COVID-19 pandemic, United Nations preparedness, and Human Rights

Today, April 27, 2020, I celebrate with my fellow Austrian citizens the institution of the Second Republic of Austria in my apartment due to the exit restrictions imposed by the Federal Government on March 15, 2020, because of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 75 years ago, the head of the provisional government, the Social Democrat Karl Renner proclaimed independence for Austria. The Nazi regime had officially ended, although the killing of Jews still continued in the concentration camp Mauthausen, in the county of Upper Austria; although Nazis were still committing atrocities and war crimes in the country, and the Second World War had not yet ended.

The exit restrictions and protective measures for Austria allow a few reasons to leave the house. These include going to work if necessary but wherever possible, people should work from home by teleworking. Excluded from exit restrictions are all those who work in areas that ensure supplies in our country and urgent errands, like grocery shopping or going to the drug store. It is possible to leave the house to help other people who are dependent on help for health reasons. It is also possible to leave the house to get fresh air. Until April 13, 2020, we were not allowed in Innsbruck, Tirol to leave the house for outdoor sports and we were not allowed to travel out of town. The Federal Government further announced that to prevent imminent danger for body, life and property, events will not take place until further notice; restaurants are closed for the consumption of meals and drinks, delivery and self-pickup is allowed. As from April 14, 2020, smaller shops as well as construction markets and garden centers are permitted to open, and the federal gardens have reopened. Lessons in schools have been interrupted since March 16, 2020. Schools will gradually reopen classes with limited numbers of pupils. Primary and lower secondary schools are only open to those pupils whose parents have to work outside the house and whose children are not supervised at home, or to those pupils whose parents cannot provide care at home for other personal reasons. Universities work from home-office and will stay closed until October 2020. Social distancing, hygienic measures and face masks are obligatory in the public space[i].

To be honest, the lockdown of university and public life enabled me to work on Gaudium et Spes with uninterrupted concentration. The internet permitted me to stay in contact with my students and the lack of administrative work at the faculty enhanced my writing capacities. I do not like the social life at the faculty anyways. For years, I was constantly forced to make excuses for not attending meetings and public conferences. I am living the life of a quarantine writer who needs to be alone for writing. I was not any more able to go to the fitness studio and had to do my workout at home. I never liked skiing, I never liked parties in bars and discos, and I never liked crowds of tourists. Very rarely, I went to restaurants. Therefore, I was not really affected by the shutdown of public life in the Alps. Once a week, I go to my office at the faculty. Not meeting in the streets but some masked people and slowly patrolling police cars was unusual, a little bit scary and quite quickly became normal. Five weeks of intensive work followed without much disturbance by fears of getting sick or needing an intensive care unit. Once a week, I meet with ten colleagues from the ethical commission of the Innsbruck Medical University and the Tirol hospitals and clinics. We met in the big auditorium of the surgical clinics, sitting two to three meters away from each other. These weekly meetings of the ethical commission exclusively treated research projects and clinical studies on COVID-19 patients and epidemiological studies of patients and citizens. I felt informed and enjoyed knowing what was going on in the clinics and what the research projects are. I observed how my colleagues at the Medical University reacted to the corona crisis, some coped well with the stress, some did not, and some proved admirable resilience to getting exhausted in their working routine. Most of the studies showed a very careless design and essential conditions for a valid study design lacked, like for example a description of statistical methods for evaluation. The restriction of freedom of movement because of a pandemic made many researchers assume that other basic Human Rights were restricted too. Researchers thought that the informed consent of patients for participating in the studies was not necessary anymore.

For five weeks, I was able to live happily and work without difficulties. Then I got tired, I was drinking four to five glasses of wine a day and did not care. Then I stopped drinking and felt a kind of depression. I was not able to connect my writing on Gaudium et Spes and the Roman Catholic Church with what I was experiencing by the threat of the corona virus pandemic. Suddenly, the pandemic affected me mentally and socially. Every morning, I construct my integrity and overcome my mental angst by talking to my body to restore integrity. After a few minutes of meditation, I felt happy and free of troubling thoughts. After five weeks of quarantine, I suddenly had difficulties coping with the loss of the cultural and social aspect of my integrity. I was economically safe, I was spiritually safe, I was physically safe, but I was shaken mentally by something unknown, and I was completely lost about the sense of my writing and the importance of the social realizations of dignity that I had been defending for years. My identity was shaken, I felt vulnerable, and my self-distress made me capable of listening, watching and viewing the distress of the miserable women, men and children in the desolate refugee camps on the Greek islands. I was capable of empathy with the suffering women, men and queer forced to stay out in inhumane living conditions, left without help from the rich countries of Europe, left to drowning in the Mediterranean, left to torture and enslavement in the refugee prisons of Libya. Suddenly I felt empathy with all women, men and children who wanted to flee inhumane social, economic, political, spiritual, educational, etc. living conditions in their home countries. Suddenly, I had the feeling that Austria and Europe can harbor all those millions of desperate and miserable women, men and children. I am convinced that Europe has the responsibility to share its wealth with the suffering millions of miserable women, men and queer citizens on the other side of the European Union’s fence.  Somehow, I felt the same threat of perishing by the corona virus that threatened the millions of women, men and queer who wanted to come to Austria and Europe and participate in a better life. Somehow, I had the feeling that I have millions of sisters, brothers, and children that experience the same deadly menace as me and I am convinced that we can make a living by sharing our resources and talents. I observe that the rich states in Europe like Austria and Germany dispose over billions of Euros to save their economy. The shutdown of the tourism industry all over the world and the end of the race for the best vacations on nice beaches and all-inclusive wellness resorts, winter sports resorts, holiday resorts, and health resorts for the moment being ends a culture reigned by the high art of low living. The cultural shutdown of events, festivals, concerts and opera houses ends not only cultural expression and performance but also starts a discussion on Human Rights of dignity, freedom and civil rights of artists. The shutdown of airports, fabrics, production industries, consumer habits, world trade and commerce, the shutdown of capitalism and the fall of oil prices and the rally of the stock values left my horizon free for the women, men and children living in misery right before the doors of Europe. Seeing that the rich European Union suddenly invests so much money for the recovery of the economy and consumer capabilities makes it very clear to me that there is enough money and resources for ending the misery at the frontiers between the rich and the poor in the refugee camps around the Mediterranean. Suddenly there are millions of unemployed European citizens, and the economic existence of millions of families is threatened. The European nation states organize liquidity and funds to help and overcome the consumer deadlock. Yet, no empathy with the miserable ended my depression and questioning for sense. After six weeks, the shock of the extreme quarantine was over, and the country was slowly opening again to economic and social life with social distancing, masks and regular hand washing. Travel restrictions are lifted within the country. I was already sated watching television programs on the COVID-19 pandemic, when I heard of a report of the World Health Organization from 2018 warning of a possible pandemic and demanding detailed planning for such a possible catastrophe. I read the checklist for pandemic influenza risk and impact management: building capacity for pandemic response (World Health Organization 2018a) and everything changed for me. Almost instantaneously, the reading of the WHO document brought relief to my distress. It was not only a relief to find the document, but I was also happy again. I realized that I had been completely unprepared for the possibility having to cope with a pandemic. I was not aware that the possibility of a pandemic was real, although I know about the principle that what is possible is also real. In the past five decades of my learning, studying and reading I never paid attention to pandemics. I did not ignore that large parts of the world population were still suffering from bacterial infections, but I was not concerned with pandemics. I did not learn about pandemics in my medical studies and my friends who are highly specialized medical professionals were caught by surprise by this COVID-19 pandemic and unprepared like me. It was an enormous relief to recognize that the WHO had been working on a global influenza program and had elaborated the essential steps in the pandemic influenza preparedness planning process for developing or updating a national pandemic influenza preparedness plan (World Health Organization 2018b). In the spring of 2009, a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus emerged and was detected first in the United States[ii]. The virus spread quickly across the United States and the world. The virus infected 1.4 billion people across the world, killing about 0,015% to 0,057%. The Swine Flu pandemic primarily affected children and young adults. Older people seemed to have already built up enough immunity (Jarus 2020).  The WHO took the lessons learned from the 2009 influenza pandemic into consideration and presented in December 2017 in Accra, Ghana a draft for the pandemic influenza preparedness planning (World Health Organization 2018b, 3). It is a shame that I had not been aware of the WHO working on preparing to cope with pandemics. Recognizing my total ignorance on pandemics brings relief to my sudden disturbing paralysis on facing the COVID-19 pandemic in my town and country and the world. I am aware of the fact that COVID-19 is not SARS, and it is not influenza, it is a new virus with its own characteristics (World Health Organization. 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 16–24 February 2020. 18. Geneva: World Health Organization).

I did not know: “Influenza pandemics are unpredictable but recurring events that can have serious consequences for human health and economic well-being worldwide” (ibid). At the end of January 2020, the Austrian ministry of health declared to journalists of the Austrian Press Agency that there is no published version of a national pandemic influenza preparedness plan, because the pandemic influenza plan from 2006 is getting an update by the federal counties and all relevant authorities (Kleine Zeitung. 2020. Coronavirus. “Österreichischer Pandemieplan wird derzeit überarbeitet.” Kleine Zeitung, January 30). This means that the Federal Government of Austria had no updated pandemic plan at hand when the WHO declared COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic on March 12, 2020 (World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. 2020.“WHO announces COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic”). The measures proposed in the announcement to prevent or slow down viral transmission seem to have served as the blueprint for the measures announced by the Austrian Federal Government’s on March 16, 2020. WHO/Europe considers implementation of social distancing and quarantine measures, closure of schools and universities, implementation of remote working policies, minimizing the use of public transport and deferment of nonessential travel. WHO/Europe informed “COVID-19 impacts the elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions most severely” (ibid). Health-care workers “who are on the front line, seeking to prevent, contain and mitigate the effects of this pandemic and caring for those who are seriously ill” suddenly get attention, praise and thanks for their outstanding achievements (ibid). Once more, WHO recommends that all countries increase their level of preparedness and strengthen alert and response systems, all in line with WHO global guidance (ibid). WHO demands advising and creating awareness of the risks in the public. The individuals must be encouraged “to take care of their own health and protect others by washing hands frequently”. To “maintaining social distancing”, “avoiding touching eyes, nose and mouth”, “following respiratory hygiene” by covering mouth and nose, seeking medical care early if you have a fever, cough and difficulty breathing, and “staying informed and following advice given by your health-care provider” and national authority (ibid). For four weeks, the officials of the Austrian Federal Government kept repeating this mantra in their almost daily press conferences.

In January 2020, Austria had no prepared and updated national pandemic influenza plan. In January 2018, the WHO had published a detailed and comprehensive 35 pages checklist for pandemic influenza risk and impact management as part of the WHO global influenza program (World Health Organization 2018a). The WHO suspected that the documents of her global influenza program were not taken seriously by the governments of the WHO Member States and feared that the Member States did not develop and communicate a national pandemic influenza preparedness plan. To be sure, the WHO initiated a survey (World Health Organization. 2019. Pandemic influenza preparedness in WHO Member States. Report of a Member States survey. Geneva: World Health Organization).

The report of this Member States survey says in the introduction:

“In late 2018, the WHO Global Influenza Program consulted its Member States through a survey to better understand the current level of pandemic preparedness among Member States and to identify the capacity areas in which WHO and its partners should focus their technical assistance in the coming years. This report summarizes the findings of this Member States survey” (ibid).

The survey was realized by a questionnaire that included 55 questions concerning the status of national pandemic influenza preparedness plans and key capacity areas in pandemic preparedness and response. These capacities are outlined in WHO pandemic preparedness checklist (ibid. 7). The key capacities in pandemic preparedness and response are preparing for an emergency (planning, coordination and resources), surveillance (laboratory, epidemiology or event), investigation and assessment (risk and severity), health services and clinical management, preventing illness in the community (pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical interventions) and maintaining essential services and recovery (ibid).

WHO received completed survey questionnaires from 104 of 194 WHO Member States that is 54% (ibid). 51% of Member States from the African Region responded, 46% from the Americas Region, 33% from the Eastern Mediterranean Region, 68% from the European Region, South-East Asian Region 64%, and 53% from the Western Pacific Region. Low-income countries show the lowest percentage and high-income countries have the highest percentage in responding (ibid. 52). My hypothesis is that civil wars explain the extremely low percentage of responders from the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Why do about half of the WHO Member States not bother to respond to a WHO survey on the state of their preparedness for an influenza pandemic? Why did the Republics of Ireland, Germany, and the Netherlands not participate (ibid. 39)?  We do not know. WHO is clear “the results of the survey cannot be seen as representative of all Member States, particularly in regions with low response rates” (ibid. 12).

Is the world prepared for a pandemic? 88% of the responder countries indicate that they have a national pandemic influenza preparedness plan, but half of them “were developed before the 2009 influenza pandemic and have not been updated since then” (ibid. 7). Half of the national pandemic influenza preparedness plans are not publicly available and only “42 of 104 countries - that is 40% -, tested their national pandemic influenza preparedness plans through simulation exercises in the past five years” (ibid). Personally, I really doubt that all these 42 countries had simulation exercises. “More than half of the countries were either not aware or aware but not yet consulted the WHO pandemic influenza preparedness guidance and tools outlining planning strategies, essential capacities, and steps” (ibid).

The WHO report is clear “The survey revealed major gaps in pandemic influenza preparedness among Member States” (ibid. 8). “The data from each country have been kept confidential” and I cannot identify an individual country, the statistical analysis aggregates regions and income groups (ibid. 11). The United States of America completed the survey (ibid. 39). During a 2014 speech, then President Barack Obama warned about the need for the US to cast aside partisan differences to prepare for an upcoming pandemic[iii]. As early indications of China’s coronavirus outbreak emerged in late December 2019, the Trump administration continued following through with its plan to shutter a US Agency for International Development surveillance program tasked with detecting new, potentially dangerous infectious diseases and helping foreign labs stop emerging pandemic threats around the world (Cohen 2020). Leon Panetta, who was appointed CIA director by President Obama in January 2009 and from 2011 to 2013 served as Defense Secretary confirmed that the US had worked out pandemic preparedness plans for all kinds of contagions but unfortunately, they were never put into place; therefore, the US was not prepared to adequately deal with this COVID-19 pandemic (Blitzer, Wolf. 2020. “The Situation Room.” CNN, April 28).

Confidentiality may help honesty and assures that individual Member States do not lose their face. WHO does not know if the persons from the ministry of health who completed the survey “have consulted with all relevant government agencies when deciding on each answer” (World Health Organization 2019, 12). The self-reported responses cannot be interpreted as objective and all limitations of the survey “should be kept in mind when considering the results and conclusions” (ibid). What are the results and conclusions of the WHO survey? I fear that the WHO’s statement is a profound understatement and a diplomatic warning to the world for better preparing because “The survey revealed major gaps in pandemic influenza preparedness among Member States” (ibid. 8).  

On April 28, 2020, the day of Leon Panetta’s interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, US deaths from COVID-19 had reached 58,365 and sadly surpassed total American deaths in Vietnam; the Vietnam War began in 1955 and ended in 1975 (ibid). On April 28, 2020, there were over three million persons infected by COVID-19 worldwide, and 216,808 had died from the disease; the US counted about one third of COVID-19 infections worldwide (Blitzer 2020). It is clear that only tested persons are identified as infected with COVID-19 and unfortunately, four months after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic testing capacities are still not sufficient in the US, in Europe and worldwide.

Reading of the twenty worst epidemics and pandemics in history (Jarus, Owen. 2020. “20 of the worst epidemics and pandemics in history.” Life Science, March 20), I became aware that I never really reflected on pandemics and history. I vaguely was aware that disease outbreaks have ravaged humanity. I was not aware of that and how pandemics had been changing the course of history. Thanks to the development of vaccines, the threat from bacterial or viral pandemics was absent from my consciousness. I was aware that I have perfect access to antibiotic and antiviral therapies in Europe. I was aware that low-income countries could not pay for therapies and international pharmaceutical companies were reluctant to develop vaccines against malaria. The COVID-19 pandemic makes me thankful and proud again for the successful scientific, social and political fight against infectious diseases over the last 200 years. At the same time, I am ashamed again that millions of women, men and children do not have sufficient access to health care and affordable medication. I was not aware that already about 5,000 years ago “an epidemic wiped out a prehistoric village in China” (ibid). I did not know that around 430 BC, an epidemic ravaged the people of Athens for five years, while they were fighting off the attacks of the army from Sparta from within the overcrowded walls of Athens (ibid). I knew that the Byzantine Empire reached its greatest extent under the Emperor Justinian who reigned from 527 to 565 CE. I did not know that Justinian got sick with the plague and survived. I did not know that the Byzantine Empire was ravaged by the bubonic plague, and I was not aware of the coincidence between the plague and the beginning decline of the empire in the time after the plague struck. I am not surprised that a death toll of 25 million people that is a quarter of the population of the Eastern Mediterranean and the devastation of the city of Constantinople considerably weakens the resilience of an empire (ibid). The narrative on the decline of the Byzantine Empire is rich. I always wondered how a corrupt and declining empire, rich in plots, murder, luxury and decadence could survive for another 900 years till May 29, 1453, CE, when the Ottoman Empire finally captured Constantinople. I wonder if the Roman Christian crusader armies that sacked, looted and murdered Constantinople in 1204 CE caused more destruction in the city than the plague. The Byzantine civilization was certainly part of Western civilization, but it was quite different from Western Europe and America (Treadgold, Warren. 1998. “The Persistence of Byzantium.” The Wilson Quarterly Archieves. Autumn). In the West, for example, secular rule and papal authority had never been joined, and the Byzantine Empire was governed with the help of a vast centralized administration and an army of bureaucrats (ibid). The West consisted of a pluralism of kingdoms and countries and their emperors had constantly to assure their crowns and alliances. At the end of the second millennium, “Such differences continue to give rise to misconceptions about the Byzantine world” (ibid). 

I was aware of the Black Death that wiped out over half of Europe’s population, but I was completely unaware of the social, economic and political consequences of the plague that ravaged Europe from 1346 to 1353 CE. The lack of cheap labor brought about better pay for workers, better access to meat, higher-quality bread, and the disruption of Europe’s system of serfdom (ibid). I was not aware of the interaction of war and pandemic diseases. The cramped conditions of soldiers and poor wartime nutrition that millions of people were experiencing during World War I, helped spread and enhanced lethality of the Spanish Flu between 1918 and 1920 (ibid). The pandemic was caused by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin and infected over a third of the world’s population that is about 500 million people and killed at least an estimated 50 million[iv]. The Spanish Flu teaches me already the interaction between a free press and freely published early accounts of the illness in Spain. Spain was neutral during World War I, and the free press enhanced the awareness of the population for the deadly disease. Ironically, the pandemic received the name of the country that described and documented the illness at first, although the pandemic did not originate in Spain (Jarus 2020). The AIDS pandemic started in 1976 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and since 1981 killed more than 36 million people. In 2020, about 64% of the estimated 40 million living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) live in sub-Sahara Africa. Growing awareness and new treatments make HIV far more manageable and “allows people to experience a normal life span with regular treatment” (ibid). The West African Ebola epidemic from 2014 to 2016 ravaged with 28,600 reported cases and 11,325 deaths (ibid). The COVID-19 pandemic teaches me that pandemics hit the whole world and makes me question the interactions between the virus and a globalized economy, the West’s dependence and exploitation of cheap labor from Communist China dictatorship and low-income countries in Asia, South-East Asia and in India for the profit of international corporations and consumers around the world.

What does the COVIC-19 pandemic teach me on the high art of modern rich consumers’ lifestyle of low living?  According to the Ministry of Health of the Federal Republic of Austria, on April 29, 2020, there are 15,349 persons who were tested COVID-19 positive, and 247,754 tests had been realized in Austria so far. 2,043 persons are sick with COVID-19, thereof 368 are hospitalized and 131 are treated in intensive care units. So far 554 COVID-19 patients have died[v].

Ischgl, Austria’s corona hot-spot 2020, is a village in the Alps of Austria, close to the Swiss border with 1230 inhabitants[vi]. The distance to the capital of Tyrol, Innsbruck, is 100 kilometers. Ischgl’s tourism industry has over 10,000 beds for guests and counts 2.7-million-over-night stays per year[vii]. It is clear that the small village needs hundreds of seasonal workers to cope with all the tourists. These workers are coming from all over Europe, especially from Germany and Eastern Europe. In the winter, Ischgl presents 239 kilometers of ski slopes, and the 45 cable cars and ski lifts have a capacity to move 94,000 persons an hour[viii]. The official website of Tyrol joins in the effort to help enhance tourism. Ischgl is advertised for having more fun, getting more action and being faster than anywhere is, including more luxury[ix]. Ischgl is rightly praised internationally as Tyrol’s party-center in the winter tourist season. 100 years ago, the small mountain village could not even feed its children, who were forced to go to the rich regions in Southern Germany for work and food. Today Ischgl presents the tourist luxury restaurants, perfect service and international events like a pop-concert at the end of the skiing season (ibid).

The new label of Ischgl as the corona hotspot from where infected tourists and seasonal workers spread thousands of infections with COVID-19 all over Austria, Germany, and many other European countries, is a disaster for the village and its tourism industry. Therefore, the citizens from Ischgl released in April 2020 on their web site a press briefing and reconstructed the events in order to answer the question why Ischgl was not placed under quarantine earlier. In the following paragraph, I give a summary of this press briefing (Ischgl. 2020. “Why was Ischgl not placed under quarantine earlier? Here an attempt at reconstruction. Press Briefing.” Ischgl.com):

On February 25, 2020, two persons were tested COVID-19 positive in Innsbruck; Tirol records the first COVID-19 cases. The next day, representatives of the municipality, of the Tourism Association Paznaun-Ischgl, of the mighty Silvretta funicular company, local police and the village doctor met for the first time. These informal meetings continued the following days on a regular basis with the aim of synchronizing information and preparing in the best possible way for any possible suspected cases in Ischgl. All managers of the cable cars were informed, and the tourism association asked its businesses to record guests’ phone numbers in addition to the registration details, so they can be reached quickly in case of infections in the surroundings. On March 4, 2020, shortly before midnight, Iceland informs the Austrian health authorities in Vienna that eight persons have tested positive for Covid 19, who had recently spent their holidays in Ischgl. The tourism association hears of this through a posting by an Icelandic guest on Facebook on the morning of March 5, 2020. The Austrian health authorities inform the Tyrolean authorities. In Ischgl, a tourism association manager immediately contacts the health authority in Reykjavík asking for further information to allow him to retrace the whereabouts of the infected. At 16:00, the names of the hotels arrive via the health ministry. At 17:30, the state of Tirol reports in a press release that the Icelandic guests probably caught the virus on their return trip in the airplane. Meanwhile, patients with flu-like symptoms visited the doctor and are subjected to swabs. One of these patients is the bartender from “Kitzloch”, a German with a Norwegian name. He tests positive on March 7, 2020. Health authorities from Tirol close the “Kitzloch” on March 9, 2020. On the evening of March 10, 2020, après-ski venues in the municipal area are closed. On March 11, 2020, Tirol’s Governor Günther Platter announces the end of season for Ischgl in an evening press conference with March 13, 2020, as the last day for skiing. On March 13, 2020, at 14:00 Chancellor Sebastian Kurz finally announces that Paznaun and St. Anton am Arlberg are being placed under quarantine (Ischgl 2020). The quarantine was lifted on April 23, 2020.

It is not my competence to answer the questions why it took from March 5, 2020, when the first patient coming from skiing in Ischgl was tested positive in Iceland, until March 13 to place Ischgl under quarantine. I am not either commenting on the above COVID-19 chronology given by the press briefing of the Ischgl tourist agency. I wanted to take the chronology from Ischgl because the people from Ischgl should have the opportunity to explain themselves. The public prosecutor’s office in Innsbruck is investigating the case. What seems evident to me is the fact that there was no surveillance, investigation and assessment plan in place to guide health and public authorities according to the WHO pandemic influenza preparedness plan (World Health Organization 2018). The WHO rationale for outbreak investigation is clear “the timely investigation of unusual cases or clusters of respiratory illness is key to the early detection of a novel influenza virus. Investigations identify cases, the source of infection and the clinical impact of the disease” (ibid. 14). As first essential WHO claims, “Ensure that outbreak investigation and rapid response personnel have appropriate capacities and training (e.g. field epidemiology, data collection and analysis, risk assessment, use of personal protective equipment), and are familiar with their terms of reference and expected tasks” (ibid). When the first COVID-19 patients arrived at Innsbruck University clinics, there was not the necessary protective equipment for doctors, nurses and health care workers available for weeks.

On March 12 and 13, hundreds of tourists chaotically left Ischgl in order to escape the quarantine. Hotels in Ischgl insisted also that their guests leave the hotel. What could the tourists do? They left Ischgl and looked for other hotels in the Tirol to stay overnight. They had no flight reservation anyways and therefore had to find a hotel. Apparently, police and government officials helped them to find hotels in Tyrol without thinking about possible transmission of COVID-19. Tyrolean and Austrian tourists who were infected, returned from Ischgl and St. Anton to Innsbruck and their homes all over Austria and transmitted the virus to other Austrians (Arora, Steffen, Laurin Lorenz, and Fabian Sommavilla. 2020. “Coronavirus. Tiroler Behörden halfen, Touristen aus Quarantänegebieten zu verteilen.” Der Standard, March 17). The evacuation of the tourists and seasonal workers from Ischgl and St. Anton was not guided by any pandemic preparedness plan but was a chaotic event. Introducing a wholesale quarantine “is something which harkens back to plague measures and that has been repeated over and over, including in the Ebola epidemic”, says the historian of epidemics Snowden (Chotiner, Isaac. 2020. “How Pandemics Change History.” The New Yorker, March 3 2020). Ischgl and St. Anton repeated on a much smaller scale, what had happened in Wuhan after the lockdown on January 23, 2020 (ibid). This lockdown “arrives too late and it breaks down that fundamental element of public health, which is information” (ibid). The people threatened with the lockdown do not cooperate with authorities, “authorities therefore no longer know what is going on and people take flight, which spreads the epidemic” (ibid). “The norms of public health, which have developed since the plague years, which stress case findings of individuals, then tracing and isolation are different from what happened in China” (ibid) and in Ischgl and St. Anton.

In December 2019, a new coronavirus began appearing in human beings in the region of Wuhan, China. The virus had been named COIVD-19, no one on earth has an immunity to it, and the new virus spread worldwide within months[x]. On December 31, 2019, Wuhan Municipal Health Commission, China, reported to the WHO a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, Hubei Province. A novel coronavirus was eventually identified. On January 1, 2020, WHO had set up a team “across the three levels of the organization, headquarters, regional headquarters and country level, putting the organization on an emergency footing for dealing with the outbreak” (World Health Organization 2020a). On January 12, 2020, China publicly shared the genetic sequence of COVID-19 (ibid). From January 20 to 21, 2020, WHO experts from its China and Western Pacific regional offices conducted a brief field visit to Wuhan. WHO worked with Chinese government leaders to get permission for an international team of leading scientists to travel to China on a mission to better understand the context, the overall response, and exchange information and experience (ibid). A month later, from February 16 to 24, 2020, the WHO-China Joint mission, which included 25 experts from Canada, Germany, Japan, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Russia, Singapore and the US spent time in Beijing and also travelled to Wuhan and two other cities (ibid). Dr Bruce Aylward of WHO and Dr Wannian Liang of the People’s Republic of China headed the Joint Mission (World Health Organization 2020, 3). As of February 20, 2020, a cumulative total of 75,465 COVID-19 cases were reported in China (ibid. 5) and 2114 of the 55,924 laboratory confirmed cases have died (ibid. 12). Concerning the origin of the virus the report affirms “COVID-19 is a zoonotic virus. From phylogenetic analyses undertaken with available full genome sequences, bats appear to be the reservoir of COVID-19 virus, but the intermediate host(s) has not yet been identified” (ibid. 8).

Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission is full of praise of China’s response to the detection of a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown etiology in Wuhan: “The prevention and control measures have been implemented rapidly, from the early stages in Wuhan and other key areas of Hubei, to the current overall national epidemic” (ibid. 14).  Vanderklippe assesses in his article “Chinese officials initially waited weeks to respond to the outbreak of COVID-19, with police even arresting doctors for discussing the appearance of a dangerous new virus” (Vanderklippe, Nathan, 2020. “COVID-19 ‘not beyond control,’ says Canadian WHO official Bruce Aylward.” The Globe And Mail, February 28, updated March 11). The Canadian WHO official Dr Bruce Aylward spoke to The Globe and Mail after his return from the WHO-China mission that he headed. He does not contradict the above affirmation from the Asian correspondent of the Canadian newspaper. Actually, Aylward confirms by saying “Since then, however, China has responded with a speed unmatched anywhere else” (ibid).

Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei says the virus has only strengthened China’s police state (Chung 2020). Weiwei said, the ruling Communist Party’s containment tactics have proven the effectiveness of authoritarian rules, while other countries’ inability to control the pandemic has exposed the disadvantages and malpractices of free and democratic societies (ibid). On social media in Western democracies, dark sources are able to spread fake news on the pandemic creating confusion that disturbs a quick and effective response to the pandemic. It is true, dictatorships do not need to ask parliaments to pass laws with measures for social distancing, quarantine prescriptions and economic lockdowns and have exclusive control of the press and the state media. Democracies need to take more time to discuss and convince the people and precious time is wasted until actions take place.  Weiwei criticizes the West as being superficial for not asking why China is not releasing information. China would not function as a state without the control and manipulation of information.

“China will never learn. It doesn’t matter what kind of disaster they’re facing. The only thing they learn is how well they use this authoritarian power to manipulate the story. That kind of arrogance and success will lead them to another crisis. It’s a pity. It’s obvious they have to change their behavior and to learn to be more scientific and trust their own people, but simply, there is no trust in China between the leaders and their own people, between people themselves, and between individuals’ understanding of the current situation and (their) own future” (ibid).

Individuals and their history are not important for the Communist party, often the real names of the dead of the pandemic are not given; the state wants to stay in control and preserve its own image. In the pandemic, China’s authorities developed a system using mobile technology and bid data to track people’s movements, and unique digital Quick Response codes were assigned to hundreds of millions of citizens for having access to public transportation, restaurants and shopping malls (ibid).  This harvesting of data will go on after the pandemic and strengthen further the power of the police state by knowing everything about everybody. Weiwei testifies there is no trust in China between the leaders and their own people, between people themselves, and between individuals’ understanding of the current situation; in the future, there will be further crisis because of the arrogance of the authorities and their distrust of their own people (ibid). Weiwei feels lost as a persona and as an artist, “Even in terms of good writing, philosophical thinking, or a good image cannot really compare or cope with the deep sorrow, the sadness and the disappointment of our current situation, or even our understanding about the future” (ibid).

Frank M. Snowden, an academic historian of epidemics, affirms microbes selectively expand and diffuse themselves to explore ecological niches that human beings have created. Epidemics in the industrial revolution have shown that we actually did not care what happened to workers and the poor and the condition that the most vulnerable people lived in (Chotiner 2020). After his return from his WHO mission to China, Dr Bruce Aylward affirmed, “there has to be a fundamental change in our mind-set” (ibid). “We have to think that we have to work together as a human species to be organized to care for one another” and “we have to realize that the health of the most vulnerable people among us is a determining factor for the health of all of us” (ibid). Snowden does not justify that Aylward and his Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19 from February 16 to 20, 2020, documented and praised that “The prevention and control measures have been implemented rapidly, from the early stages in Wuhan and other key areas of Hubei, to the current overall national epidemic” (ibid). Snowden understands the diplomatic practice, „because it would be terrible to alienate the largest member of the World Health Assembly and to alienate a country that’s in the midst of this extraordinary crisis” (ibid). Nevertheless, “at the same time, there’s been a great deal of stress on total honesty, producing evidence, communication, data-based, factual, scientific approaches to public health, and that is not what happened at the early stages of the Chinese response” (ibid).

The historian of epidemics and pandemics in world history, Frank M. Snowden, insists that women, men and queer have learned to cope with pandemics in a way that is fundamentally different from the times of the Bubonic Plague in the middle of the fourteenth century CE. In those times of the Black Death, the strategy of coping with the plague was quarantine. Modern scientific approaches to public health recognize information as a fundamental element of public health. Information presupposes the Human Right of free speech. Snowden further affirms that modern norms of public health “stress case findings of individuals, then tracing and isolation” (ibid). Snowden identifies the individual woman, man and queer as the center and as the basic element for fighting pandemics in the 21st century CE. It is clear, in order to fight a pandemic successfully, humanity needs to recognize, proclaim and respect the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer, because the pandemic threatens the physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural, and spiritual integrity of the individual woman, man and queer. In a pandemic, every individual woman, man and queer is realizing her or his dignity by protecting the integrity of other women, men and queer.

The documents of the WHO on preparing for pandemics address the member states of the WHO (World Health Organization 2018; 2018). National pandemic influenza preparedness plans include guidance on preparing, responding and recovering from pandemics as an emergency risk management for health that “emphasizes prevention and mitigation of health risks before they develop into health emergencies” (World Health Organization 2018, 2). WHO is conscientious of the necessity that nation states and countries “determine national pandemic response actions in the context of their own experience, resources and vulnerability” (ibid. 3). WHO has learned to abandon global direction on managing pandemics and to rely on the responsible agencies of countries and states (ibid). Concerning the individual countries and nations, the WHO underscores multi-sectoral and multidisciplinary approaches to pandemic preparedness planning, because the contributions “from all segments of the health-care sector, government, business and civil society” are needed as the capacities “at community level (e.g., communication, community engagement and community care)” for effectively planning for pandemics and for managing pandemics (ibid).

It is clear, that the citizens are the basic element of civil society and that the individual woman, man, and queer is the basic element of communication, community engagement and community care. The 2018 WHO preparedness plan does not directly identify the individual woman, man, and queer as the basic agent of her pandemic preparedness plan. The WHO does not repeat proclaiming the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men, and queer as basis for public health. Without the integrity of the individual woman, man, and queer there is no realization of the health of the individual person and there is no realization of public health. The document describes this interaction between public health and individual health but still speaks of “cases” and not of infected women, men and queer (ibid. 14). I know that medical doctors, virologists and epidemiologists like to speak of cases and clusters, but there is no need to forget that the case is an infected woman, man and queer who needs respect, protection, and dignity.

I am not criticizing the WHO for speaking of cases and of the necessity to “identify cases”, on the contrary. The scientific experts of the WHO aptly describe the rationale of outbreak investigation, “Timely investigation of unusual cases or clusters of respiratory illness is key to the early detection of a novel influenza virus. Investigations identify cases, the source of infection and the clinical impact of the disease; they also help to provide early characterization of the new virus” (ibid. 14). The aim of my investigation is to make the possible individual woman, man and queer of whom the text speaks visible. Speaking of “detecting the first cases of this virus in other countries”, of establishing “protocols for active case finding (e.g., contact tracing and chart review)” (ibid. 15) is speaking about individual women, men and queer who have a name, a history and an existence. Protecting the individual woman, man, and queer is realized by protecting the integrity and the equal dignity, freedom and rights of the individual woman, man and queer. Describing the rationale of health services, the WHO speaks of “patients” that is of individual women, men, and queer and identifies groups of vulnerable persons “Health services must be kept functioning for as long as possible to minimize stress, illness and deaths caused by a pandemic. In addition to services to treat patients with pandemic influenza, health services for other types of critical and essential care must be maintained – particularly for vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with chronic conditions. Planning should be done in advance to prioritize health services and to optimize the use of available facilities, medicines and supplies” (ibid. 18).

There is no doubt that health services are important institutions and that without facilities, medicines and supplies there is no chance for the restitution of the integrity of infected women, men and queer. Yet, this COVID-19 pandemic taught and teaches the citizens of our nations and countries about the necessity of the solidarity of the health professionals, the doctors, nurses, and the managers with the patients that is solidarity with our communities and society. There is thankfulness for the hard work of the nurses and doctors in these months of the COVID-19 pandemic; there is recognition and thankfulness for the women and men working in retirement homes. There is new social recognition for their work, and for the work of all women, men and queer who keep the country going during the lockdown and aftermath of the lockdown. Suddenly, there is awareness of the contribution of the cashiers and supermarket workers who keep up our food supplies, for the female and male police officers who keep up public security, for the volunteers, women, men and queer of the fire departments, for the women, men and queer of the military who help with securing public security. I do not know if coping with the COVID-19 pandemic will change the mind-set of women, men, queer, and make them claim the social realization of their dignity and the social realization of the dignity of all women, men and queer in society. Changing my mind-set is my social choice, as it is my social choice not to change my mind-set for claiming and contributing to realize the equal dignity of all women, men and queer on this earth. Remembering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in this COVID-19 pandemic makes me remember that the UDHR evolved 72 years ago from a disaster for humanity that is not comparable in its impact on women, men and queer with the actual COVIC-19 pandemic. I wrote the last couple of paragraphs today, April 5, 2020. I commemorate the liberation of the Austrian Nazi concentration camp Mauthausen, I listen to a woman who survived the Holocaust and tells her story to make her traumas part of history. I am thankful for her testimony; I am thankful that for centuries Austrian Jews are living in my native country, and that Austrian Jews today give testimony to the hope for justice and peace for the world that had allowed the Shoah to happen.

In April 1945, the SS began to destroy the traces of its crimes. “It had the installations for mass killing dismantled, ordered incriminating documents to be burned and murdered concentration camp prisoners who, due to having witnessed systematic mass murder firsthand, would have been able to testify against the perpetrators in court” (Mauthausen Memorial 2020a). “Liberation”. On May 5, 1945, a reconnaissance unit of the US Army arrived at the concentration camps in Gusen and Mauthausen. On May 6, 1945, “units of the 3rd US Army finally liberated around 40,000 prisoners in these camps. In both camps they found the bodies of hundreds of concentration camp prisoners who had died in the days before liberation” (ibid). “Between 1938 and 1945, around 190,000 people from over 40 different nations were imprisoned at the Mauthausen/Gusen concentration camp. At least 90,000 of them died in these camps” (Mauthausen Memorial. 2020. “Liberation.”). Thousands more died in the weeks and months following liberation, because of weakness and frail health and despite the medical care provided by the US Army medical units” (Mauthausen Memorial 2020). Together with US troops a War Crimes Investigating Team arrived in Mauthausen. “It collected evidence of SS war crimes – including key SS documents, which the prisoners had rescued from destruction at risk to their own lives – and in doing so created the basis for the legal prosecution of the perpetrators” (ibid).

The victorious powers over Nazi Germany, the allied forces of the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain and France, realized the historic opportunity for international cooperation on establishing justice and instituted the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (Leher, Stephan P. 2018. Dignity and Human Rights. Language Philosophy and Social Realizations. 11. New York: Routledge). For the first time in human history, the rule of law was instituted on a global level. On November 21, 1945, US prosecutor Robert H. Jackson claimed in his opening statement that the wrongs being brought to justice were such as threatening the existence of civilization itself; the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world had started (ibid. 12). The aggressive warfare of the German Nazis was a menace for the women, men and queer of the whole world, “no home in the world was left untouched, as the whole world was terrified” (ibid). Hundreds of tons of official German documents had been collected and examined. Jackson assures that documents, photographs and films will prove the indictment “by books and records” (ibid. 13). Jackson claimed that after the defeat of the Nazis, the world needed immediate action for justice and the law for the process of the International Military Tribunal had been codified. Jackson prosecuted the Nazi leaders in the name of the law, proving that Germany’s aggressive war was in violation of treaties by which the peace of the world was sought to be safeguarded (ibid).

Jackson was conscious of the fact that there was no continuing international legislative authority that would have developed international law by the normal process of legislation (ibid. 16). In order to avoid future wars, Jackson made statesmen responsible to law (ibid. 17). Jackson introduced the principle of individual leaders being responsible to law for their individual criminal responsibility and brought to justice the Nazi leaders for the crimes committed against humanity (ibid). For the first time in human history, the principle of personal responsibility had been introduced and realized by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg at a global level for a global crime.

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaimed the individual to be the subject of international law. The principle of personal responsibility of every individual for contributing to peace and justice was agreed. Not only are individual states called to protect Human Rights, but every individual is also empowered to claim Human Rights by the UDHR (ibid. 18). In 1948, the limited support by international consensus for the UDHR was evident. In 1948, the UN counted 56 member states (ibid. 32). Universal validity of the UDHR was attained later. A number of international instruments, especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that were both adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966 and entered into force in 1976, marked the further development of the UDHR. The UDHR effectively is agreed to be the foundation of international Human Rights law. A major step towards universal recognition of the UDHR was the UN Vienna Declaration and Program of Action (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner 1993) that was adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on June 25, 1993, when the UN already counted 184 member states (ibid).

The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the solemn commitment of all States to fulfil their obligations to promote universal respect for, and observance and protection of, all Human Rights and fundamental freedoms for all in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, other instruments relating to Human Rights, and international law. The universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question.

In this framework, enhancement of international cooperation in the field of Human Rights is essential for the full achievement of the purposes of the United Nations.

Human Rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings; their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of Governments (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner 1993, art. 1).

In 2020 the UN proudly affirms:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is generally agreed to be the foundation of international Human Rights law. Adopted in 1948, the UDHR has inspired a rich body of legally binding international Human Rights treaties. It continues to be an inspiration to us all whether in addressing injustices, in times of conflict, in societies suffering repression, and in our efforts towards achieving universal enjoyment of Human Rights (United Nations. 2020. “The Foundation of International Human Rights Law.” ).

Over the years, the commitment has been translated into law, whether in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles, regional agreements and domestic law, through which Human Rights are expressed and guaranteed. Indeed, the UDHR has inspired more than 80 international Human Rights treaties and declarations, a great number of regional Human Rights conventions, domestic Human Rights bills, and constitutional provisions, which together constitute a comprehensive legally binding system for the promotion and protection of Human Rights (United Nations 2020).

The UDHR proclaimed the individual to be the subject of international law. The proclamation of the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer by the United Nations is a milestone of human history. Yet, there remains lot of Human Rights work to be realized to empower women, men and queer of this world to effectively claim their Human Rights. The UN has no political instrument, such as a parliament whose members are elected by the citizens of the member states and is capable of forming a government with legislative and juridical powers on a supra-national level. The UN does not have political powers to generate and juridical powers to enforce Human Rights legislation in the member states. The Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19 from February 16 to 20, 2020, praised the prevention and control measures that “have been implemented rapidly, from the early stages in Wuhan and other key areas of Hubei” (Chotiner 2020). Bruce Aylward, who as WHO official leads the Joint Mission with Chinese government officials had to wait for an interview with a journalist from a Western democracy to indirectly affirm that “Chinese officials initially waited weeks to respond to the outbreak of COVID-19, with police even arresting doctors for discussing the appearance of a dangerous new virus” (Vanderklippe 2020). It is not because of the diplomatic necessity not to alienate China as the largest member state of the WHO, as the historian suggests (Chotiner 2020). The UN is not empowered and capacitated by its founding Charter to interfere with the so-called inner affairs of a political system and government of a member state. The Charter of the UN affirms.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll (UN Charter art. 2, n.7).

Chapter VII concerns action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of peace, and acts of aggression. It does not concern the violation of the realization of the rule of Human Rights law within the member states. The Security Council may take very modest measures, if peace is threatened, “These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations” (UN Charter art. 41).

“The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization and came into force on 24 October 1945”[xi]. At the beginning, the Charter affirms “faith in fundamental Human Rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women” and further aims like peace, justice by international law and social progress (United Nations 1945 “UN Charter.”). Chapter 1 speaks on the purposes and principles of the UN and states in Article 1 the purpose “To maintain international peace and security” (ibid). Maintaining international peace and security is a fundamental principle for the global living together of women, men and queer. The member states of the UN affirmed the principle of peace and security as a reaction to the global disaster of World War II. Article 7 of chapter 3 of the Charter lists as the principal organs of the UN “a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice and a Secretariat” (ibid).

The General Assembly consists of all the Members of the United Nations (UN Charter art. 9). The actual powers of the General Assembly are very limited. “The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter”, and “may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters” (UN Charter art. 10). “The General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of promoting international co-operation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification” and shall promote further aims but her functions concern making recommendations (UN Charter art. 13), initiate studies and write or receive reports (UN Charter art. 15). The General Assembly appoints the Secretary General who “shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization” (UN Charter art. 97). The General Assembly also approves the budget of the Organization (UN Charter art. 17) and is responsible for “the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the election of members of the Trusteeship Council” (UN Charter art. 18). The real power of the UN stays with the Security Council.

The power of the Security Council is primarily a function of its permanent members:

The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution (UN Charter art. 23. n. 1).

In 2020 CE, the Allied Forces that were victorious in 1945 in World War II, constitute the permanent members of the Security Council who determine the policies of the UN together with the non-permanent members. 

In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf (UN Charter art. 23, n.1).

Decisions of the Security Council need “an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members” (UN Charter art. 27, n.3a). From this article follows that every permanent member of the Security Council possesses veto power for decisions that are not in the interest of the permanent member. During the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the U.S. and France threatened to veto any resolution using the word “genocide” or deploying forces to try to halt the genocide and more recently, China used of the veto to condemn the worst Human Rights abuses, including those in Sudan, Sri Lanka, Syria, and Myanmar (Trahan, Jennifer. 2019. “Have the Security Council Members Abused their UN Veto Power?” International Center for Transitional Justice, April 16).

The WHO did a good job producing a pandemic preparedness plan for the nations of the world (World Health Organization 2018). The UN Security Council has not yet met to discuss a supranational emergency plan to organize economic and social recovery for the billions of unemployed and millions of failed small businesses. The UN Security Council has no mandate and does not think about rules to ensure that the biggest companies of the world comply with the rule of Human Rights law. Supranational thinking and planning policies that empower realizing the physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural, political and spiritual integrity of individuals, is not yet on the agenda of the women, men and queer sitting in the Security Council and the women, men and queer who make them represent their countries in the UN. The Security Council is not ready to operate as supranational authority that deals with the physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural, political and spiritual integrity of the billions of women, men and queer of the world population. The UN is not yet capable and empowered to work, feel, and think on a supranational level. There is a need to develop plans for supranational social and political structures that aim at securing peace and security, justice and integrity for all women, men and queer on this earth on the basis that all women, men and queer are equal in dignity, freedom and rights. Not preparing such a plan ignores the possibilities of women, men and queer who do not empower themselves to think and feel the world on a supranational level. Realizing such a plan calls for the social choices of billions of women, men and queer and we do not have the power to organize such a supranational process. Yet, we have the power to make plans for a legal, political and cultural framework, to create possibility conditions for the integrity of the women, men and queer of this earth. When will the Security Council take action and recognize, respect and preserve the integrity of women, men and queer artists in the cultures of the world? When will the Security Council recognize the creation of art as one of the most precious resources for sustaining the physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural and spiritual integrity of the women, men and queer of the world? When will the Security Council start educating for a world culture of music, painting, literature and all possible artistic expressions based on Human Rights law rule? We do not know. We know that there was a Paleolithic sculptress or sculptor, who produced the small figure of Fanny in the Old Stone Age. Art is as necessary to serve peace and security as weapons. Will there be a political time when Security Council members are capable of facing human life of earth as interactions of individual women, men and queer? Women, men and queer sustain their integrity with the help of music, literature, paintings and sculptures. Art is a very elementary resource for the integrity of women, men and queer, art helps to cope with life and creates resilience to threats of life. Who thinks in the times of the COVID-19 pandemic about the necessity of art in the Security Council? This question is not absurd; this question indicates the necessity for developing all expressions of individual existence. When the individual is recognized, international and supranational institutions will arise. Individuals are inseparable from speech-acts. The speech-act is a mutual interaction of at least one person who speaks and of another person who listens.  Speech-acts who realize social choices of dignity, freedom and equal rights are the basic elements of individual policies, the policies of local communities, regions, states and supranational organizations.

The powers of the Security Council serve to maintain international peace and security. The powers do not serve to empower the individual woman, man and queer world citizen to claim the effective rule of Human Rights law in the member states of the UN.

The Social and Economic Council consists of 54 members of the UN that are elected by the General Assembly (UN Charter art. 61). The Social and Economic Council initiates studies, reports on “international economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related matters”, and recommends to members and the General Assembly (UN Charter art. 62). The Social and Economic Council may furnish information to the Security Council (UN Charter art. 65) but does not dispose over governmental, legislative or juridical enforcement powers. In 2005, on the sixtieth birthday of the United Nations, Antonio Papisca, professor of Human Rights law rule at the UN, joined the voices calling for necessary UN reform to strengthen democratic institutional multilateralism in the world system (Papisca, Antonio. 2005. “Article 51 of the United Nations Charter: Exception or General Rule? The Nightmare of the Easy War.” Pace diritti umani: Peace Human Rights 2005 (1): 13–28). Papisca proposes giving the Economic and Social Council equal status with the Security Council; enforcement power would capacitate the Economic and Social Council to guide and assess the policies for realizing the right to development that the UN Declaration of 1986 proclaimed (ibid. 25). The United Nations Development Programme helps “countries develop strong policies, skills, partnerships and institutions so they can sustain their progress”[xii] without independent and effective enforcement power for guiding and assessing its policies.

In 1945, „the peoples of the United Nations” reaffirm in the UN Charter “faith in fundamental Human Rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small” (United Nations 1945).

Three years later, the Preamble of the UDHR assesses again:

The peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental Human Rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom (United Nations 1948).

The Preamble of the UDHR not only calls on individual states to protect Human Rights but also calls on every individual to promote Human Rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaimed the individual to be the subject of international law. The principle of personal responsibility of every individual for contributing to peace and justice was agreed.

The General Assembly, proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by  teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction (United Nations 1948). 

The Constitution of the WHO was adopted by the International Health Conference held in New York from June 19 to July 22, 1946, was signed on July 22, 1946 by the representatives of 61 States and entered into force on April 7, 1948. The last of four Amendments came into force September 15, 2005 (World Health Organization. Regional Office for Africa 2006, 1). Article two (a) and (b) of the Constitution of the WHO clearly show the international function of the agency.

(a) to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international

health work;

(b) to establish and maintain effective collaboration with the United

Nations, specialized agencies, governmental health administrations,

professional groups and such other organizations as may be deemed

appropriate (World Health Organization. Regional Office for Africa 2006, 2).

More than 7000 people from more than 150 countries working in 150 country offices, in 6 regional offices and at headquarters in Geneva[xiii] cooperated on a global level to learn the lessons from the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic and elaborated a checklist for pandemic influenza risk and impact management (World Health Organization 2018, 2). Dawood et al. estimate that globally there were 201,200 respiratory deaths (Dawood et al. “Estimated global mortality associated with the first 12 months of 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 virus circulation: a modelling study.” The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Vol 12 (9): 687–6952012, 687). 51% of the deaths occurred in southeast Asia and Africa (ibid). The estimated mortality rate in the African region was about two to four times that in countries elsewhere (ibid. 691). In Europe, articles and reports on the Swine Flu pandemic disappeared within a year. In Austria, the press and the population smiled at the three million of protective facemasks that the health ministry had stored during the pandemic. Protective devices were not necessary because of the mild development of the pandemic. Until the COVID-19 pandemic, the Austrian population considered the stored masses of unused masks as a typical example for the waste of the taxpayers’ money by the government and not as a necessary preparation for a future pandemic. WHO has as a specialized United Nations agency, the professional resources to investigate a pandemic on a global level, the capability to learn the lessons, and to update its checklist for influenza pandemic preparedness planning (World Health Organization 2018, 2). 

Fulfilling its international function according to its constitution, WHO publishes “A checklist for pandemic influenza risk and impact management: building capacity for pandemic response” (World Health Organization 2018). The checklist is an instrument for UN member nations to prepare a national pandemic preparedness plan. The checklist rarely and indirectly affirms the individual woman, man and queer citizen as the basic subject agent of a pandemic preparedness plan, the checklist does not take into account the individual woman, man and queer as being a subject of international law.  The checklist is not in contact with the proclamation of the UDHR “that every individual and every organ of society” should work securing the universal and effective recognition and observance” of Human Rights (United Nations 1948). The checklist does not regard the necessity to empower the individual woman, man and queer being an active and responsible agent in realizing WHO health guidance and assessments. I suppose that many of the 7000 women, men and queer who collaborate at the WHO silently often complain about lacking respect for their own voices and a lack of effectiveness of their work because of the mechanisms and organizational structures of the WHO. The WHO is a specialized agency of the UN according to the UN Charter (United Nations 1945, art. 57) and the Economic and Social Council assures the cooperation with the UN (United Nations 1945, art. 63)[xiv]. One could say the WHO and the Economic and Social Council do not have enforcement powers for their guidance and assessment of human development, health and Human Rights and therefore there is no use insisting on the basic agent of the individual woman, man and queer to realize the aims of the organization. It is not that easy.

It is critical to managing a pandemic situation “knowing who will do what, when, and with what resources”, and “all stakeholders need to be involved in the planning process” (World Health Organization 2018, 4). In order to achieve these objectives a concept of operations is essential that “establishes roles, responsibilities and how organizations will work together and coordinate at national, subnational and local levels of pandemic response. This includes government agencies and departments, and other public, private and nongovernmental partners” (ibid. 5). The document touches at the individual level and at Human Rights, when “relevant legislation and policy frameworks” have to be taken into consideration (ibid). The checklist speaks of the necessity for a legal framework to deal with the conflict of interests between “existing laws or individual Human Rights” and measures “that are in the best interests of community health” (ibid. 7). The checklist does not insist that legislation that restricts personal freedoms and other basic Human Rights has to be agreed on by the institutions of a democracy that are based on the rule of Human Rights law. “Isolation or quarantine of infected individuals, people suspected of being infected, or people from areas where pandemic influenza infection is established, travel or movement restrictions, closure of educational institutions and prohibition of mass gatherings” (ibid. 7) have to be legitimized by parliament according to the rule of Human Rights law. Preparing the structures and procedures for risk communication and community engagement is “an essential part of the public health response” to any disease outbreak (ibid. 9). The document insists that the structures and procedures are agreed but does not insist on a democratic legitimation for the necessary legal and policy framework. I do not want to criticize the thousands of health professionals working at the WHO for neglecting essential Human Rights in their documents. I rather want to point at the UDHR that claims, “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized” (United Nations 1948, Art. 28).

We have to consider the proclamation of the UDHR by the UN together with the individual woman, man and queer claiming their equal dignity, freedom and rights. The individual is inseparable from the individual. Individual women, men and queer realize social choices for their equal dignity, freedom and rights by interacting in speech-acts where a speaker meets a listener and the listener turns to becoming a speaker, respecting both the equal dignity, freedom and rights of each other. Today, May 8, 2020, we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. Already two months after the unconditional capitulation of Nazi Germany, delegates from 50 states signed the Charter of the United Nations, which came into, force on October 24, 1945, so that the UN was born. The end of World War II was also a stimulus for the integration of the European nation-states. The central ideal that made the US Marshall Plan in 1947 work in Europe was not the money of 13 billion dollars, but the requirement of the US that the Western European states elaborate a concrete economic reconstruction plan together and for all Western European countries. Before World War II, there were political movements in Europe that planned for a European transnational integration, and they contributed after 1945 to the pressure by the US government that Europe would integrate in order to prevent any further wars between its nations. The US was tired of bringing peace to Europe at the price of millions of lives of US soldiers.

In May 2020, Europe faces the necessity of an economic reconstruction plan after the shutdown of its economy due to efforts to end the COVID-19 pandemic which produced a disastrous unemployment rate. The European Union must realize the liberation from unemployment and economic recession on its own and does not really have a preparedness plan for this situation. Will the democratic structures of the liberal democracies in the European Union succeed in organizing an economic reconstruction plan together and for all? I do not know. I really do hope that the EU will succeed by following the rule of Human Rights law. I hope that the institutions of the EU develop and realize economic and social reconstruction respecting the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer at a supranational level, at the national level, and at the subnational level, that is at the regional and local levels, including public and private organizations. Democratic procedures start with speech-acts of persons who speak and listen to each other respecting their equal dignity, freedom and rights. One does not lose one’s dignity because of the social choice to help realize the dignity, freedom and rights of others by relinquishing one’s right to freedom. On the contrary, democracy functions on the mutual condition that the citizens interact by helping each other to realize social choices of dignity. If the individual woman, man and queer effectively realizes social choices of dignity, Human Rights will flourish in communities and constitutional settings. The UN was founded because the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer of the world was proclaimed to be respected and protected. WHO and the other agencies and organs of the UN must insist that women, men and queer all over the world effectively are empowered to claim their Human Rights.

[i] “Coronavirus: Facts and security regulations in 16 languages,” Österreichischer Integrationsfonds, https://www.integrationsfonds.at/coronainfo/en/ (accessed April 27, 2020).

[ii] “2009 H1N1 Pandemic (H1N1pdm09 virus),” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html (accessed May 7, 2020).

[iii] “Hear what Barack Obama said in 2014 about pandemics,” CNN politics, https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/04/10/barack-obama-2014-pandemic-comments-sot-ctn-vpx.cnn (accessed April 29, 2020).

[iv] “Outbreak: 10 of the worst pandemics in history,” MPHOnline, https://www.mphonline.org/worst-pandemics-in-history/ (accessed April 29, 2020).

[v] “Coronavirus in Österreich: Daten und Karten,” ORF.at, https://orf.at/corona/stories/3157533/ (accessed April 29, 2020).

[vi] “Ischgl (Gemeinde Ischgl,” Austria-Forum, https://austria-forum.org/af/AustriaWiki/Ischgl_%28Gemeinde_Ischgl%29 (accessed April 29, 2020).

[vii] “Interaktive Statistik,” Tirol Tourism Research, https://www.ttr.tirol/interaktive-statistik (accessed April 29, 2020).

[viii] “Skifahren,” Ischgl.com, https://www.ischgl.com/de/Active/Active-Winter/Skifahren (accessed April 29, 2020).

[ix] “Ischgl,” Tirol.at, https://www.tirol.at/orte/a-ischgl (accessed April 29, 2020).

[x] “Outbreak: 10 of the worst pandemics in history,” MPHOnline, https://www.mphonline.org/worst-pandemics-in-history/ (accessed April 29, 2020).

[xi] “The UN Charter,” United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/ (accessed May 7, 2020).

[xii] United Nations Development Programme, https://www.undp.org/ (accessed May 8, 2020).

[xiii] “Who we are,” World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are (accessed May 7, 2020).

[xiv] “About Us,” United Nations Economic and Social Council, https://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/about/ (accessed May 8, 2020).