The claim

The article, which deals with dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms, is to be deleted from the WHO International Health Regulations.
In addition, the WHO is to be transformed into a world medical power and WHO boss Tedros is to be elevated to the rank of dictator.

Our conclusion

The section on “dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms” should not be deleted from the International Health Regulations. This is currently only a proposal from one of the 194 member countries of the WHO. This should not be transformed into a dictatorship; the WHO constitution and its Director General contradict this.

A video has been circulating since the turn of the year and being shared on various social media channels claims that the WHO wants to remove human rights from its “International Health Regulations”. It should also be transformed into a dictatorship. Both are false claims.

___STEADY_PAYWALL___

What are the International Health Regulations?

The International Health Regulations (IHR) are an international treaty of the World Health Organization that have been in force since 1971. In June 2005, these regulations were amended to address the increasing spread of infectious diseases due to globalization. This third version has been binding under international law since June 15, 2007; the official German translation of the text can be found in BGBl. II p. 930 .

The regulations apply to all events that may pose a threat to public health and provide a framework for international cooperation to control infectious diseases . A key objective of the IHR is to prevent the global spread of disease by establishing regulations for the exchange of information and for the monitoring and control of events.

The purpose and scope of these rules are to prevent, combat, protect against and take public health measures against the cross-border spread of diseases, in a manner appropriate to and limited to the risks to public health avoid unnecessary disruption to international traffic and trade.

Article 2 : Purpose and scope

The current amendment process of the IHR

Ahead of the WHO's 75th World Health Assembly, which took place in Geneva from May 22 to 28, 2022, the United States introduced an amendment to the International Health Regulations. Although many countries “agreed with the basic direction of the proposals” ( quote : spokesman for the Federal Ministry of Health), there was no decision on this during the meeting. Other states submitted their own reform proposals.

According to the Lancet, the main reason for the proposed changes was the recognition that the international community was unable to act in a sufficiently coordinated manner against the spread of the virus following the outbreak of the corona pandemic. A working group should look at the proposals, put them together into a package and make technical recommendations. The results will then be examined at the 77th health meeting (not yet an official date).

All member states were given a deadline of September 30, 2022 to submit further proposed changes. All proposals received were published by the working group following the first meeting in mid-November. 11 states and 4 state associations (such as the EU) had a number of ideas, which totaled 197 pages .

What changes in the IHR should this be about?

The video quotes the book author James Roguski or allows him to speak directly:

Right at the top of Article 3 it has so far stated: “The implementation of these provisions shall be in full respect of the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people”. And the article should be deleted. Dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms should go.

Claims in the video “WHO wants to abolish human rights”

Article 3 of the International Health Regulations sets out the principles on which the IHR is based. In the German translation these are:

(1) These regulations are implemented with full respect for human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.
(2) The implementation of these regulations is governed by the Charter of the United Nations and the statutes of the World Health Organization.
(3) The implementation of these regulations is aimed at the aim of their worldwide application to protect the world population from the cross-border spread of diseases.
(4) States have the sovereign right to make and implement laws in the pursuit of their respective health policies, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law. In doing so, they should take into account the aim of these regulations.

Article 3: Principles

Paragraphs one and two seem somewhat redundant: In the Charter of the United Nations , “human rights and fundamental freedoms” are mentioned not only in the first article, but five more times. Human dignity can even be found in the very first paragraph of the preamble. The WHO statutes , in turn, refer right from the start to the UN Charter. So if the first paragraph were no longer explicitly in the IHR, it would still be implicitly valid through the second paragraph.

Should article three really be deleted?

In short: no. Nobody is asking for this in the current applications. And there is even less of a decision to do so. The changes in the IHR should only be discussed at the WHO health meeting after next. There isn't even a date for this yet. So where does the claim: “Dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms should go” come from?

If you look closely at the document, India's proposals ( from page 56 ) are striking. They are calling for this very paragraph to be changed:

WHO: Excerpt from Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations
Excerpt from page 58 in the document “Proposed Amendments
to the International Health Regulations (2005) submitted
in accordance with decision WHA75(9) (2022)”

And yes, the clause that refers to “full respect for human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms” is omitted from this amendment. India finds it more important that the “principles of equality, non-exclusion, coherence” that it considers central to the “proposed global health architecture” are addressed, and that “social and economic development is taken into account” when considering “responsibilities of the contracting states”.

The remaining paragraphs in article three should not be affected, so that in paragraph two, the IHR remains aligned with the Charter of the United Nations and the statutes of the World Health Organization. What India is demanding is not really problematic, but rather a cry for equality within the WHO.

Excerpts from a second document from the working group are also in circulation. This is an incorporation of the proposed amendments ( Article by Article Compilation of Proposed Amendments ) into the currently valid version from 2005. On social media you can only see the above changes in Article 3 as proposed by India. Just above in Article 2, the missing human rights are suddenly included again:

MIMIKAMA
Excerpt from page 3 of the compiled document

The supposed changes to the International Health Regulations are only suggestions from member states that still need to be discussed and decided. India's proposals are only a small part of this, and of course they also have to be coordinated with the other proposals. It is not yet possible to say whether paragraph 3 will ultimately actually be changed and changed in the way India imagines. However, it is difficult to assume that human rights will continue to be the basis of all WHO decisions.

WHO chief Tedros Ghebreyesus a dictator?

On top of that, the WHO wants to incorporate further changes into its health regulations that will make this organization a kind of global medical power. WHO boss Tedros and his directors are to be elevated to the rank of dictator and their censorship options are to be further expanded.

Claims in the video “WHO wants to abolish human rights”

This topic has already been covered in detail in the past. Correctiv quoted a spokesman for the German Federal Ministry of Health in May 2022: “The claim that the WHO should in future be able to 'dictate' to its member states what to do in the event of future pandemics, thereby overriding the powers of the nation states and national parliaments , is wrong and has no basis whatsoever.” On the contrary, it is the case that “in parliamentary democracies like Germany, the parliament has to explicitly agree to a contract”.

The WHO constitution clearly contradicts this claim. Articles 20 and 22 stipulate that WHO decisions do not come into force for those member countries that have communicated their rejection or reservations in a timely manner. Each member state therefore has the option of opting out.

WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus himself addressed such false claims last spring:

Unfortunately, there is a small minority of groups that make misleading statements and intentionally distort facts. I would like to express myself clearly. The WHO agenda is public, open and transparent. WHO strongly advocates for individual rights. We are passionate about every person's right to health and will do everything we can to ensure this right is realized. […] The WHO is an expression of the sovereignty of the member states, and the WHO is exactly what the sovereign 194 member states expect of it.

Tedros Ghebreyesus on May 17, 2022

CONCLUSION: No, the section on “dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms” should not be deleted from the International Health Regulations.
This is currently just a proposal from one of the 194 member states that would like to focus more on other aspects such as equality, non-exclusion and coherence. The WHO should not be transformed into a dictatorship either. The Constitution of the World Health Organization and its Director General clearly contradict this. However, after the experience of the Covid pandemic, the WHO would like to work more closely together to contain infectious diseases.

Rating: FALSE

Sources: who.int , bgbl.de , UNRIC , Correctiv , SWP , rki.de

More fact checks:
“Spanish study” raises fears about eating insects
Gaucher disease is not caused by chitin
No reaction of graphene oxide to 5G radio waves!


Note: This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication
.
The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic.