Response to interpellations 2023/24:172, 173 and 203 on the WHO's powers

Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Elsa Widding has asked me questions regarding WHO's powers linked to the ongoing negotiations on a global pandemic treaty and the revision of the International Health Regulations, IHR, within the framework of the World Health Organization, WHO. Elsa Widding has also asked questions to the Minister for Justice regarding the position of human rights linked to the same negotiations. Elsa Widding has also asked questions to the Minister for Health and Social Affairs regarding the process surrounding IHR.

Elsa Widding has asked me if I consider that the process for producing new international health regulations is taking place in a democratic and satisfactory manner and, if not, if I intend to take any initiatives in this regard. Elsa Widding has also asked me if I or the government have conducted any critical analysis in light of the experience we now have from the latest pandemic, that is, regarding what WHO has done that is good and has contributed positively to the health of Swedish citizens, and what WHO has failed in its recommendations to the world. Elsa Widding has further asked me if I have taken part in any analysis from WHO regarding WHO's recommendations during the pandemic and if, in that case, I have taken any measures in light of the analysis.

Elsa Widding has also asked me whether I or the government have conducted any critical analysis of the legal changes that Sweden now faces in the event that Sweden does not choose to leave WHO, including against the background of what is described by Morten Walløe Tvedt, professor of jurisprudence in Norway, in the report Betenkning om rettsutviklingen i Verdens helseorganisasjon WHO regarding that WHO's proposed treaty and the amendments to IHR conflict with the definition of human rights.

Elsa Widding has also asked me if I can account for Sweden's position in the negotiations and specifically regarding what in the WHO's recommendations from the latest covid-19 pandemic can justify that the WHO be given increased powers and increased trust. Elsa Widding has finally asked me if I see any risks with the Secretary-General of the WHO being given the mandates stated alone and if I in that case will take any initiatives on this ground.

Elsa Widding has further asked the Minister for Justice if he, within his area of responsibility, can account for whether Sweden in the negotiations will stand behind the five legal rules that make recommendations binding for member countries to implement, such as that recommendations shall no longer be non-binding. Elsa Widding has also asked the Minister for Justice if he has received any analysis from WHO regarding WHO's recommendations during the pandemic and if he, in that case, has taken any measures within his area of responsibility on the basis of the analysis.

Elsa Widding has also asked the Minister for Justice if he considers that a revision of the IHR and the new health regulation, the Pandemic Treaty, results in a deterioration of the status of human rights and, if the answer is yes, if he is prepared to take some initiatives within his area of responsibility as a result of this. Elsa Widding has additionally asked the Minister for Justice if he, within his area of responsibility, intends as Sweden's position in the negotiations to give WHO a mandate to decide that Sweden shall provide "necessary assistance, both economic and material" to other countries and organizations.

Elsa Widding has also asked the Minister for Justice whether he, within his area of responsibility, intends to give WHO a mandate to define and prohibit what WHO considers to be disinformation as Sweden's position in the negotiations, even if this were to affect the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act.

Elsa Widding has finally asked the Minister for Justice whether he, within his area of responsibility, will work to ensure that Sweden signs a pandemic treaty even though many details have not yet been specified.

Elsa Widding has also asked the Minister for Health and Care if she considers that the five articles voted through at the WHO meeting on 27 May 2022 were carried out in a legally secure, correct and democratic manner given that they were not presented for consideration four months before the decision was taken, or if she intends to work towards the Prime Minister notifying WHO in writing before 1 December 2023 that these proposals should be rejected in their entirety. Elsa Widding has also asked the Minister for Health and Care if she intends to take any initiatives against the background that these articles become legally binding for Sweden without a vote taking place in the Riksdag.

Elsa Widding has also asked the Minister for Health and Care if she considers it acceptable to vote on amendments in May 2024 if they have not been preceded by a debate and have not been brought to the countries' attention at least four months before the vote in WHA, and, if not, if she intends to take any measures in this regard. Finally, Elsa Widding has asked the Minister for Health and Care in what way she, if there is a vote in WHA in May 2024, will ensure that the public, the media, and the authorities are given an opportunity to familiarize themselves with all the amendments and what they entail.

The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellations.

The Covid-19 pandemic exposed fundamental flaws in global preparedness and countries' ability to respond to extensive health crises, which had far-reaching consequences. If it was not clear before 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic showed that pandemics are global and that international cooperation is important.

Against that background, and with the aim of making all the world's countries safer and better equipped for the next pandemic threat, WHO's 194 member states decided to work together to develop a global pandemic treaty and update the IHR, which has not been reviewed for 20 years.

A pandemic treaty or a revised IHR will not mean that states' obligation or ability to act in the event of a pandemic will disappear, nor in that respect will the WHO's Secretary-General be given powers to decide on Swedish pandemic management. On the other hand, there is a consensus among WHO's 194 member states that the covid-19 pandemic exposed several deficiencies in the international community's ability to handle a health crisis of a global character.

It concerns multilateral negotiations in which Sweden participates on the same basis as other UN member countries and which are also carried out in other areas of activity. When there are finalized articles or a proposal for a treaty, the government will take a position on it in the usual manner. If the Riksdag's approval is required for Sweden to be able to enter into the treaty, such approval will be sought.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elsa Widding (-)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Social Affairs, for taking on this very difficult question!

I do not feel that I have received answers to my questions. I understand that it is difficult to include three interpellations in one interpellation answer. Therefore, I intend to try to explain a bit what it is about.

WHO is pushing from two sides to obtain increased powers, a completely new pandemic law, and a radical update of the international health regulations IHR. That is what it is about.

Regarding the pandemic law, article 18 can be mentioned, for example, which threatens freedom of speech; we will be ordered to spy on our own population. Then we have article 12, which is to ensure WHO's far-reaching powers.

It is therefore a matter of giving a person the power and authority to put the entire world or a region into a state of emergency without any control mechanism and without any possibility for the member states to protest.

Parallel to the pandemic law, the extensive revision of the IHR is underway. I can say that the implementation proceeds completely outside of the democratic process. If one does not actively oppose the IHR, the proposed amendments are passed automatically. It is required that more than 50 percent of the member states actively vote no in May 2024 for the proposals not to be passed.

The Member States commit to implementing IHR in their legislation, which Sweden otherwise did already in 2006. This can be read on the Public Health Agency's website. The IHR proposals have been developed by the Working Group on Amendments to the IHR. We will likely not even see the work on the final proposal before the vote, even though it violates WHO's rulebook.

I will here bring up some examples which, if voted through, will have a very great impact on Sweden's sovereignty and democracy.

We have Article 12. The Director-General is empowered to declare a state of emergency even if only a potential state of emergency exists. What constitutes a potential state of emergency is defined by WHO and can therefore not be questioned.

Then we have Article 1. In the new version, the wording "non-binding" has been removed. We speak instead of legally binding rules.

Then we have Article 13 a. The Member States undertake to follow WHO's legally binding recommendations in their public health measures, what is called health response.

Then we have Article 42. The Member States undertake to introduce legally binding recommendations without delay during an emergency and to follow permanent legally binding recommendations during and between pandemics. The Secretary-General is given the authority to order quarantine, medical examinations and treatments, i.e. vaccination.

Article 12 says roughly the same as article 18 in the pandemic law, that is, limited freedom of expression and social listening.

Article 18 addresses which legally binding recommendations WHO can propose in various conceivable situations. This can, for example, concern the use of PCR tests, vaccines etcetera.

Article 44 states that the Member States shall counter false and unreliable information regarding public health events. One committee shall ensure implementation and another the Member States' compliance.

Then we have in IHR chapter 3. The original wording is that the measures shall be carried out with full respect for human dignity and fundamental freedoms and rights. It is deleted. It is struck in the proposal that is now before us. Instead, they insert vague expressions such as equality and inclusion. Sweden has, moreover, already introduced this adjustment, which can also be read about on the Public Health Agency's website.

Then we have IHR's chapter 2. It concerns the authority to declare a state of emergency due to pretty much anything. It could be climate change, threats to biodiversity and disruptions in ecosystems.

The Minister for Health and Social Affairs mentions in his answer that international cooperation is important during pandemics. There is nothing that says dictatorial and legally binding so-called recommendations favor cooperation. Dictatorial decrees are the total opposite of cooperation. What does the Minister actually mean by cooperation?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We need cooperation, and the IHR and a forthcoming pandemic treaty aim to make it clearer what countries are expected to do in the event of pandemics. It is about, for example, exchanging information with one another regarding global health threats so that we can take the measures required to protect the population and protect life and health. That is what the discussions aim for.

They are absolutely not aiming for states' obligation or ability to act in the event of a pandemic to disappear, nor that the WHO's Secretary-General should be given powers to decide on Swedish pandemic management. Neither Sweden nor other member states would accept that.

However, there is a consensus among WHO's 194 member states that the covid-19 pandemic revealed several shortcomings in the international community's ability to manage a health crisis of a global character. Valuable time was lost before the world was alerted to this. Many countries were not sufficiently prepared despite warning signs, and many reacted too late. These discussions aim to try to address the shortcomings and contribute to strengthened national preparedness in countries to respond to health threats in order to avoid them developing into global crises.

There are many misconceptions about this process and in the discussion here. When it comes to the IHR, 194 countries have had the opportunity to propose amendments, and 300 proposals for amendments have been submitted. They are available to read. This does not mean that they will be included in the IHR, but the changes that can be implemented are those that improve functionality and meet new needs that have not been previously identified.

Widding claims that what are recommendations should be made into binding commitments. This is not included in the negotiation mandate, and it will not be relevant. This is no secret legislative process, but it is as in many other processes, multilateral negotiations that Sweden participates in on the same basis as other UN member countries. Such processes and negotiations take place within a number of different areas; it is nothing strange or special for this area.

The negotiations are about achieving a purposeful and modern international regulatory framework that will strengthen the ability to prevent and manage new pandemics. We should surely agree that this is important.

It has been very problematic for the world to undergo a pandemic. It is clear that if we had been able to act in a better way and had had better information earlier from countries that chose to act in a way that is not reasonable in times of pandemic, the world's response could also have been better, and that is what we want to achieve in order to protect life and health.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elsa Widding (-)

Mr. Speaker! I must just say that I understand that Jakob Forssmed has not read the proposals. I become very curious about these 307 amendment proposals, because I have not been able to see anywhere what they look like.

The Minister claims that the new pandemic law or a revised IHR will not give the WHO's Director-General the powers to decide on Swedish pandemic management. That is exactly what the revision of the IHR aims for, and nothing else. It is about giving WHO increased powers and an opportunity to decide over member states during pandemics but also between pandemics.

This is what makes so many lawyers very concerned. Sweden is responsible for taking the measures that WHO decides and, furthermore, without delay, if we sign this. The Pandemic Act requires rapid development and production of vaccines and that all time aspects in connection with development, testing, and manufacturing of vaccines be shortened. This requires that vaccines are used without licenses. The Pandemic Act requires that nations have laws in place to issue emergency use authorizations for this purpose. This obviously excludes clinical trials on humans. The countries that do not comply with the proposals should, of course, reject the amendment proposals.

Why should Sweden not be able to do everything that we think is good and everything that you mention without binding us legally to a supranational organization such as WHO? This is what it is about. The Minister says that when there are finalized articles or proposals for treaties, the government will take a position on these in the usual order, and if the Riksdag's approval is required for Sweden to be able to enter into the treaty, such an approval will be sought.

I can only repeat what I have said regarding the WHO: There will never be any talk of a vote in the Swedish Riksdag. Unfortunately, we will probably not even see the fully negotiated proposal from the WHO before it is voted through in May 2024. That is what the chief legal officer within the WHO is working for.

If Ulf Kristersson does not, before December 1, 2023, reject the decisions made at the World Health Assembly meeting on May 27, 2022, what is decided in May 2024 will become applicable a year thereafter. It is a short time; otherwise, it is two years that apply. There will be no time for the public, politicians, or authorities to even familiarize themselves with the issue before we are stuck in this medical tyranny. That is how the proposals look.

I have a number of legal contacts from several different countries who have specialized in precisely this issue, and all of them say the opposite of what the minister claims. I wish you were right, but I find it a bit difficult to believe. I have sent a link to the minister and to everyone in the chamber that can be clicked on at 12 o'clock on Monday to get some more information about the legal interpretation situation.

The next interesting question is: Which shortcomings in the pandemic management does the minister believe they can rectify by giving WHO these additional powers? This is therefore not just through recommendations, but this will become legally binding. How well does the minister think WHO succeeded with its recommendations last time? I did not think they succeeded at all, rather it was very poor.

I might not have time to go into that much, but we can take it that the vaccine against covid-19 neither prevents the spread of infection nor prevents infection. This has been confirmed by Pfizer and by a long series of scientific articles as well as by none other than EMA, the European Medicines Agency. At the same time, WHO considered vaccination to be the only way to achieve immunity, if I remember correctly.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is very difficult to counter some of these claims here in the Riksdag. I must say that I think it is quite remarkable that they are presented in this way.

It is presented as if this would mean that we are to have vaccines that are not approved and vaccines without licenses. It is claimed that we are to throw overboard the order we have for testing medicines and vaccines and that we will no longer have tests on humans. Medical tyranny - it is extremely difficult to counter. It is obviously completely unthinkable that we would have vaccines on the Swedish market that are not tested and approved and that this would be required of us because of some negotiations in WHO. It is naturally not correct.

Furthermore, as we have already gone through, the 300 proposals are just proposals that have been submitted from different member states. It does not mean at all that they will be included in the IHR. All these proposals are available to read on the WHO's website. The documents will, of course, be presented publicly before they are voted on. There is no secrecy surrounding this in the way the member claims.

Then comes a series of claims regarding vaccines. Vaccines have been extremely important in the fight against covid-19. They have saved an enormous number of people's lives and protected their health. That this is being questioned in this way is not only remarkable; it is also dangerous. It means that people might refrain from vaccines that can protect them from severe illness and death.

The approval of the vaccines has, naturally, been intended to protect the life and health of the person receiving the vaccine. Then there are other indications and other research showing that vaccines can have a certain dampening effect on the spread of infection. We know that there are slightly different such outcomes for different variants of the vaccine, but it is unambiguous that the vaccines protect life and health.

Furthermore, the Nobel Prize in Medicine will be awarded to those who came up with the method that was so important for us in handling the pandemic. It allowed us to open up societies and previously return to a more normal life. It is something that has been fantastic. It is strange, Mr. Speaker, to hear this questioned in this way here in the Riksdag.

This is not aimed at Sweden not having the powers and possibilities to handle a pandemic in Sweden. It is not aimed at handing over powers in the way the member claims. Sweden would not accept that, and other member countries would not accept it. This is not WHO's process. This is the member states' process.

It is the member states that have identified the need to cooperate better regarding these very serious health threats, which risk affecting us also in the future. They risk affecting individual families and entire communities in an unreasonable way. In that case, we need this cooperation.

Now we are going to discuss in what way we best do this without unreasonably handing over power to other bodies. We will be able to manage to do this.

There is no pre-negotiated treaty that will be voted through in secret; instead, this will be discussed. A draft arrived on October 16. It is that which is now being discussed as a pandemic treaty. And we will have the opportunity to discuss it in several rounds.

If required, the government will, of course, submit proposals to the Swedish Riksdag for handling, so that they will also be debated in due order, Mr. Speaker.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elsa Widding (-)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the IHR, I am proceeding from the latest draft and nothing else. I have not seen the proposed amendments. There is much to say. I am also completely shocked by what you, Jakob Forssmed, are saying. We will have to have a separate interpellation debate regarding side effects and excess mortality. Despite everything, these vaccines have caused more side effects than all other vaccines that have been on the market over the last 32 years have caused in total.

I will try to wrap things up. It is only we in this chamber who, in the end, can protect our sovereignty, our self-determination, and our human rights for this generation and for future generations. This is written in stone in our constitution and also in the UN Charter. No people should have to be ruled against their will by a party outside their own borders.

Can you, Jakob Forssmed, guarantee that the Swedish people retain their sovereignty, their self-determination and their human rights after the new Pandemic Treaty and the amendments to the IHR are voted through in May 2024 and enter into force in May 2025? Can you place your hand on the Bible and guarantee this? I would very much like to know.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I have already explained how this works, that it is not a secret legislative process, what it does not aim for and what it does aim for. It is increased cooperation regarding these issues. Sweden enters into different types of conventions and treaties quite often. We do it in different areas. We do it regarding climate. We do it regarding tobacco control. We do it within the framework of EU cooperation. Yes, there we have different types of cooperation.

This is completely normal. We do this area by area. It is nothing particularly special or different when it comes to health issues, but it is something that Sweden does all the time. We discuss. We make decisions. We submit propositions. We submit matters to Sweden's Riksdag when it comes to entering different types of commitments. These are bilateral agreements with other countries. These are multilateral agreements with other countries or with international organizations. These are self-evident matters and, of course, something that happens all the time, and it is not something strange.

The Swedish people have their sovereignty when it comes to entering this type of agreement and to leaving this type of agreement. It is not that we hand over power to some world government which then has to decide for the Swedish people, but we have the opportunity to enact the laws and rules that we want, to enter into agreements and have the rules that we want and also to leave the agreements and rules that we want to leave. Those opportunities naturally also remain in this context.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind that the chamber's deliberations must not be disturbed by observers in the gallery. I may ask the guards to promptly remove those persons who disturb the order.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)