Catching the climax of the Premier League season at the weekend, I noticed there was a (hopefully brief) resurrection of knee-taking, presumably to mark the occasion with the kind of concern for human rights that wasn’t so evident from all the players – or pundits – who gave legitimacy to the cuddly Qatari regime at the World Cup last December by being there. This shallow ceremony began signalling the virtues of one of the most morally bankrupt sports on the planet around the time the pandemic forced it to play behind closed doors three years ago, and the initial reaction of punters to it once they were allowed back into stadiums was the authentic voice of the long-suffering supporter sick of being preached to by holier-than-thou football authorities. Which means, of course, that the long-suffering supporter is naturally racist. Anyway, at least football has yet to experience some of the indignities endured by women’s sports of late – though if Harry Kane declared himself to be female tomorrow, it’s a dead cert whichever women’s team he joined would at least guarantee him the silverware a career at Spurs seems destined to deny him.
Thinking back to that strange period when football was played in empty arenas, it feels so much longer ago than just three years; but, then again, most of the madness that accompanied the Covid era constitutes such a uniquely abnormal episode in our recent history that it’s sometimes hard to believe any of it happened now. That period should always stand out in the collective memory as an absolute aberration in the same way the power-cuts and Three Day Weeks of the early 70s do for the generation that lived through them by candlelight; however, the real danger – and one that many of us felt at the time – was that lockdown as a policy would thereafter be legitimised as a go-to option whenever the government of the day felt necessary to impose it, with the people having no say whatsoever. The dependence upon the say-so of unelected experts with an agenda has been rightly (if belatedly) called into question since, yet the alleged ultimate authority on the subject was hardly the most trustworthy of voices in the thick of it.
The World Health Organisation’s suspicious reluctance to lay the blame squarely at the door of China at the height of the pandemic extended to its hostile denial of the ‘lab-leak’ origins of the coronavirus, falling in line with the fake news emanating from Beijing. Cast your mind back to just how vociferously the lab-leak story – which is now accepted as fact – was denounced as the rabid fantasy of online conspiracy theorists in the days when we were restricted to social bubbles; anyone daring to put it forward as a feasible explanation for what began in Wuhan would have their YT channels terminated and their Twitter accounts suspended, treated as blasphemers and fifth columnists. All the uncritical Fleet Street journos who sucked-up to the Johnson administration in the hope of one day being chosen as Downing Street Press Officer toed the government line and were just as vehemently dismissive of the lab-leak angle as the WHO, playing their part in discrediting the theory; but the WHO itself was equally critical of those who claimed natural immunity could arguably be just as effective in protecting against infection as a vaccine. It’s fair to say the organisation didn’t exactly cover itself in glory when it was selling itself as the voice of expertise.
It’s vital none of this is conveniently forgotten when confronted by the latest proposals from the WHO, ones which would give it unprecedented – not to say unconstitutional – global powers to impose its authority on sovereign states. As revealed last week, the WHO has its own ominous take on the so-called ‘pandemic treaty’; this treaty has its roots in the ‘peak Covid’ period of 2021, when world leaders – including our very own Boris, bless him – hatched the idea of national governments sharing data, vaccine production and research into potential pandemics of the future in order to prevent the swift spread of another coronavirus across the globe; the UK, as with every other country committed to it, would also be required to devote 5% of its health budget on preparations for a possible outbreak were the treaty to be signed, sealed and delivered. This international treaty is currently being negotiated and, by speeding-up vital communications between different nations, could be seen as a sensible option if we are to be spared what we endured two or three years ago again. Having said that, the WHO is flexing its muscles whilst settled into its privileged seat at the negotiating table, and appears insistent on inserting clauses that would remove independent decisions from governments in the event of another pandemic – something the concept of the treaty shouldn’t have been devised for.
At the last count, something in the region of around 300 amendments are being proposed to the WHO’s International Health Regulations, amendments scheduled to be accepted as binding if introduced; according to reports, they would enable the unelected organisation to receive unquestioning acceptance as a worldwide coordinator of public health policies normally resting in the hands of individual governments. The governing body of the WHO would be in a position to instigate the closure of borders, to order the introduction of vaccine passports and quarantine measures, to impose lockdowns without the consent of any democratically-elected government, and be given the right to demand the handover of vaccine formulas; those signed-up to the treaty would also be obliged to ‘counter misinformation’, presumably in the same style as the WHO countered misinformation itself during the pandemic as a self-appointed arbiter of dubious truth; and – as Brucie used to say – didn’t they do well.
Understandably alarmed at the prospect of these proposals becoming international law, a group of Conservative MPs have put their names to a letter circulated amongst Ministers that warns of the WHO being transformed ‘from an advisory organisation to a controlling international authority’. The letter suggests to the Foreign Office that it might be a good idea to prevent the WHO gaining powers that ‘appear to intrude materially into the UK’s ability to make its own rules and control its own budgets’; after all, weren’t we supposed to have dispensed with such outside interference courtesy of Brexit? The MPs behind the letter are calling for a Commons vote on the treaty in its draft state as a means of studying the small print before the degree of autonomy the UK Government currently enjoys when it comes to public health measures is signed away without a second look. Yes, I get that some of the signatories of such a letter being rightwing backbenchers perhaps with an axe to grind means it’s easy to dismiss their worries as the latest paranoid manifestation of ‘taking back control’; but at the same time there are enough elements in these WHO proposals to give genuine cause for concern were they to be implemented.
Improved international cooperation is, of course, something that might just help were we to find ourselves in a similar position to the one we found ourselves in three years ago; but there’s a difference between that and what the WHO appears to be proposing, something that would essentially remove the right to make decisions on such an issue from those who already have a tendency to be bloody untrustworthy enough as it is; the last thing the global electorate need is for those decisions to then fall into the hands of a body that can’t even be ousted from its lofty position if it gets things wrong. And the WHO doesn’t exactly have an unblemished record on that score. Another, far more preferable, incarnation of The Who once sang, ‘I get on my knees and pray/we don’t get fooled again.’ Amen to that.
© The Editor
Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294
Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/824916098