On a recent Monday, former President Trump enacted an executive order that prohibited ‘high risk gain-of-function bio-activities domestically and globally’. Through this action, Trump solidified his earlier resolve to pull the United States out of the World Health Organization (WHO). Despite these critical measures, the U.S. continues to face significant risk of international regulation if a widely speculated ‘Disease X’ were to emerge.
On 30th January 2020, the WHO’s director-general made a statement declaring a ‘global public health emergency’ in the face of the escalating COVID-19 crisis. This six-word announcement triggered the institution of the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), which obligated the United States to comply. Subsequent to this proclamation of IHR, the WHO effectively exerted control over all member nations, including ours.
In response to this, federal bodies such as the National Institutes of Health in America rapidly accrued extensive authority. On 13th March 2020, President Trump announced a ‘national public health emergency’ — thereby, unwittingly transferring executive power to several individuals involved in dealing with previous global coronavirus issues. Despite this laudable step, the WHO could continue to exert influence over the United States’ health system during global health crises.
Even though Trump formally withdrew the U.S. from the WHO, a complete separation from the international health body could only be achieved when Robert F. Kennedy Jr, as the director of Health and Human Services, fully severs the ties between the CDC and WHO. Until then, the general health of the U.S. populace could potentially be under the jurisdiction of the WHO’s director-general.
This implies that if he were to simply suspect the emergence of an infectious disease, he could requisition jurisdictional power, sovereignty, and decision-making authority from every WHO member nation. Despite the U.S.’ formal disengagement from the WHO, it could still be affected by the organization’s substantial sway over the worldwide health and medical fraternity. This influence could become particularly concerning in the possible event of a global ‘Disease X’ outbreak.
‘Disease X’ is the generic term used by the WHO to denote an expected yet unidentified prospective pandemic. However, this future could very well be the present. Our findings suggest that ‘Disease X’ has already been militarized and launched as an elevated form of COVID-19 that’s significantly more infectious and lethal than its original version.
Alarmingly, our studies also propose that a powerful, more deadly vaccine has been pre-emptively developed, positioned as a presumed antidote to ‘Disease X’. Until CDC is fully separated from WHO, the potential repercussions of a ‘Disease X’ epidemic continue to be severe.
The most urgent concern is whether the U.S. military would remain under the President’s command and control during a future ‘international health emergency of global concern’. After all, only the President, as the constitutionally authorized official, has the mandate to prevent the invocation of a medical martial law, regardless of the potential lethality of the hypothetic ‘Disease X’.
The decision to insulate the United States from WHO’s influence is, in essence, a defensive deterrent against the potential subjugation of national health policy-making. Yet, it poses crucial questions about international cooperation and the collective responsibility we share in a deeply interconnected world.
By anticipating an enigmatic ‘Disease X’, the WHO seems to warn of a looming health emergency that demands global synchronized action. Yet, how such action is formed, implemented, and managed is intrinsically tied to the intricacies of international politics, sovereignty, and the delicate balance of power.
As long as the CDC and WHO remain connected, WHO holds the reins not just of influence but, potentially, of policy-making power too. This connection, and its attendant risks, have been brought into sharp focus by the COVID-19 pandemic, placing a question mark on the future direction of global health governance.
The specter of ‘Disease X’, as horrifying as it may be, forces us to confront a slew of ethical, scientific, and political challenges. It impels us to question the very fabric of international health cooperation and what a future severe health crisis might entail. In essence, it underscores the irrefutable importance and complexity of global healthcare diplomacy.
In delightfully dystopian fashion, ‘Disease X’ exists as the enshrouded harbinger of a pandemic yet known, its shadowy apparition warning us of the perils of health emergencies intertwined with international affiliations. As we grapple with these concerns, the role of national autonomy in international health regulation cannot be overstated, deserving critical contemplation in the overarching discourse concerning global health security.