The World Health Organization (WHO) has been accused of being “colonialist” over plans for a new pandemic treaty.
A coalition of African scientists fears the deal could lead to nations being locked out at the whim of the UN agency.
The WHO, widely criticized for its handling of Covid, is considering up to 300 amendments to its legally binding regulations.
But the group is concerned that a measure proposed by the UN agency will open the door for member states to comply with advice issued during future pandemics, such as enforcing vaccine passports and border closures.
The Pan-African Task Force on Epidemics and Pandemics argued that lockdowns were a “classist and unscientific instrument.”
The World Health Organization (WHO), widely criticized for its handling of Covid, is considering up to 300 amendments to its legally binding regulations. But the group fears that a proposed measure by the UN agency will open the door for member states to comply with any advice issued during future pandemics, such as enforcing vaccine passports and border closures.
It comes as six MPs wrote to the Foreign Office in May last year demanding it block any new powers that could see the WHO dictate policy and budgets in the UK. Former Cabinet minister Esther McVey (pictured) warned that powers would see the organisation, described by critics as a puppet of China, go from an “advisory body run by its members to a health authority with powers of coercion”.
He said they caused “significant harm” to low-income nations.
Instead, African nations should be able to prioritize addressing their key health needs, including diseases such as cholera, yellow fever and malaria, the group said.
The coalition, which has backed embarrassed MP Andrew Bridgen for his work on Covid vaccine injuries, said the plans threaten “health sovereignty” and “economic independence”.
Specifically, the group calls for a review of the amended agreement, which empowers the WHO to declare a disease a public health emergency of international concern or a pandemic.
They said: ‘These new powers should not be considered.
‘Instead, a sensitive approach to Africa should replace the increasingly colonialist approach of those who now control the WHO agenda.
‘He isolation regulations, which were imposed during Covid and which are still being reinforced in draft instruments, were a classist and unscientific instrument, causing significant collateral damage to low-income people and being useless for overcrowded informal settings such as in urban Africa.’
Reginald Oduor, senior lecturer in the philosophy department at the University of Nairobi, Kenya, added: ‘This is a perpetuation of classical Western imperialism coming in through the back door.
‘It is health imperialism to subjugate knowledge from other parts of the world and think that medical innovations and knowledge about Covid or other pandemics have to come from Geneva or developed countries.
“This is why we must advocate for multiple knowledge centers… Every society has the right to have its own innovations.”
According to a draft of the treaty, countries would “follow WHO recommendations in their international public health response.”
Its goal is to prepare for the next global health emergency and prevent a repeat of what South Africa called “vaccine apartheid,” where countries had very unequal access to Covid vaccines and medicines.
The WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) group is set to agree on a package of amendments to present to the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May at the 77th World Health Assembly.
It comes as six MPs wrote to the Foreign Office in May last year demanding it block any new powers that could see the WHO dictate policy and budgets in the UK.
Former Cabinet minister Esther McVey warned that powers would see the organisation, described by critics as a puppet of China, go from an “advisory body run by its members to a health authority with coercive powers”.
In response to fears, the Government insisted that it would “never accept anything that contradicts our principles of sovereignty.”
The initial WHO investigation in January 2021, in which a group of scientists traveled to Wuhan, concluded that “all hypotheses remain on the table.” In its March 2021 report, it ranked the likelihood of four theories and considered the natural origins theory to be the most likely. But he placed the lab leak as an “extremely unlikely avenue” behind the frozen food origin story. The theory that the virus was introduced through “cold products in the food chain”, pushed by the Chinese government, was considered a “possible route” by the UN agency.
The Government also says the treaty “makes no provision” to give the WHO powers to impose lockdowns, mandatory quarantines or vaccines.
The agency has long been criticized for praising China’s response to Covid, for taking too long to call the outbreak an international emergency and for advising countries not to impose travel bans.
His investigation into the origins of Covid, in January 2021, in which a group of scientists traveled to Wuhan, concluded that “all hypotheses are still on the table.”
In its March 2021 report, it ranked the likelihood of four popular theories and considered the natural origins theory to be the most likely.
But he placed the lab leak as an “extremely unlikely avenue” behind the frozen food origin story.
Its CEO has since called for new research, stating: “All hypotheses remain open and require further study.”
The lab leak theory, once dismissed as an outright conspiracy, has gained increasing traction in the years since the virus first caused a global pandemic.
But no concrete evidence has ever been found to support any origin argument, making experts fear the truth will never be discovered.