World Health Pandemic Treaty and Australian Sovereignty By Brian Simpson
According to the Australian government, the forthcoming World Health Organization’s pandemic Instrument does not override Australia’s national sovereignty. According to Senator Ralph Babet: “Australia would retain our powers to make decisions on our own borders and on our own public health and social measures, so I think that should give people the assurance that it's Australia and Australia's response that will guide future planning and future responses to disease outbreaks.”
The argument by Babet parallels the one presently being made by the Prime Minister to push the voice through, that the changes to the constitution are only cosmetic, tht there is nothing to see here. But, as with the pandemic treaty, if the treaty has no teeth, it would not be asking for nations to make WHO to be identified as the central coordination authority for future international health responses. So, I for one, am sceptical.
“The Australian government says the World Health Organisation's (WHO) new global health treaty will not override the country's sovereignty.
Also known as the Pandemic Instrument or the WHO CA+, the pandemic preparedness treaty has faced scrutiny around the world due to the wording of its draft, which would make the Treaty binding on all signatories.
At present, the WHO has only produced a "zero draft" of the accord, which outlines the basis for negotiating an international agreement between WHO members. The draft also calls for the WHO to be identified as the central coordination authority for future international health responses
Senator Ralph Babet, said the WHO has no legal authority to force countries to accept any of its recommendations.
"Australia would retain our powers to make decisions on our own borders and on our own public health and social measures, so I think that should give people the assurance that it's Australia and Australia's response that will guide future planning and future responses to disease outbreaks," the senator told the Senate.
Ms. Gallagher noted, though, that the treaty was useful in that it would provide the federal government with access to information from the international community.
"But there is a use and a purpose behind being able to access information and learnings from the international community, which is represented through the World Health
Organization," she said.
Politicians Concerned Over WHO Oversight
The assurance from the federal government comes as politicians from Australia and around the world express concern over the treaty.
UAP Senator Babet told The Epoch Times that his biggest concern was the entrenching of “the undemocratic practice of blindly following the lead of an unelected globalist body.”
Echoing this statement, Liberal Senator Gerard Rennick, told The Epoch Times, “The World Health Organisation already has too much influence on decisions made by the Australian government."
“The fact remains, though, even if Australia doesn’t sign up to the WHO treaty, there is nothing stopping politicians from following along next time. What we need to do is ensure those with the highest integrity and critically thinking politicians are serving us in Canberra. We do not need sheep,” he said.
Andrew Bridgen, from The Reclaim Party for North West Leicestershire, has also raised the issue in the UK.
He is concerned about the treaty and the amendments, but additionally, he is worried about just who is controlling the WHO.
“The proposed treaties would take away all the protections that being in a democracy offers, and they would take away Article 3 of the original WHO constitution, which is about respect for human rights and dignity," he said in a statement.
"That would be replaced by a bland statement saying that there will be equity, which means that everyone would be treated equally. It also means that there would be only one solution to any international problem around the world."
Expert Says Concerns Not Valid
However, global health expert Dr. Jeremy Youde has said that the current concerns around the proposed treaty are not valid as the accord will have little impact on a country's sovereignty.
He also argues that it misrepresents the power of the WHO.
Mr. Youde told RMIT FactLab in May that the WHO is a consultative body that provides advice and information on cross-border health issues. It does not, however, have the power to take over a nation's health care system to say vaccinate people against their wishes.
“The World Health Organization's powers are those that the member states grant to it. There is nothing in the current working of the WHO, nor in any of the proposals for a pandemic treaty, that would give it the power to override domestic sovereignty,” he said.
“The WHO's enforcement powers are incredibly limited—and dependent upon the powers that the member states are willing to grant to the organisation."
He did note that the global body does have the power to strip a member state of voting rights in future agreements or to “name and shame” non-compliant states.”
Comments