In Switzerland, the member countries of the WHO are negotiating changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR). In parallel, work will be done on a separate pandemic agreement. The EU is a strong pusher to get the agreement through. In the IHR proposal, it is open to the WHO to be able to decide: Who should be in isolation and quarantine, and for how long What vaccines should be approved and used That everyone needs a global vaccine passport to be able to travel freely – If these agreements mean that democratic power are moved out of the country and to the WHO, so that they go from being an advisory body to a legislative body, we must have a referendum, says Susanne Heart to news. CONCERN: Susanne Heart believes the negotiations are characterized by a lack of openness. Photo: Lars Os / news Heart is an independent county council representative in Rogaland (formerly MDG), and believes in particular that the lack of openness around the pandemic agreement is a democratic problem. During the debate, Director of the Directorate of Health, Bjørn Guldvog, said that the WHO received criticism after the pandemic, and therefore initiated a revision process. – What is important is that what is out there now, that everyone can look at, are proposals that come from all the countries where the director-general has asked for it to be published. So actually it is the openness of the WHO that is the basis for this somewhat strange debate. OPENNESS: Bjørn Guldvog says WHO wishes to facilitate openness. Photo: Lars Os / news I think all information must be shared In 1969, the World Health Organization chose to establish the International Health Regulations (IHR). It is a set of rules for notification of and protection against international health threats, especially epidemics. The IHR was last revised after the Sars outbreak in 2005. New changes are now being negotiated, based on experience from the pandemic. Heart fears that Norway, through the agreements, will give up its right to self-governance in a future pandemic. – When negotiations are carried out on behalf of the Norwegian population without them being informed about important points that may have an influence on their lives, when this power is moved out of the country, it is not right. Heart believes the people must be involved. – Share all information. About advantages, disadvantages and possible consequences. We must have a good process where people are informed and can take part in the debate. – What if the WHO continues to be an advisory body? – Then I will be satisfied. WHO does a lot of good and is important in its advisory role. State Secretary Ole Henrik Krat Bjørkholt (Ap) is clear that any form of renunciation of sovereignty is completely out of the question. – And that’s an attitude we share with all countries we can compare ourselves to. Both Germany and Great Britain, and several others, have been out to make very specific statements about it. That there are additional proposals from certain countries always happens. But this will never be able to go through. – The whole system is consensus-based Law professor Anne Kjersti Befring thinks Heart and other skeptics have nothing to worry about. – We have a constitution in Norway that the WHO cannot set aside. It governs how we prepare for international agreements. It is unlikely that the 194 member countries that must agree on a revision of the IHR will accept a relinquishment of sovereignty, explains Befring. UNLIKELY: Law professor Anne Kjersti Befring considers it unlikely that the member states will accept a relinquishment of sovereignty Photo: Lars Os / news She further points out that all input into the revision of the IHR is publicly available, but admits that there is little openness about the negotiations on the pandemic agreement. – It is normal. And that’s how it has to be in order for the member countries to be able to freely give input to the negotiations without everyone having access to this, says Befring and adds: – So I know that the WHO is very far from finalizing a pandemic agreement. When an agreement is ready, it should be presented to the Storting, together with the revision proposal to the IHR. She believes that there is nothing to indicate that what have been recommendations in the IHR so far will become orders, and is clear that we must in any case gain insight into what is on the table before Norway gives its approval. – The entire system is consensus-based.
ttn-69
Negotiations on WHO’s power in the event of the next pandemic – news Norway – Overview of news from different parts of the country
