The hoped-for rejection has turned into a mere postponement, which makes it absolutely essential to remain vigilant!
Amendments to the International Health Regulations merely postponed, not avoided
By Alessandro Fusillo
To understand what happened and which votes we are talking about, watch this video
Many commentators welcomed the alleged rejection of the amendments to the International Health Regulations (generally abbreviated with the acronym IHR). The amendments had been proposed by the Biden administration and outlined a scenario that was disquieting, to say the least. The WHO Director-General, the re-elected Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has the power to declare a global or local pandemic or epidemic; the WHO then recommends to the countries concerned a series of measures to be adopted, which fundamentally consist of restrictions on trade, freedom of movement, and the freedom of medical treatment and healthcare self-determination. All of this against the backdrop of the WHO's plan to strengthen both global vaccine coverage and the adoption of an international digital vaccination certificate in the future.
In reality, the rejection—initially driven by the opposition of several African countries that had wisely sensed the deception—has turned into a mere postponement, coupled with the decision to shorten the timeframe for the entry into force of the reforms. The American proposals remain on the table with their deeply unsettling content.
In essence, the documents prepared by the US administration were adopted by the 75th World Health Assembly with an invitation to member states to submit amendments by 22 September 2022, as indicated in the document attached here. Fewer than four months, including the summer period, to draw up proposals. All within the framework of a specific plan aimed at endowing the WHO with exceptional powers. It should be emphasised that under Article 59 of the International Health Regulations there is an automatic mechanism for the approval of new regulations, which enter into force unless explicitly rejected or unless a member state submits amendments or registers reservations.
What appears disquieting about the proposed text is the mafia-style approach envisaged for the adoption of health measures. If, indeed, the WHO becomes convinced that there is a health alert in a given country, it “offers” its assistance to the country in question. Should the country not accept the offer (the kind one cannot refuse, evidently), the WHO will share the information regarding the health alert with other countries, with the readily foreseeable consequence of complete isolation of the country affected by a real or alleged pandemic or epidemic from international trade, tourism, and transport. An appalling scenario that has not coincidentally been likened to a single world government, implemented through healthcare mechanisms via a body such as the WHO, which is substantially free of any and all oversight. Suffice it to say that the Director-General's decision cannot be appealed against and is not subject to any form of review, apart from the weak possibility for member states to submit observations regarding the existence or otherwise of the pandemic. It is envisaged (as shown on page 5 of the American draft) that, following notification concerning the existence of a health alert situation, member states must communicate all relevant information, including data derived from genetic sequencing. Naturally, no mention is made of the potential rights of citizens whose genetic data would be shared with the WHO and who might disagree.
In short, a dystopian scenario that has for now merely been postponed and which, in the hopes of the US administration, is set to enter into force in 2024 or at the latest in 2025. This is an ancient and well-established technique of international bureaucratic organisations that have caused so much damage to individual freedom and rights: when new rules or measures prove excessively unpopular with the public, they are shelved for a while in order to bring them forward again, perhaps under a different name, once public opinion has been suitably distracted, for instance by some new fake pandemic.
Let us not forget that, even in the face of a concerted and identical worldwide response to the alleged Covid-19 pandemic, many voices—deeply unsettling, to say the least—have been raised within the WHO lamenting the lack of sufficient powers vested in the organisation. There are those who believe that the personal and economic oppression suffered by the global population was not enough, and that even more extensive powers need to be granted to the WHO for the future.
What is to be done? Do not let your guard down under any circumstances. The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations are the responsibility of a sinister figure such as Minister Speranza. One can be certain that Italy will do absolutely nothing to try to prevent the heavy-handed encroachment upon its sovereignty represented by the American proposals. It is therefore necessary to keep talking about the issue, to put pressure on the ministry—for instance with freedom of information requests, petitions, and other similar initiatives. If we had a parliament, some "representatives of the people" would do well to table parliamentary questions and compel the government to report to the chamber. In a civilised country, parliament would forbid the Minister of Health from accepting an outrage like the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations, and would very sensibly initiate Italy’s exit from a useless and harmful organisation such as the WHO.