In this article 4
The fact that WHO, the global health authority, is inadequate in the fight against Kovid-19 and the increasing criticism towards this situation may lead countries to act independently from the international community with their reflexes.
Dr. Reverend Cooperation
As a global security threat, the presence of infectious diseases has always been on the agenda, not only in the present, but also in the past, states have sought to seek solutions. An international conference on epidemics and infectious diseases was convened in Paris in 1851, when many European countries of the period came together and the prevention of epidemics. The aim of the conference was to cooperate with international measures to prevent epidemics such as cholera and plague, which were very common in those years, and to ensure that countries act jointly in combating the epidemic. The most important measure known to prevent epidemics and infectious diseases at that time was quarantine implementation in the country and externally, It was only that those coming from risky areas were allowed to enter the country within the framework of the quarantine provisions applied. In the context of joint action, countries have focused on measures to be applied to commercial ships and cruise ships from foreign countries where infectious disease is common.
Many of the countries, especially the EU member countries, which suffered great damage from the Kovid-19 outbreak, are now voicing their demands for reforms in the functioning and legal structures of global structures such as WHO and the UN to combat global outbreaks.
Although an international coordination for a comprehensive and complete fight against the epidemic could not be achieved, the most convenient and effective measure that could be applied in the conditions of the period was the cessation and control of international trade and travel. At the conference against epidemic diseases in Paris, which was convened in 1851 due to the fact that most of the travels and international trade were done by ship under the conditions of the nineteenth century, the focus was on the sea routes within the measures to be taken and the quarantine provisions to be implemented. In particular, measures to be taken regarding the berthing of ships suspected of carrying infectious diseases to the ports of foreign countries were tried to be determined. But the countries participating in the conference,
If reform demands on the legal structures of international organizations such as WHO and the UN are not taken into account, alternatives to these organizations seem possible.
The road to the establishment of the World Health Organization
The international community was not interested in combating epidemic and infectious diseases, and various organizations were launched in the following years. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the first international organization operating exclusively in the field of health, was established in 1902. In 1907, the International Public Hygiene Office (OIHP) was established in Paris. These two organizations became the precursors of the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Health Organization (WHO), which is known today. The main duties of both organizations related to epidemic and infectious diseases were determined as taking precautions at the first destination and ports of the ships in the event that epidemic and infectious diseases were observed in ships operating mostly in the field of passenger and goods transportation by sea. Of these organizations, PAHO still maintains its own structure, and today operates as the South and North American regional office of WHO based in Washington. PAHO, which has a unique organizational structure, has offices in 27 countries. While the main goal is to ensure that PAHO is integrated into WHO, despite long efforts, difficulties continue to be experienced in realizing this integration.
Founded in 1948 based on PAHO and OIHP organizations, 194 countries have joined the WHO since then. WHO, with its offices in 150 countries and seven thousand employees, is a structure that has both a leading and coordinating position in the field of international health and has wide powers. This feature of WHO, which has almost a single voice in global health, has also manifested itself with the powers granted to this organization in its statutes. Unlike other United Nations (UN) organizations, powers that allow the organization to take decisions that will be valid all over the world and that these decisions are valid without approving the internal law mechanisms of the member states are regulated in the articles of association 21 and 22 of WHO, which has an active role in international relations. .
WHO is successful in the fight against smallpox in children, but it emerges as an organization that cannot take an active role in global outbreaks such as Ebola, HIV, SARS and MERS. According to the provision of Article 21 in the establishment charter of the organization, WHO can take measures such as quarantine and set rules for cleaning in the country where the disease originates, so that the epidemic does not spread from one country to another. Likewise, the epidemic can make binding decisions on the disease, systematic and conceptualization of the disease, determining the cause of death and the working methods of public health services. It also has the authority to determine the procedures to be used in the international literature on the diagnosis of the disease.
The WHO’s main decision-making body is the World Health General Assembly, which takes part in the meeting and takes decisions with a two-thirds majority of the voters. It is possible to appeal to decisions at the General Assembly. Although many successes have been achieved on regional health so far, there have always been criticisms of WHO. The main reason for these criticisms is that WHO’s decisions are not directly related to health, and that the organization is an organization that is too politicized. The polarization during the Cold War also affected the organization’s activities.
The “International Health Rules Regulation” prepared in accordance with the 21st article of the WHO establishment charter was issued in 1969. The regulation, like other WHO decisions, is a legal text that is valid without seeking approval in domestic law. Within the scope of updating these rules, WHO was able to act only at the 58th World Health General Assembly in 2005, and it was aimed to follow the epidemic and infectious diseases in international dimensions with the important changes introduced. However, the fact that the increasing airline passenger traffic in the world has been overlooked, the overlook of the roles of airports and airlines in combating the epidemic has brought with it the possibility that the regulation will be ineffective in combating a global outbreak despite its update. Thus,
The updated International Health Rules Regulation, which was enacted in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the WHO regulation and entered into force in many countries since 2007, is the main legal legislation that is decisive in the fight against epidemic and communicable diseases all over the world. According to Article 2 of this regulation, the purpose of the regulation is to take protection measures in order to prevent the international spread of all kinds of diseases that will affect public health, to control the spread and to prevent unnecessary interventions in international trade and passenger traffic. However, with the arrival of Kovid-19 in Europe, countries closed their borders in panic, passenger and goods transportation completely stopped, which would affect the world economy completely.
WHO focuses on criticism
Despite this almost untouchable legal structure, WHO has received considerable criticism since the outbreak of the Kovid-19 outbreak. It is perhaps one of the most remarkable events during the Kovid-19 crisis, when US President Donald Trump accused WHO of the outbreak reaching the United States and claimed that the outbreak was managed poorly. Likewise, the UN Security Council’s inability to take action to prevent the Kovid-19 epidemic and the subsequent crisis and to ensure that the epidemic is overcome in regions that are already in crisis and conflict are highly criticized.
Another criticism brought to WHO during the Kovid-19 pandemic process was based on the claims that the organization did not adequately question and pressurize China about its inability to prevent the epidemic. However, considering the entire process, the country where the epidemic first emerged is responsible for preventing epidemics and combating epidemic diseases within the framework of “international health provisions” that are binding for each WHO member country. The Chinese government is the first country that has to prevent the epidemic and provide explanatory information about the course of the epidemic within the framework of these international provisions.
Likewise, WHO has made contradictory statements regarding the fight against the Kovid-19 outbreak, and has attempted to bias the use of drugs by some countries without seeing the result reports, and attempted to ban these drugs. Although not spoken out loud, claims that WHO has become the backyard of the pharmaceutical industry have come to the fore again.
Based on the argument that China did not inform the world early enough, the United States blamed China directly for the epidemic. Likewise, he held WHO responsible for the poor management of the outbreak and stopped the annual payments made to this institution. The allegations that China paid less to the WHO than the United States in the first place and that the WHO was under the control of the Chinese government on many other issues, played an important role in the cessation of these payments. Ultimately, US President Trump applied for a definite departure from WHO membership in early July. In the debates over WHO and the UN, other countries have occasionally accused WHO, if not directly. However, both the UN and WHO do not have a sanction mechanism on countries,
The fact that the USA will leave WHO and that Brazil, another continent of the USA, will take steps in this direction will push WHO, which has a financially interesting structure, struggling with a global crisis and into new challenges. In terms of financial structure, it is seen that the contributions of countries have been stable since 1993. WHO, on the one hand, receives contributions from countries, on the other hand, accepts donations from various institutions. Donations are generally directed towards a specific purpose and country and are not used for other purposes. Such donations, which accounted for only 20 percent of the WHO budget in the 1970s, now account for almost 80 percent of WHO’s budget. Despite WHO’s budget approaching $ 5 billion, the possibilities remain limited in combating outbreaks. 80 percent of the budget goes to conditional donations or campaigns. When we look at it from this point, WHO’s call for support for the poor African countries within the scope of the fight against Kovid-19 reveals the desperation of WHO in terms of combating Kovid-19 rather than announcing the situation in these countries to the world.
Does the separation in WHO lead to separation in international organizations?
WHO President, who recently published a statement on WHO’s focus on such criticism within the scope of combating Kovid-19, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced that a research on the Kovid-19 process will be launched within the organization.
What happened during the last epidemic that the world faces has shown that neither the countries that the epidemic first appeared nor the countries it spread in were able to fully fulfill WHO’s obligations under the health regulations. There is no international sanction of violation of these obligations. In the context of the discussions to be held around international organizations, it is possible to say that by applying a new convention in the UN, different sanctions will be discussed, including compensation payments to victims in countries that do not urgently take the necessary measures or report in the event of a health-threatening epidemic at the global or regional level.
However, the main problem is that delayed or untrustworthy information about the outbreak that will come from the first country of the outbreak is a completely legal problem within the framework of the above-mentioned provisions. In this context, WHO should take the initiative to clarify whether China’s responsibility for the epidemic is a legal problem and whether it is indeed against the WHO regulations.
Many of the countries that were damaged in the fight against the Kovid-19 outbreak, especially the member states of the European Union (EU), are now voicing their demands for reform in the functioning and legal structures of global structures such as WHO and the UN to combat global outbreaks. If reform demands on the legal structures of international organizations such as WHO and the UN are not taken into account, alternatives to these organizations seem possible. If the relevant actors do not take the necessary precautions against these demands that arise in terms of global health security, it is likely that the separation that will occur here will spread to other surfaces.
Inadequate studies of WHO in combating Kovid-19 will lead to more careful monitoring of health problems and epidemics worldwide. It may cause this or that country to act independently from the international community with its reflexes. A security-oriented approach to health-related issues will be demonstrated and new international collaborations will emerge in this area. New bilateral or multiple international agreements may be needed for the prevention of dangerous epidemics and bio-security issues, such as international agreements on the use of nuclear weapons.
Reverend Collaboration continues to work at the Police Academy Institute of Security Sciences.
This article was originally published on Anadolu Agency.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.
