(LifeSiteNews) — Slovakian politicians are speaking out against the World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty that has been sharply criticized for seeking to supersede the sovereignty of nations during times of global disease outbreak. Estonia has already rejected the proposed treaty and New Zealand has hit the brakes.
“The globalists liked the control over people during COVID, so they want to make it the new standard in the future,” MEP and chairman of the Republika Movement Milan Uhrík said, according to Slovak news outlet Denník N. “This is what the new pandemic agreement is preparing for.”
A draft form of the WHO Pandemic Treaty, which is set to be completed for consideration at the 77th World Health Assembly in 2024, is intended to be a “global accord on pandemic prevention” and would apply to the organization’s 194 member countries. As LifeSiteNews has reported, the pandemic accord allegedly “aims to achieve greater equity and effectiveness for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response through the fullest national and international cooperation.”
The initiative began in December 2021 in response to what the WHO has termed the “catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.”
Critics of the proposed treaty, which has been advanced alongside new amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), have raised serious concerns about the impact of the globalized public health controls on the sovereignty of member nations. WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has argued that opposition to the treaty is based on “misinformation,” and that concerns about losing national sovereignty are “nonsense.”
Regardless of Ghebreyesus’ assertions, however, in Slovakia, where voters recently elected controversial populist Prime Minister Robert Fico, politicians are speaking out against the impending treaty. According to some lawmakers, the treaty is a “globalist” bid to seize power from individual nations under the guise of emergency preparedness.
Tomáš Taraba, Minister of the Environment for the SNS (Slovak National Party), argued that the “government will not agree to any WHO treaty that would transfer national sovereignty in dealing with any pandemic to a supranational body,” per Denník N.
He said such a plan to transfer national sovereignty has been “circulated in the working documents” of the treaty, “where the WHO is supposed to have the right to deny the sovereignty of states and human rights.”
The Slovakian prime minister himself has also seemingly rejected the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty.
A populist leader, Fico has campaigned against supplying military aid in Ukraine, staunchly opposed mass migration from Middle Eastern countries, and rejected the LGBT agenda. Though he was a member of the communist party in his early career, he has been derided as an authoritarian by left-wing groups and compared with Hungarian conservative leader Viktor Orbán and former U.S. President Donald Trump for his nationalist rhetoric and rejection of current globalist priorities.
In a November 17 speech, the newly elected prime minister reportedly said his party would “not support strengthening the powers of the World Health Organization at the expense of sovereign states in managing the fight against pandemics.”
According to an English translation of the speech shared on social media, Fico slammed the treaty as “nonsense” that “could only be invented by greedy pharmaceutical companies which began to perceive the opposition of some governments against mandatory vaccination.”
“According to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, the validity of such international agreements in favor of the World Health Organization requires the consent of the National Council of the Slovak Republic,” he reportedly said, adding that he doesn’t “believe that the sovereign Slovak political parties will express such approval” and that his party “certainly won’t.”
LifeSiteNews was unable to independently verify the accuracy of the English translation of Fico’s speech. A similar translation was also published in written format by Dr. William Makis, an opponent of COVID controls. The sentiments attributed to Fico in the translated speech are also shared by his adviser, Erik Kaliňák.
According to Denník N, Kaliňák said the WHO pandemic treaty was “another of the globalists’ efforts to weaken the power of nation-states and transfer competences and powers from the hands of politicians who answer to the citizens to the hands of officials elected by no one.”
In the U.S., numerous Republican governors, lawmakers, and activists have raised the alarm about the proposed WHO agreement, which critics worry would essentially cede national sovereignty to the transnational organization during public health emergencies like COVID-19.
Last year, Florida Republican governor and 2024 GOP presidential candidate Ron DeSantis pushed back against the proposal, arguing that “elites” had advocated for “pernicious policies” during the COVID-19 pandemic and that “there is no way” Florida “will ever support” the global accord.
South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem, Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Younkin and Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida similarly rejected the treaty and IHR amendments, with Rubio arguing the amendments would “give control over American public health decisions to the corrupt WHO.”
Women’s Rights Without Frontiers president Reggie Littlejohn argued in 2022 that if amendments then under consideration were to be implemented they would “result in a significant erosion in U.S. sovereignty – in our ability to determine for ourselves whether something constitutes a health emergency and, if so, the best approach to that emergency.”
A draft document published earlier this year appears to reaffirm national sovereignty during pandemics but makes a clear exception for countries whose policies are allegedly harmful.
According to the document, “in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law,” WHO member states retain “the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems, pursuant to their own policies and legislation, provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries.”
It remains to be seen how the WHO would in practice determine whether member states’ activities did or did not “cause damage to their peoples and other countries.”
During the COVID-19 outbreak, countries and states that bucked national and international guidelines by refusing to mandate masks, jabs, lockdown rules, etc., received widespread condemnation by left-wing media outlets and pundits who suggested those states and countries were perpetuating the spread of the virus by failing to conform to controversial and often harmful public health recommendations.
Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch recently complained that the current draft of the treaty doesn’t actually go far enough to circumvent national governments.
In a November 7 report, the organization said the current draft says the WHO rules would be subject to national laws and that “parties appear to be merely ‘encouraged’ to ‘adopt policies, strategies and/or measures’ but not to ‘comply’ with specific ‘laws.’”
“This approach significantly weakens the accountability of governments to carry out preparedness, prevention, response, and recovery in accordance with international human rights law,” the group argued.