Leading Slovak politician denies Slovakia’s pandemic, as health ministry rejects revised WHO regulations [Advocacy Lab Content]

Slovak MP Peter Kotlár is accused of bringing “international disgrace” on Slovakia following his pandemic denial and Slovakia’s rejection of a deal to revise the International Health Regulations (IHR) at the World Health Assembly in Geneva.

The controversial and divisive decision to distance Slovakia from the IHR amendments was met with widespread discontent, a recall vote, and an emergency committee meeting, with health experts and opposition politicians calling it an international embarrassment.

More than 190 countries approved the new IHR amendments, but Slovakia’s lone decision to distance itself, surprised health officials, while causing a major backlash in national politics and among the expert community.

Health experts perceive Slovakia’s position not only as an embarrassment, but they are concerned Slovakia is jeopardising its place at the negotiating table and paving the way for international isolation in public health.

Experts say there are real concerns that in another public health crisis, Slovakia might have slower access to information, research, and possibly vaccines.

In an open letter to the health ministry, published by most medical associations covering doctors, pharmacists, and medical students, healthcare leaders said: “From a professional point of view, we consider Slovakia’s distancing itself from the adopted updated International Health Regulations to be incomprehensible and, in our opinion, detrimental to the citizens of our country.”

They added, “It is important for Slovakia to be part of a common effort to preserve the health of society.”

Emergency parliamentary committee meeting suspended

Following the publication of the letter and an open call by health experts and scientists to the government to respect scientific knowledge in the field of public health, all four opposition parties called an emergency health committee meeting last Wednesday, 19 June.

They demanded an explanation for the decision from Health Minister Zuzana Dolinková and MP Peter Kotlár, who is leading a government-initiated pandemic management investigation, Kotlár also played a significant role in forming Slovakia’s position.

The health minister failed to attend, sending state secretary Michal Štofko in her place, who assured that an inter-ministerial pandemic group is due to meet this week to discuss the next course of action on the matter.

He added that Slovakia remains a member of the WHO with all its rights and obligations.

MP Kotlár read from a statement he had already published three weeks ago and caused further outrage at the meeting, which was also attended by health experts and doctors when he questioned the pandemic.

“In the findings of my investigation, which I will present in September, there is also clear evidence that there was no pandemic in Slovakia in terms of what a pandemic means, in terms of incidence, and other measurable parameters,” he said.

The emergency committee on Slovakia’s IHR position was suspended by MPs, and it remains unclear if it will reconvene to discuss the government’s next moves.

Opposition’s unsuccessful push for MP Kotlár’s removal

“We ask Minister Dolinková to reverse the decision to distance ourselves from the IHR and for her to distance herself from the dangerous actions of MP Kotlár,” MP Oskar Dvořák (Progressive Slovakia/Renew) told Euractiv after the committee meeting.

“He told the committee that there was no pandemic in front of invited experts and scientists. If he also used such arguments at the WHO, he not only caused an international embarrassment but also directly jeopardised Slovakia’s position in future negotiations,” Dvořák continued.

The turmoil caused by the disassociation from the IHR amendments and MP Kotlár’s ‘no-pandemic’ comments culminated last Thursday, 20 June.

The opposition party Freedom and Solidarity (ECR) tabled a motion calling the government to remove MP Kotlár, “for his absurd statements about a non-existent pandemic and for the international disgrace he has caused at the WHO level.”

“It is in Slovakia’s interest to join the other member states and be at the negotiating table. The protection of citizens’ health cannot give way to the delusions of MP Kotlár,” Dvořák added.

The opposition failed to break the coalition’s majority and recall MP Kotlár from his position.

Condolence messages after the Assembly

Slovakia’s representative on the WHO Executive Board, Professor Jozef Šuvada, who presented Slovakia’s position at the Assembly, talked to the media after the committee meeting.

“I respect that we are led by an executive that we elected, and I did not go against the decision I was given,” he said.

It is not clear to him how the health ministry or the government plans to protect the health of Slovak citizens in an emergency. Nor does he know why Slovakia has decided to disassociate from the amendments.

The Ministry’s next steps remain unclear

The IHR provides a legal framework to ensure countries’ rights and obligations in case of a public health emergency with a cross-border potential and strives to prevent and control the spread of diseases.

The new amendments introduce a new pandemic emergency definition and, based on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, aim to improve response to future outbreaks, disease surveillance, information sharing, and capacity strengthening.

For Slovakia to oppose the updated IHR entirely, it must submit a formal rejection of the entire document signed by the health ministry or the government within one year.

The health ministry said in its official statement: “Slovakia verbally disassociated itself from the adoption of this package, i.e. distanced itself from its adoption. It is our understanding that after the agreement on the final text of the revised IHR articles, there was insufficient time for countries to study in detail the changes incorporated directly at the meeting.”

The Ministry added that it will continue to protect the primary interest of Slovakia and its citizens in future negotiations. Euractiv inquired further about the issue, but the Ministry did not elaborate on its reasoning.

[By Filip Áč, Edited by Vasiliki Angouridi, Brian Maguire | Euractiv’s Advocacy Lab]

Read more with Euractiv