The international community has completely failed to behave in a way that is fair and united as a result of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic that has been implemented all across the world.
In light of this, the World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed the International Pandemic Treaty or the INB, both of which would have authority that exceeds that of the majority of governments around the world, in order to respond to potential future emergencies involving the global health system. Nonetheless, there are those specialists who are worried that the INB may be exploited as another pretext for exercising control.
In addition, the One Health program, which is a five-year strategy to tackle zoonotic infections all over the world, is a component of the INB. It would appear that the INB might serve as the acting arm of the WHO, while the International Health Regulations (IHR) would serve as the legal foundation for an arbitrary government. According to the plan, the World Bank would be the one to provide the funds for these various steps.
The issue still has to be answered: Do people feel that the World Health Organization handled the pandemic effectively? Several affluent nations in Europe and North America appear to support the WHO’s efforts; nevertheless, certain Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea are unsatisfied with the organization’s reaction. These countries include Japan and South Korea.
In addition to this, the policies that the WHO is working to enact are also contributors to the existing social tension and divide. Those in support of a privately-operated health passport and those in favor of a government-operated health passport that may be used as proof of vaccination or for other purposes like these are now at odds with one another.
Before any revisions are approved by the WHO, it is essential to keep in mind that, similar to a well-functioning government with checks and balances, an objective post-COVID review is required first. This raises the question of what sort of overseeing institution the WHO is seen to fall under, as well as whether or not there are legal processes that would allow the WHO to be held accountable in the event of a severe crisis in public health. Before moving forward with any modifications, it is important to address these concerns first.
The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) lack of openness and the planned accountability measures may be one of the most urgent concerns here. The language used in the amendment document is unclear and can be interpreted in a number of different ways. In addition to this, the proposed new order appears to lack a system of checks and balances, which is a worrying sign.
By May of 2024, the World Health Organization’s 194 member states are scheduled to vote on the proposed adjustments and put the finishing touches on the new INB. This might result in significant shifts in the livelihoods of future generations. But have individuals been given sufficient information and education about these shifts in policy? Shouldn’t there be more public and open conversations so that there is greater openness about what will happen if the revisions are approved? Why aren’t we hearing anything about this in the mainstream media?
In conclusion, the modifications to the INB that have been recommended by the WHO might have far-reaching repercussions for the governance of public health all over the world. It is important to hold discussions and assessments that are more open and transparent before any alterations are implemented in order to guarantee that the proposed changes will be to everyone’s advantage rather than being used as another pretext for control.
Free Speech and Alternative Media are under attack by the Deep State. Real News Cast needs reader support to survive.
Every dollar helps. Contributions help keep the site active and help support the author (and his medical bills)
Please Contribute via GoGetFunding
