty, which could expand the WHO’s authority into new areas including global warming, the environment, farming, and food supplies.