WHO Pandemic Agreement Could Be ‘Null and Void’: Hundreds of Lawmakers Worldwide

Hundreds of officials from dozens of countries have put the leader of the World Health Organization on notice that if he persists in violating WHO rules to adopt a controversial global pandemic agreement or amend the International Health Regulations (IHR), it will render those provisions “null and void.”

Delegates remain huddled in Geneva as the clock ticks away the remaining moments of the 77th annual World Health Assembly, where some had hoped to finalize the pandemic agreement and pass amendments to the IHR, which would allow a global governance institution to guide some of the most sensitive areas of sovereign nations’ health care policy.

As of this writing, 216 elected officials from 34 nations have signed a letter instructing WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus that any effort to adopt the proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement or IHR amendments this week would “violate the principles of good governance,” break organizational rules, and usher in an era of “tyranny and oppression.” 

The most recent draft of the pandemic agreement would compel Americans to turn over 20% of their supplies to WHO for “equity”-based global redistribution, follow WHO policies on “routine immunization” and “social measures” such as lockdowns, and accept a “One Health” policy that equates human life with plants and other life forms. The uncertainty of multiple provisions makes the treaty “a blank check” to “unaccountable committees,” say the elected officials, including eight Republican Members of Congress.

But they argue the provisions of any agreement WHA authorizes this week will have no impact, because WHO rules would invalidate the document.

“Article 55(2) of the [International Health Regulations] mandates that the text of any proposed amendment be communicated at least four months before the Health Assembly where it will be considered,” says the communiqué. “Claiming that the dissemination of an initial draft in February 2023 meets this requirement, despite ongoing negotiations, is absurd.” 

WHO officials voted to initiate a pandemic treaty in March 2021 and began drafting the “legally binding treaty” in December 2022. But negotiators seem unlikely to produce a final text by the end of before delegates go home Friday, despite Ghebreyesus’s optimism at the WHA’s opening session. Even passing the IHR amendment remains in doubt, although that seems more likely.

“It is generally seen that the pandemic agreement is going to be kicked down the road months or several years,” said Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs a Family Research Council, on “Washington Watch” Wednesday. “Even funding the amendments to the International Health Regulations is going to be a sticking point in the next few days,” Weber, who is posting regular updates on the meeting from Geneva at WashingtonStand.com, told guest host and former Congressman Jody Hice. “And if that’s a sticking point, then the pandemic agreement, which requires even more funding and is more comprehensive, is going to be a sticking point there, as well.”

Even if WHA delegates overcome their contentious disputes over financial commitments and intellectual property rights belonging to Western pharmaceutical companies, the letter signers argue the WHO must wait for months to move forward. “Proceeding with the adoption of new amendments to the IHR or the proposed pandemic treaty” at the WHA “would be contrary to law,” the officials observe. “Should you proceed, any resulting agreement will immediately be null and void.”

“Using potential pandemics as a pretext to violate the principles of good governance erodes trust and undermines international cooperation when it is most needed,” they add. “Without the rule of law, tyranny and oppression prevail.”

The letter objects to the latest proposed text of the agreement on substantive, as well as procedural, grounds.

“The terms of any agreement must be explicitly defined within the document itself. It is unacceptable to use open-ended wording that defers crucial decisions to unaccountable committees,” says the letter.

The latest text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement contains at least three open-ended provisions members which must sign, sight unseen:

• The WHO Pandemic Agreement states that implementation of its One Health philosophy will be codified in a new treaty or agreement to be presented on May 31, 2026 (Article 5:4).
• It establishes a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network, something akin to a global central planning agency overseeing the production and redistribution of vaccines and emergency equipment. But WHO will not define its rules and procedures until the “first meeting” of the Conference of the Parties, a group of unelected officials from all member nations.
• It also sets up a “Coordinating Financial Mechanism” to fund the WHO’s ambitions, but WHO will not consider its regulations until one year after the treaty has taken effect (Article 20:4).

“This essentially forces [m]ember [s]tates to sign a blank check,” write the people’s representatives.

American signers so far include eight members of Congress, though more may sign. In addition to Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), current congressional signatories include Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), Bob Good (R-Va.), Barry Moore (R-Ala.), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), Keith Self (R-Texas), and Tom Tiffany (R-Wisc.). But officials at all levels of government — including state and local officials from Ohio, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas — have endorsed the letter.

Alabama is particularly well represented: Lieutenant Governor Will Ainsworth (R), as well as Alabama Auditor Andrew Sorrell (R), 14 members of the state senate, and 33 members of the state House of Representatives have signed the document.

Many from around the world have signed, as well.

Not all politicians have proven hostile to the agreement, which concentrates vital decision-making power in the hands of unelected foreign appointees “during and between pandemics.” Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) joined seven of her fellow Democrats in a May 23 letter to the U.S. ambassador to international organizations in Geneva.

“We wrote to share our strong support for the World Health Organization (WHO) Intergovernmental Negotiating Body’s (INB) efforts to reach a Pandemic Agreement,” they inform Ambassador Bathsheba Nell Crocker, formerly the senior policy and advocacy officer for International Affairs at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

“[T]he draft Pandemic Agreement advances global health security without impacting U.S. national sovereignty,” they asserted before hyping the need for a global accord “[i]n our interconnected world.”

The letter from global elected officials adds momentum to a growing tide of opposition to the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which would “empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles,” wrote 24 Republican governors last week.

The accord “would lay the groundwork for a global surveillance infrastructure, ostensibly in the interest of public health, but with the inherent opportunity for control (as with Communist China’s ‘social credit system’),” wrote 22 state attorneys general on May 8.

Only those who hold an elected government office may add their signature. Elected leaders, at any level of government, can sign the letter here.