Conservatives are crying foul over a United Nations World Health Organization proposal that they claim would mean America losing its sovereignty.
The proposal emerged earlier this year, leading to the accusation that, if accepted by President Joe Biden, America would cede its pandemic authority to the WHO.
“A legally-binding World Health Organization ‘pandemic treaty’ will give the organization the authority to control U.S. policies during a pandemic, including those on vaccines, lockdowns, school closures and more,” the accusation read, according to the Associated Press.
The AP, for its part, sought to “debunk” the claim by arguing that the proposal, known as the “pandemic treaty,” would do no such thing.
“The voluntary treaty, which is in draft form and is still far away from ratification, does not overrule any nation’s ability to pass individual pandemic-related policies, multiple experts, including one involved in the draft process, [said],” the AP claimed.
“The treaty lays out broad recommendations related to international cooperation on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Nowhere in the 30-page document are lockdowns, closures, or specific citizen surveillance systems mentioned,” its supposed “fact-check” continued.
Yet months later, the issue still remains up for debate, with conservatives still crying foul:
PLEASE GET THIS OUT ASAP!!!
VOTE YES ON HR 1425
.@JoeBiden MUST NOT sign America onto foreign treaties without the constitutionally required 2/3 Senate vote.Joe Biden has signaled his plan to sign the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Treaty and… pic.twitter.com/ijRC74V2if
— Ann Vandersteel (@annvandersteel) November 28, 2023
In the tweet above, conservative Ann Vandersteel encouraged all conservatives to contact their representatives in Congress and urge them to vote for HR 1425.
Titled the “No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act,” the bill would make it so that President Biden would have to go through Congress first to sign the “pandemic treaty.”
The bill, seen here, contains a number of facts relevant to this debate
“A Pew Research Center survey conducted in April and May 2020 indicated that 51 percent of Americans felt that WHO had done a poor or fair job in managing the COVID–19 pandemic,” one fact reads.
The bill also points to Section 723.3 of Title 11 of the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual.
“[When] determining whether any international agreement should be brought into force as a treaty or as an international agreement other than a treaty, the utmost care is to be exercised to avoid any invasion or compromise of the constitutional powers of the President, the Senate, and the Congress as a whole,” the section reads.
Award-winning investigative journalist Lara Logan has also endorsed Vandersteel’s tweet:
Please get the word out….share it with everyone! https://t.co/4UCnuOelxz
— Lara Logan (@laralogan) November 28, 2023
The bill continues by arguing that Congress most Americans are skeptical of the WHO and that Congress prefers any treaty first go through the U.S. Senate.
“A significant segment of the American public is deeply skeptical of the World Health Organization, its leadership, and its independence from the pernicious political influence of certain member states, including the People’s Republic of China,” it reads.
“Congress strongly prefers that any agreement related to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response adopted by the World Health Assembly pursuant to the work of the INB be considered a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the Senate, with two-thirds of Senators concurring,” it continues.
(INB is short for the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body)
The bill concludes by arguing that Senate approval is, in fact, required by law.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any convention, agreement, or other international instruments on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached by the World Health Assembly pursuant to the recommendations, report, or work of the International Negotiating Body established by the second special session of the World Health Assembly is deemed to be a treaty that is subject to the requirements of article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States, which requires the advice and consent of the Senate, with two-thirds of Senators concurring,” it reads.
Dovetailing back to Vandersteel’s tweet, conservatives responded to it by stressing their belief that “no crooked politician,” meaning presumably Biden, should be able to sign any sort of treaty without congressional approval.
Look:
He can’t. Any treaty he uses an executive order to sign is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
— PBennett1014 (@PBennett1014) November 29, 2023
His signature is worthless without Senate approval. Wilson designed the League of Nations, but the US never joined in spite of his signature.
— Charles Lemons (@TankCurator) November 28, 2023
It’s not up to Biden. Per WHO 1937 law Senate must Reject a WHO amendment.
If the Senate doesn’t Reject, Silence is Acceptance
— Lori Paquin (@logical_lop) November 29, 2023
“Constitutionally required” means it will not become a treaty according to the US Constitution no matter who signs it, unless it has 67 votes in the Senate. Full stop. The next president or whomever may violate it at Will.
— Discerning Texan (@CWRandomMusings) November 28, 2023
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Bill of Rights is a partial enumeration of rights untouchable by government. No crooked politician can deny those rights or usurp the Constitution by signing some foreign treaty.
— Patrick Kerby (@Patrickkerby58) November 28, 2023
“Another” Perspective On This WHO Pending Action
“I welcome the agreement by the @WHO Member States to develop a zero draft of a legally binding #PandemicAccord designed to protect the world from future pandemics and to continue discussions on the draft in February 2023,” said WHO CEO Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
The development follows a third meeting from WHO member states to develop a global pandemic treaty. The first meeting was in December 2021, and the second was in March 2022.
It’s unclear how the WHO’s pandemic treaty will affect its 194 member states, including Canada.
The WHO states the global pandemic treaty will determine future pandemic requirements for individual countries, such as lockdowns, and that these requirements will be “legally binding.”
The WHO says the treaty will be a “legal instrument, rooted in the WHO Constitution, designed to protect the world from future pandemics.”
Article 21 of the WHO’s constitution states the WHO has “authority to adopt regulations concerning (a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease.”
“Other procedures” presumably include global vaccine passports, which member states have already supported.
However, the WHO also claims the pandemic treaty will “respect sovereignty.”
The draft that resulted from this third meeting includes a provision that reads:
“States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems pursuant to their own policies and legislation provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to other States and their peoples.”
Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis has been outspoken regarding the potential impact a global pandemic treaty could have on Canadians.
In April, she said the treaty would allow the WHO to determine what a pandemic is and when one is occurring — even over something non-viral like an obesity crisis.
Earlier this year, the WHO and the German health minister said that countries disobeying regulations dictated by the WHO through their pandemic treaty might need to be sanctioned.
