Beware the bureaucratic sleight of hand

Recent amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) of the World Health Organisation (WHO) represent a worrisome expansion of unelected and unaccountable bureaucratic power. While defenders claim the changes modernise the IHR framework, they could grant the WHO unchecked authority to impose binding policies on sovereign states without sufficient public debate or oversight. This overreach undermines democracy and self-determination at a time when unaccountable technocracy is already on the rise globally. Irish citizens should be able to accept or reject these amendments to defend freedom and autonomy.

The IHR dates back to 1969 and was designed to coordinate the international response to public health emergencies. A total of 194 WHO member states, including Ireland, must notify the organisation about potential Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC). The IHR also empowered the WHO to issue temporary recommendations to manage cross-border outbreaks. These are non-binding, though political pressure coerces compliance. The regulations were updated after the 2003 SARS epidemic and again after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

According to observers, two sets of amendments to the IHR were recently adopted. One passed at the World Health Assembly in May 2022. A second set proposed by the Biden Administration was submitted in January 2022, though subsequently rejected during negotiations. Both aim to substantially expand WHO powers under the guise of strengthening global health regulations.

Defenders claim the amendments modernise the IHR by updating terminology, encouraging data sharing, and affirming progressive values like gender equity. However, they grant vast new authority beneath the surface, potentially threatening national sovereignty and democratic accountability.

Under the new amendments, the WHO obtains sweeping powers to unilaterally set global policy during any declared Public Health Emergency of International Concern. This includes coordinating mandatory lockdowns, travel and trade restrictions, vaccination requirements, and more. The revised IHR elevates WHO "temporary recommendations" above national decision-making, enabling centralised technocratic governance.

The amendments also radically shorten the window for member states to formally reject changes from 18 months to as little as six months. This undermines oversight by limiting the ability of national leaders, legislators, and citizens to assess amendments before they enter into force correctly. The outcome is a WHO that can amend the IHR and impose rules with little transparency, debate, or democratic input from individual states like Ireland.

These expanded powers are even more concerning given the WHO's handling of Covid-19. Throughout the pandemic, the organisation provided shifting and contradictory guidance. They initially downplayed the risk of human transmission and opposed travel restrictions, only to reverse themselves when the crisis escalated. Despite these failures, the WHO continues to promote itself as the central global health authority. These amendments will ratify that status, sidelining democratic engagement and empowering unaccountable bureaucrats to set policy for billions.

The WHO's expanding power reflects a broader trend towards technocratic governance of international affairs. As globalisation accelerates, decision-making power is increasingly concentrated in bureaucracies like the WHO, IMF, World Bank, and WTO.

Unelected officials grounded in scientism and corporatism now lead these organisations. The lack of democratic accountability is married to a lack of common sense; their policies are inclined to serve vested interests rather than the needs of ordinary citizens. Yet despite their failures, these bureaucrats remain securely entrenched, with no meaningful oversight or consequences.

This undemocratic governance model has steadily expanded under the guise of globalisation. If left unchecked, it represents an existential threat to our self-determination, as unaccountable foreign bodies, under the pretext of emergency, override individual rights. If left unchecked, our Irish representative government and democratic sovereignty risk becoming seriously compromised. Citizens in Ireland and worldwide could suddenly face severe restrictions imposed arbitrarily by WHO technocrats, entirely bypassing domestic oversight.

Nations could see rights to free assembly, informed consent, bodily autonomy, and other fundamental liberties suspended whenever Geneva declares a pandemic. No adequate recourse exists to hold unelected officials accountable or remedy abuses. This dystopian scenario illuminates the apparent dangers of centralised governance divorced from the people's consent.

Global challenges demand international cooperation, but any expanded WHO powers to coordinate the international response to complex crises like a worldwide pandemic should be subject to our autonomy and right to self-determination as an island state. Irish sovereignty need not be sacrificed in the process.

Undoubtedly, cross-border challenges require international cooperation but must remain rooted in transparency, good faith, and sound science. Collaboration can be facilitated through ties between sovereign states, not a one-size-fits-all WHO directive. It does not necessitate an undemocratic technocratic body dictating global policy without oversight, empowering deeply flawed and centralised bureaucracies to undermine our national governance.

When citizens cannot hold decision-makers accountable because authority is too remote, policies suffer. Even well-intentioned leaders insulated from criticism quickly lose touch. Soon, the people funding these institutions have no say in major decisions affecting their lives. This technocratic overreach quickly disregards fundamental rights while fuelling public resentment.

Despite Ireland embracing globalisation, our government remains fundamentally an exercise in self-determination. Citizens delegate limited authority to leaders who ultimately answer to the people. Our political model aims to balance diverse interests through democratic processes - not impose the singular vision of unrepresentative but influential external organisations.

Today, the assault on self-rule by unaccountable global bodies threatens these first principles. If representative democracy is to survive in our interconnected age, Irish citizens' rights to determine their destinies must be reasserted against foggy notions of a shared global destiny. Democracy empowers leaders to act in their electorate's interest, not the reverse.

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the dangers of centralised decision-making detached from realities on the ground. While global cooperation is vital, the crisis response ultimately succeeded or failed based on national and local leadership rather than WHO policies. Effective governance harnesses such bottom-up inputs.

There are reasonable debates to be had around pandemic treaty proposals, pathogen sharing, and the role of international organisations in global health governance. We should have those debates vigorously and transparently. But we must be enabled to ground them in facts rather than fears. Historically, the IHR provided a framework for nations to collectively protect their citizens against shared threats while retaining national sovereignty. The proposed updates should not alter that understanding.

As we continue navigating pandemic threats and possible future outbreaks, the principles of transparency, accountability, and cooperation must be paramount. Citizens deserve a say in policies affecting their health and freedoms; otherwise, the absence of verifiable information feeds into the hands of conspiracy theorists. Continued partnerships through international institutions should bolster our national sovereignty and security in the face of global challenges, not dissolve borders for expediency. We can balance legitimate health regulations and individual liberties with open, evidence-based dialogue.

Ireland, as a democratic nation, has a right to defend sovereignty and self-determination. As Irish people, we deserve a voice in the significant decisions shaping their lives. If we surrender liberties to distant bureaucracies, we may never get them back. The proposed IHR amendments need consideration and informed discussion, not bureaucratic sleight of hand.