Explanation and Education Column on Pandemic Pact: WHO’s Authoritarian Spirit

class=”sc-29f61514-0 dXbCZE”>

Who is who? The three letters stand for the World Health Organization. Writing should make many people feel safe. There’s good reason for this: the Geneva-based organization’s goal, in the words of the federal government, is “to defend the right of every person to the highest standard of health and well-being.”

For sober contemporaries this may seem like an exaggeration, but nevertheless. WHO is a UN agency to which the Swiss Confederation belongs, along with 193 other countries. So far, Switzerland has benefited from WHO through knowledge sharing and coordinated action, for example in the fight against AIDS.

Human rights and the sovereignty of states have always been protected, especially since WHO recommendations are not binding. But that is exactly what is about to change. The focus is on two documents: an amendment to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and a new pandemic pact. The current versions of the treaties are imbued with an authoritarian post-pandemic spirit that makes one shudder, as two examples show.

If WHO declares a health emergency in the future, the Federal Council must immediately implement the prescribed measures – without any discretion. WHO becomes the “lead authority” (Article 13 of the IHR). And Switzerland becomes the recipient of orders from an organization that does not have democratic legitimacy. Particularly poignant: WHO is beyond any doubt – as an agent of soft law, it is beyond direct control.

Thus, the WHO, as a political body, will determine what is considered scientific and what is not. She would have ordered measures to be taken during the pandemic. And this will require national authorities to “counteract the dissemination of false and unreliable information about public health events, preventive and anti-epidemic measures and activities in the media, social networks and other means of disseminating such information” (Article 44).

It’s like censorship ordered internationally and implemented nationally. Could Switzerland want this? Some parliamentarians have taken notice and are demanding greater transparency from the Federal Council in the negotiations. One thing is clear: Switzerland should never sign such a soft law with harsh consequences before it is presented to parliament and the people. This affects not only the health of the population, but also the integrity of the country.

René Scheu is a philosopher and managing director of the Institute for Swiss Economic Policy (IWP) in Lucerne.

Source: Blick