The President of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly has endorsed a contentious declaration, named the Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (PPPR) Declaration, designed to establish a global pandemic authority capable of enforcing stringent pandemic-related measures.
The endorsement, notably made without a comprehensive assembly vote, encountered resistance from 11 countries, raising concerns over its implications on national sovereignty, an in-depth report from The Defender points out.
The PPPR declaration aspires to fortify global collaboration and public health initiatives, offering a comprehensive approach to managing pandemics.
It has drawn praise from some for its potential in preventing and addressing pandemics and their consequential impacts, aligning with the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The World Health Organization (WHO) perceives this as a crucial opportunity to “apply lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic” amid the ongoing climatic and humanitarian crises globally.
In the words of WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, “If COVID-19 taught us nothing else, it’s that when health is at risk, everything is at risk.”
However, the negotiations have hit a roadblock, with negotiators struggling to reconcile accountability with sovereignty.
Critics argue that the PPPR is marred by contradictions and emphasizes an unwarranted centralization of control at the expense of democracy and human rights.
Dr. David Bell, a biotech consultant, characterizes the text as “clearly contradictory, sometimes fallacious, and often quite meaningless,” and suggests it bolsters the WHO’s central power, The Defender notes.
The ambitious proposal, if finalized, would have far-reaching impacts, from potentially making temporary COVID-19 powers permanent to calling for universal vaccination and initiating increased surveillance through digital health documents such as vaccine passports.
The concerns over the misuse of these powers are palpable, as expressed by Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, who finds the prospective U.N. and WHO’s overarching authority “very worrying.”
Gaffney warned that those international agencies “will further encourage, if not actually authorize, the kind of standing capability or authority on their part to essentially dictate what constitutes emergencies.”
The declaration’s final text articulates a comprehensive plan, covering a spectrum of issues including vaccine research and development, the role of the private sector in healthcare innovation, and the potential use of digital health technologies.
The declaration pushes for “routine immunization” as a necessary public health intervention and advocates for addressing health-related so-called misinformation, especially on social media platforms, to “foster trust in public health systems and authorities.”
Moreover, the declaration envisions the establishment of a Pandemic Fund, anticipated to incur a cost of $30 billion per year, to finance critical investments necessary for pandemic preparedness and response.
According to Bell, the allocation of such extensive funds is disproportionate, considering the rarity of pandemics and their relatively insignificant impact on overall mortality over the last century.
Critics assert that the declaration, while advocating for women’s rights and education, paradoxically supports restrictions reminiscent of those imposed during COVID-19, which have had detrimental impacts on women and education systems.
James Roguski, an independent journalist, said that the “vast harms that have been caused by approved therapeutics and injections make the hypocrisy” of the declaration’s calls for “greater access” to vaccines “absolutely astonishing.”
