“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” observed the English historian, Lord Acton, writing to a friend in 1857. This widely-quoted aphorism should lead us to reflect on the absolute powers that the World Health Organisation is currently seeking for its Director-General (DG). The organisation has abandoned the broad, interdisciplinary vision of health based on primary care and public engagement that characterised its original mission and was expressed in the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1978. What we now see is a top-down, command-and-control approach, based on a narrow scientific base and the preferences, or prejudices, of a few major donors. This model has palpably failed to deliver in times of crisis. If the response is to strengthen the powers of command, can the organisation be trusted to use these wisely, responsibly and effectively?
Much public attention to date has been distracted by the proposal for a new international treaty but the more serious issues can actually be found in the proposed amendments to the international health regulations (IHR). Both are being rushed towards a deadline of May 2024, for adoption at the World Health Assembly. This is exceptional speed for such documents and creates significant obstacles to civil society participation in the process. The treaty, however, will require a two-thirds majority in the assembly. It must then be ratified by each member state through its established procedures, which should create further opportunities for scrutiny. The changes to regulations only require a simple majority and become effective more or less immediately. It is these changes that represent a significant shift of power from nation states to the person of the Director-General, without any provision for a transparent appointment process or for that person to be accountable to any representative body or international legal tribunal. They are a recipe for autocracy.
Currently, the WHO can issue recommendations to members when a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) is declared. The amendments have the effect of changing recommendations to directions or commands. The definition of a PHEIC is loosened so that the DG can declare one in response to a potential, rather than an actual, threat and regardless of the views of the state from which the threat is thought to arise. Once this declaration is made, the new text moves away from the present language, based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to subordinate rights to the discretion of the DG, who acquires the power to close borders, require vaccine passports, mandate vaccinations, impose quarantines and censor media critical of these interventions. The DG is to be the sole source of pandemic truth. While overriding the traditional jurisprudence of human rights, these also trespass on the sovereignty of nation states to make their own judgements about what is best for their citizens. In the Covid pandemic, for example, Sweden could have been directed to comply with WHO instructions rather than following the different views taken by its own public health experts.
WHO was founded in 1948 to promote a broad vision of health, in a context of human rights and community engagement, with a horizontal, ‘whole of society’ approach. It played a valuable role in coordinating national efforts, sharing knowledge and best practice, and supporting national health ministries in countries with weak or resource-poor infrastructures. Many African countries, for example, looked first to WHO for pandemic flu planning rather than developing their own documents.
However, it has increasingly been colonised by a much narrower vision, which identifies public health with biomedical science. The response to epidemics is to be found in vaccines rather than communities. If the community does not accept the vaccine, it must be made to do so. The failure of this approach was well-documented in West Africa in the 2013 Ebola outbreak. WHO, and other international organisations, tried to impose interventions and failed. The outbreak only came under control when local communities were engaged, as anthropologists and sociologists had been urging from the start. Seizing dead bodies from villagers did not work: negotiating alternative arrangements for the transfer of the spiritual powers associated with these corpses had an immediate impact on transmission. By the time the vaccines arrived, the outbreak was in its final stages. Any historian of infectious disease would recognise the pattern, documented by Thomas McKeown more than 50 years ago.
WHO has, though, fallen under the spell of narrow biomedical thinking, not least because it has come to depend so much on donations from companies and foundations rather than national government subscriptions. This is not the sort of silly conspiracy theory that claims Bill Gates wants to use vaccines to microchip everyone on the planet. But it is not a matter of controversy that the Gates Foundation’s disbursements reflect the founder’s technophilia and belief that all human problems will be solved by technology. This presumption is not widely shared outside Silicon Valley, where others acknowledge that technology needs to be acceptable to users, if it is to be taken up and its benefits are to be realised. The dreams of tech entrepreneurs tend to founder on the reality of the wild environment. Compelling obedience to their visions should never be a policy option.
Similarly, pharmaceutical, medical device and IT companies are in the business of selling their products. There is nothing wrong with this, provided that we understand the consequences. We can address the diseases of poverty by making people less poor – or by giving them a pill for the diseases. WHO’s original mission was to speak for the poor not for those who stand to gain from medications, vaccines or electronic apps for surveillance and control of the movement of citizens. Nation states must be free to choose their path and to hear advocates of alternatives.
In the hands of a saintly DG, some of these new powers might be a reasonable response to some of the institutional weaknesses revealed by the Covid pandemic. However, we do not design systems of governance on the assumption that they will always be staffed by saints. DGs are humans, like the rest of us. Thomas Hobbes’s vision of a benevolent dictator to whom citizens surrendered power in exchange for protection fell apart in the political realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. This is no time to re-enact it. Even military doctrine has moved away from pure command and control as the effectiveness of the Ukrainian military effort against an old-style Russian army has demonstrated.
Governments should not be signing up to the IHR amendments without a proper debate in civil society, informed by the social, political and socio-legal sciences of regulation and governance. Absolute power should not be given away in the moment of panic provoked by the pandemics of fear and action.
Dr. Robert Dingwall, a former Government adviser on the JCVI and NERVTAG during the COVID-19 pandemic, is Professor of Sociology at Nottingham Trent University and a consulting sociologist, researcher, writer and entrepreneur. This article first appeared on Social Science Space.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The people will decide what they do – not the WEF stooges.
In reality I think any country can simply choose to ignore the WHO. What sanction could be applied to them? But it’s more about providing cover for national governments to follow health fascist agendas but being able to blame someone else or say they are following WHO guidelines.
I’m not overly keen on any government signing up to anything “international”, whether or not there has been a “proper debate in civil society”. Democracy only works if the buck stops with the people you can kick out at the ballot box.
Absolutely, and this applies to all international organisations, not only the WHO.
The EU is the perfect example – unaccountable, unelected, untaxed politicians whose national career had reached a dead end, now make rules for which they will never pay nor be held accountable and impose them on nation states. The nation states, in the meantime, whether or not they agree with the rules and whether or not they would have imposed similar regardless of Brussels, now point to Brussels when something goes wrong or is onerous and say “don’t blame us, we woz just following orders”. Top of the organisation just makes up theories without any concern for reality, middle-level (the national states) apply the theory without any concern for outcome, as they will not be held responsible anyways. Brussels is setting about to ensure that all of Europe will have shortgages of power and food within a few years and when people finally wake up and realise this, there will be a lot of finger-pointing and zero accountability – and unnecessary hardship.
Same for the UN, from which emanates the climate garbage and the cultural revolution mark II – many nation states question it, but too many people actually believe those who have slimed their way to the top actually care about people and actually know what they are doing.
“Democracy only works if the buck stops with the people you can kick out at the ballot box.” – as Tony Benn used to frequently say.
While I agree with you it will not stop them trying to enforce their new rules. Below is a paragraph from an article on here a while ago
“While both texts (pandemic treaty and IHR) are intended to have force under international law, countries can theoretically opt out in order to preserve their sovereignty and protect their citizens’ rights. However, low-income countries could potentially face financial pressures, restrictions and sanctions from entities such as the World Bank that are also invested in this agenda. Of relevance, the 2022 United States National Defence Authorization Act (HR 7776-960) includes wording concerning adherence to the IHR, and action concerning countries that are uncooperative with its provisions.”
So sanctions on countries that do not comply are likely unless the dissent is too broad and enforcement is not possible.
World Heath organisation is run by criminals
***************************
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
China’s World Health Organisation
Similarly, pharmaceutical, medical device and IT companies are in the business of selling their products. There is nothing wrong with this, provided that
we understand thethey are liable for the consequences.There’s been a tendency to say it’s understandable if businesses behave badly, their job is just to make money. But no, it’s not normal for businesses to not care about injuring their customers. It’s happening because they are above the law.
‘DGs are humans, like the rest of us.’
Some are more human than others.
This guy, Ted, he was voted in by 50 African countries. China supported his candidature and supported 50 African Presidents.
Having extracted ourselves from one exceptionally stupid club, the eu, time to get out of all these other supranational, anti-democratic, anti business ‘stupid clubs’ that we, for some unknown reason, belong to.
As we have seen from the IMF only recently, they do not mean us well.
We can only hope that the next President of the USA is De Santis or Trump and pulls the USA out of the WHO, that would send a very strong message and hit the parasitic operation in the pocket.
“This is not the sort of silly conspiracy theory that claims Bill Gates wants to use vaccines to microchip everyone on the planet.”
Well we will see won’t we Mr Dingwall? The determination to dismiss the case against Billy rather undermines the argument and confirms that this chap is still keeping one foot firmly in the JCVI and NERVTAG camps.
Not impressed with the strength or commitment of this case.
The fact that Billy boy has opneny said he wants to microchip people might be a bit of a give away. Mr Dingwell needs to do some Gates research. Totally agree Hux
I have been following Burundi since August 2021. There are still only 38 deaths registered as ‘covid’ and so far 31,000 of the clot shots administered.
This out of a population around 12.5m. I do believe that Burundi like Tanzania rejected the mass jabberoonies. Good for them is what i say. However if the WHO treaty becomes international law I wonder how these dissenting countries would fare? What further sanctions could be put on an already extremely poor country?
I have no idea why any government would sign these proposals.
I can only see downsides.
You can work together, exchange ideas, without having to be a blind follower of any dictat by an undemocratic, not independently funded organisation.
I’ve read a comprehensive book about the Middle Ages and EVERY empire has fallen against its people. Not one has prevailed and so too will ANY attempt by an un-elected WHO to control our lives. Don’t worry folks, its just history repeating itself.
“Even military doctrine has moved away from pure command and control as the effectiveness of the Ukrainian military effort against an old-style Russian army has demonstrated.”
Eh? It’s a bloody meat grinder and the Russians are in total control. Suggest you follow proceedings via UK Column News rather than the government propaganda fed MSM.
Some may counter that “absolute power does not corrupt, it reveals”. Yes, someone actually tweeted that recently (a neoreactionary monarchist who opposes democracy, to be sure). But even so, such power extremely dangerous in the wrong hands, and we typically don’t know it is in the wrong hands until it is too late. As history has shown time and again.
This is beyond horrifying!