[ad_1]
This reporting is part of Stuff’s fact-checking project, The Whole Truth – Te Tikanga Katoa. You can read the rest of our fact-checks here.
Read this story in te reo Māori and English here. / Pānuitia tēnei i te reo Māori me te reo Pākehā ki konei.
What’s the issue?
Member states of the World Health Organisation are in the process of drafting a global agreement, or accord, on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
At the same time, the International Health Regulations, a global framework for controlling the spread of disease and other public health hazards between countries, are being revised.
Claims on social media – including by a former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand – suggest these processes will force countries to cede authority to the WHO.
“New Zealanders will be highly concerned that the World Health Organisation proposes to effectively take control of independent decision making away from sovereign countries and place control with the Director General,” NZ First leader Winston Peters tweeted.
The WHO says this isn’t true.
What we found
It’s unclear whether Peters’ tweets are referring only to the International Health Regulations (IHR) being revised or also to the new accord. These are two separate things.
First introduced more than 50 years ago and last revised in 2005, the regulations provide the global framework for preparing for and responding to health emergencies. But many think they remain insufficient to deal with global pandemics.
And the accord? Since 2021, Aotearoa New Zealand has been working alongside other World Health Organisation member states on an international, legal “instrument” on global pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This has been dubbed the pandemic treaty.
An intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) involving all countries of the WHO that want to take part began discussions earlier this year.
A 32-page draft, called a “zero draft”, lays out a vision for “greater equity and effectiveness” in controlling pandemics and protecting “present and future generations”.
Negotiations will continue over the next year with the INB expected to present its final product to the 77th World Health Assembly.
Aotearoa New Zealand is actively engaged in both issues, the Ministry of Health said.
It’s important to note the treaty process is being led fully by WHO member states, representing all regions of the world. This means governments, including New Zealand’s, are working together to decide what needs to be done. They aren’t being told what to do.
The Ministry of Health has been proactively releasing relevant documents and the public has been invited to make submissions.
The proposed IHR amendments have been published online.
Critics have said the amendments would give the WHO power to unilaterally impose lockdowns on cities without the approval of a country’s government. This isn’t the case.
It’s more likely the amendments will support detecting disease outbreaks earlier and promote information sharing. But there is still a long way to go before anything is finalised.
International law often works invisibly to support things like action on climate change, safety of the seas and international air travel.
International treaties are not directly enforceable in and of themselves. There is no overarching, compulsory judicial system or coercive penal system.
The WHO can’t tell the Prime Minister of New Zealand how to run the country.
Therefore, others have already accused the pandemic treaty of lacking teeth.
If member states agree to go ahead – and it remains possible they won’t – standard New Zealand treaty-making processes will be applied, including a Cabinet mandate, Parliamentary Treaty Examination and Select Committee processes. There will be further opportunities for public input, the Health Ministry added.
New Zealand must uphold an international treaty the country has signed if the government has ensured it is law in our country.
Peters’ claims echo those made by Elon Musk and right-wing Australian senator Malcolm Roberts. And, closer to home, Voices for Freedom.
Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus responded to Musk on Twitter: “Countries aren’t ceding sovereignty to @WHO. The #PandemicAccord won’t change that. The accord will help countries better guard against pandemics.”
Other news outlets have fact-checked similar claims referencing a WHO “globalist takeover”.
The wording of the treaty has not been finalised but the first two clauses read:
1. Reaffirming the principle of sovereignty of States Parties in addressing public health matters, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery,
2. Recognizing the critical role of international cooperation and obligations for States to act in accordance with international law, including to respect, protect and promote human rights[.]
In summary
Claims the WHO is planning on depriving countries of their sovereignty – via amendments to the International Health Regulations or a separate pandemic treaty – are not true.
Proposed amendments would seemingly strengthen requirements for reporting public health emergencies of international concern.
That said the wording of the regulations and treaty is far from being finalised.
Regardless, Aotearoa New Zealand would still determine and implement the direction of its own national health policy.
Neither the treaty, still in draft form, nor the proposed IHR amendments, would give the WHO control over domestic health policies in Aotearoa New Zealand, or any other country.
[ad_2]