Trump pulls US from World Health pandemic reforms
US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy is a long-time critic of vaccines. Photo: Reuters
US President Donald Trump's administration said on Friday the United States was rejecting changes agreed last year for the World Health Organization on its pandemic response, saying they violated US sovereignty.
Trump, on returning to office on January 20, immediately began the withdrawal of the United States from the UN body, but the State Department said the language from last year would still have been binding on the United States.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy, who is a longtime critic of vaccines, said that the changes "risk unwarranted interference with our national sovereign right to make health policy."
"We will put Americans first in all our actions, and we will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans' speech, privacy or personal liberties," they said in a joint statement.
Rubio and Kennedy disassociated the United States from a series of amendments to the International Health Regulations, which provide a legal framework for combating diseases, agreed last year at the World Health Assembly in Geneva.
The amendments included a stated "commitment to solidarity and equity" in which a new group would study the needs of developing countries in future emergencies.
Countries have until Saturday to lodge reservations about the amendments. Conservative activists and vaccine sceptics in Britain and Australia, which both have left-leaning governments, have waged public campaigns against the changes.
The amendments came about when the Assembly failed at a more ambitious goal of sealing a new global agreement on pandemics.
Most of the world finally sealed a treaty this May, but the United States did not participate as it was in the process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization.
The United States, then under President Joe Biden, took part in the May-June 2024 negotiations, but said it could not support consensus as it demanded protections for US intellectual property rights on vaccine development.
Rubio's predecessor, Antony Blinken, had welcomed the amendments as progress. (AFP)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
9 minutes ago
- RTHK
Ishiba cites tariffs, inflation fight for staying on
Ishiba cites tariffs, inflation fight for staying on Shigeru Ishiba enumerates his reasons for staying on as Japan's prime minister at his party's headquarters a day after a trouncing in the elections. Photo: Reuters Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba vowed to remain in office on Monday after his ruling coalition suffered a bruising defeat in upper house elections, prompting some within his own party to deliberate his future as the opposition weighed a no-confidence motion. The embattled premier said he would remain in office to oversee tariff talks with the United States and other pressing matters such as rising consumer prices that are straining the world's fourth largest economy. Analysts say his days may be numbered, having also lost control of the more powerful lower house in elections last year and shedding votes on Sunday to opposition parties pledging to cut taxes and tighten immigration policies. "The political situation has become fluid and could lead to a leadership change or the reshuffling of the coalition in coming months, but Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba will likely stay to complete the tariff negotiations with the US for now," said Oxford Economics' lead Japan economist Norihiro Yamaguchi. Facing a voter backlash over rising consumer prices, investors fear his administration will now be more beholden to opposition parties advocating for tax cuts and welfare spending that the world's most indebted country can ill afford. Markets in Japan were closed for a holiday on Monday. Adding to the economic anxiety, Ishiba's lack of progress in averting tariffs set to be imposed by its biggest trading partner, the United States, on August 1 appears to have frustrated some voters. "Had the ruling party resolved even one of these issues, it [its approval rate] would have gone up, but we didn't feel anything and it seems like the US would continue to push us around," Hideaki Matsuda, a 60-year-old company manager, said outside Tokyo's bustling Shinjuku station on Monday morning. Japan's chief tariff negotiator Ryosei Akazawa departed for trade talks in Washington on Monday morning, his eighth visit in three months. Ishiba's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which has ruled Japan for most of its post-war history, and coalition partner Komeito won 47 seats, short of the 50 it needed to ensure a majority in the 248-seat upper chamber in an election where half the seats were up for grabs. The leader of the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party, Yoshihiko Noda, said on Sunday he is considering submitting a vote of non-confidence in the Ishiba administration. Noda's party won 22 seats, finishing second. Some senior LDP lawmakers were also quietly voicing doubts over whether Ishiba should stay, according to local media reports. Among them was former prime minister Taro Aso, leader of a powerful faction, who said he "couldn't accept" Ishiba staying on, Japan's TV Asahi reported. Senior party members including Aso met on Sunday evening to discuss whether Ishiba should resign, Sankei newspaper reported. The far-right Sanseito party clocked the biggest gains of the night, adding 14 seats to one elected previously. Launched on YouTube during the pandemic by spreading conspiracy theories about vaccinations and a cabal of global elites, the party found wider appeal with its "Japanese First" campaign and warnings about a "silent invasion" of foreigners. Dragging once-fringe rhetoric into the mainstream, its success could mark the arrival of populist politics in Japan, which until now has failed to take root as it has in the United States and western Europe. (Reuters)
The Standard
32 minutes ago
- The Standard
Trump, Xi might meet ahead of or during October APEC summit in South Korea: sources
U.S. President Donald Trump attends a bilateral meeting with China's President Xi Jinping during the G20 leaders summit in Osaka, Japan, June 29, 2019. (Reuters)
AllAfrica
an hour ago
- AllAfrica
Trump's pivot on Ukraine still leaves the onus on Europe
Everything that President Donald Trump says is unreliable, simply because he says so much and because he has succeeded in politics by making image and sensation his priority, rather than substance. So if we want to decide how seriously to take his sudden reversal of position on helping Ukraine, the right people to listen to are the Ukrainians themselves and their opponents, the Russians. Neither has shown signs that they consider this American reversal to be truly game-changing. President Volodymr Zelensky, of course, welcomed Trump's new promises to supply more weapons and missile-defense systems, contradicting a decision by the US Department of Defense just a week earlier, but Zelensky also promptly got on the phone to European leaders asking them to supply more weapons too, and urgently. If you are fighting a war for national survival, the only weapons that truly count are the ones that actually arrive in the hands of your soldiers. Until that happens, and with still no clear information about when American weapons will arrive, Trump's promise has some value in terms of the message it sends to Ukraine's invader, Vladimir Putin, but that value is strictly temporary until new things are said in the White House, and it saves no lives directly. On his side, Putin has continued his army's 'summer offensive' to try to seize more Ukrainian territory, has continued to bombard Ukrainian cities, and has stuck to the uncompromising list of conditions he says he requires before any serious ceasefire talks can occur. In fact, in one important sense, Trump's announcement may have even relaxed the pressure on Putin to stop the fighting. While the decision to resume weapons deliveries was obviously important, an equally important decision may have been the one to set a 50-day deadline before any new economic sanctions will be imposed on Russia by the United States. This gives Putin an incentive to try to achieve as much as he can on the battlefield between now and mid-September, at which point he will most likely try to resume talks with the United States so as to persuade Trump to delay the sanctions deadline even further. This really is as perfect a situation as Putin could have hoped for, short of a complete alignment by America with his war aims. The summer offensive is not going well for Russia, but there is still time for progress to be made. Unless nearby European countries choose to send weapons and missile-defense systems immediately, Ukraine's military will remain at a disadvantage, valiant and innovative though it certainly is. Under the scenario now laid out for him by Trump, Putin does not really need to think hard about the future of his war until after the summer. By that time, Putin will be thinking, Trump may have changed his mind and his message multiple times. And Putin may well have seen recent political arguments taking place inside Ukraine about President Zelensky's cabinet reshuffle and claims about corruption as being encouraging signs that the Ukrainian government is itself becoming vulnerable to political pressure and criticism. For these reasons, Trump's latest change of mind still leaves the true initiative in the hands of European governments. His decision to resume weapons deliveries is predicated on those weapons being paid for by European countries, so if weapons are to arrive soon those payments had better be agreed upon and made soon. Moreover, all talks about those purchases will take place against the background of the European Union's negotiations with the United States over trade tariffs, which risks handing more bargaining power to the Americans for as long as those talks continue. This may mean until the recently announced deadline of August 1, or it may mean the date hinted at by the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent of September 1. That highly contentious background could complicate the process of getting purchases agreed and weapons delivered. After all, the EU trade negotiators have this week been briefing the media about how they are preparing retaliatory tariffs and controls on US services exports to the EU, which mainly means by the big technology platforms, if the Americans stick to Trump's latest threat of a 30% tariff on EU goods. A transatlantic trade war would not be a happy or helpful scenario against which to carry out the urgent task of helping Ukraine withstand the real war inflicted on it by Russia. Above all, the four European countries leading Europe's defense efforts —Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Poland —must maintain a strict focus on Ukraine's daily needs and not become complacent by Trump's apparent reversal on US weapons deliveries. The countries with the weapons stocks and production lines that are best able to help Ukraine emerge from the summer feeling strong are these European ones. In the long term, Europe wants to buy defense equipment and materials mainly from European producers rather than from the United States. That need not preclude purchases from America in the short term, if supplies are available, but it does mean that the sooner that long-term orders can be placed with European suppliers to allow them to invest and plan ahead, the better. It also means that Ukraine's now large, innovative and highly cost-competitive defense industry promises to become a big future asset for Europe, making the protection of it from Russian attacks even more important. In the tense atmosphere of this fourth summer of Russia's war in Ukraine, risks are going to have to be taken by those leading European governments in order to prevent a worsening of the security situation for the whole of Europe. Trump's reversal could offer some reassurance that weapons will be available from America in future months and in 2026, making it easier for Europeans to hand over their own critical missile-defense systems to Ukraine in the coming weeks and, ideally, the long-range missiles that the Ukrainians need to hurt and deter Russia. The time for worrying about escalating the conflict with Russia has long passed. President Putin is the one who has been doing the escalation. If Ukraine and the rest of Europe are to deter him and even push him back, the Europeans will have to send some clear messages of their own, not in words but in actions. Formerly editor-in-chief of The Economist, Bill Emmott is currently chairman of the Japan Society of the UK, the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the International Trade Institute. This is the English original of an article published in Italian by La Stampa and in English on the Substack Bill Emmott's Global View. It is republished here with kind permission.
