Editing Implications of the Pandemic, Part 2 (section)

==== Financial Burden ====
Article 20 (1) imposes additional financial responsibility on member states to commit to strengthening pandemic preparedness and response, supporting other parties, and the responsibility to mobilize resources as necessary. Article 20 (2)(a) and (b) read as follows: “2. A sustainable funding mechanism shall be established by the Conference of the Parties no later than 31 December 2026. The mechanism shall ensure the provision of adequate, accessible, new and additional and predictable financial resources, and shall include the following: (a) A capacity development fund that shall be resourced, inter alia, through the following: (i) annual monetary contributions from Parties to the WHO Pandemic Agreement; (ii) monetary contributions from recipients pursuant to Article 12 herein; and (iii) voluntary monetary contributions from Parties to the WHO Pandemic Agreement. (b) An endowment for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, resourced, inter alia, through the following: (i) voluntary monetary contributions from all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response; and (ii) donations from philanthropic organizations and foundations, and other voluntary monetary contributions.”

As may be garnered from the terms of the treaty, there are no efforts at full disclosure or transparency when it comes to the expansion of the powers and the role of the WHO, currently being held hostage to the interests of wealthy donor nations and private organizations, violating the principle of informed consent while being signatory to a contract. The mention of philanthropic organizations, undoubtedly including the Gates Foundation, among others, leave little to the imagination.

A group of prominent lawyers, doctors and concerned citizens have written to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Minister of Health and Family Welfare Shri Mansukh L Mandaviya urging them to reject the WHO’s global pandemic treaty, premised on the claim that the treaty is ultra vires the constitution of India. The 10-page letter can be accessed in full with all relevant links and references on the Awaken India website: [https://awakenindiamovement.com/who-pandemic-treaty-ultra-vires-of-the-constitution-16-12-23/ WHO Pandemic Treaty Ultra Vires of the Constitution].

Supporters of the treaty argue that a collective approach is the only solution to mitigate the effects of a future pandemic, however, the states championing the treaty are not the ones suffering the downstream effects of vaccine nationalism, inaccessible oxygen, lack of funds to support health system surge capacity, etc. Wenham, Eccleston-Turner, and Voss state that “global processes for health cooperation rooted in a globalist vision of the individual and health equity are fundamentally at odds with the Westphalian state-based system in which we live, which prioritizes state security and the health of a selected few at all other costs. Even something as big as a major global pandemic is not sufficient to get governments to think beyond national interests” — a sentiment that rings true. Talk of solidarity and global corporations appears to be the global north’s way of doing something without actually accounting for disparities and inequity. With countries such as Australia and Slovakia already primed to vote against the adoption of the treaty, and nations such as New Zealand showing hesitancy, it is prudent for India to reconsider its own position, and evaluate the terms of the treaty according to its effect on India’s national health policy rather than adhering unquestioningly to international law. If behaving as a powerful state would be to place national interest above globalist considerations, so be it. For once the ball gets rolling, it would be impossible to stop, not even by the signatory member states, and least of all by the common citizenry that are affected by the health mandates that will probably be effectuated by the organization.