WHO PANDEMIC TREATY PASSES – Sovereignty at RISK?

The World Health Organization has adopted a groundbreaking pandemic agreement that promises global coordination for future health crises while raising serious concerns about national sovereignty.

At a Glance

  • WHO member countries unanimously approved a pandemic agreement aimed at improving global coordination during health emergencies
  • The agreement requires countries to share virus samples and ensures access to tests, vaccines, and treatments, with 20% allocated to poorer nations
  • The United States was notably absent from negotiations following the Trump administration’s withdrawal from WHO
  • Critics warn the treaty could undermine national sovereignty by granting WHO unprecedented authority over public health decisions
  • The agreement requires 60 countries to ratify it before taking effect, with implementation details still being finalized

A “Historic” Agreement with Mixed Reception

In a move described as “historic” by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, member nations unanimously adopted a pandemic agreement during the organization’s annual assembly in Geneva. The accord emerged from lessons learned during the disjointed global response to COVID-19 and aims to establish a unified approach to preventing, preparing for, and responding to future pandemics. Under the agreement, countries that share virus samples will receive guaranteed access to tests, medicines, and vaccines, with up to 20% of these resources allocated to the WHO for distribution to poorer nations.

“The world is safer today thanks to the leadership, collaboration and commitment of our member states to adopt the historic WHO Pandemic Agreement,” said Tedros.

The agreement will enter into force once 60 countries ratify it, though many details remain under development. Notably, countries have until May 2026 to finalize the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) mechanism, which governs how pathogens and resulting medical countermeasures will be shared internationally. This reflects ongoing tensions between wealthy and developing nations over equitable access to vaccines and treatments during global health emergencies.

American Absence and Questions of Enforcement

A significant shadow over the agreement is the absence of the United States, which withdrew from participation in the final stages following the Trump administration’s decision to exit the WHO. This withdrawal raises questions about the agreement’s effectiveness, as does the apparent lack of enforcement mechanisms for countries that fail to comply with its provisions. US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been openly critical of the organization, urging other nations to reconsider their involvement.

“I urge the world’s health ministers and the WHO to take our withdrawal from the organisation as a wake-up call,” said US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr.

Despite these challenges, supporters emphasize the agreement’s potential to prevent the fragmented approach that characterized the early COVID-19 response. The treaty aims to enhance surveillance capabilities, improve coordination between countries, and ensure more equitable access to medical countermeasures. Proponents argue these measures are essential for addressing the inherently global nature of pandemic threats, which respect no national boundaries.

Sovereignty Concerns and the “One Health” Approach

While the agreement explicitly reaffirms the sovereignty of member states in public health matters, it simultaneously designates the WHO as “the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” This apparent contradiction has fueled criticism from those concerned about national autonomy. The agreement promotes a “One Health” approach that integrates human, animal, and environmental health considerations, requiring countries to strengthen their regulatory frameworks with WHO assistance.

More controversially, the agreement contains provisions requiring member nations to combat misinformation during health emergencies and take steps to enhance public trust in scientific advice and WHO recommendations. Critics argue these measures could be used to silence legitimate debate about pandemic policies. Additional concerns focus on language that could mandate the adoption of WHO-approved medical practices, potentially including experimental vaccines, and the treaty’s emphasis on international and regional collaboration that some fear could lead to expanded global governance.

Implementation Challenges Ahead

As the implementation process begins, significant challenges remain. Beyond securing the necessary 60 ratifications, the WHO must navigate the delicate balance between promoting global coordination and respecting national sovereignty. The continuing development of the PABS mechanism will be critical, as will the establishment of effective monitoring systems. Without the participation of the United States, questions persist about whether the agreement can achieve its ambitious goals of preventing future pandemic catastrophes.

For nations considering ratification, the decision involves weighing the benefits of international cooperation against potential constraints on national autonomy. The agreement’s provisions on surveillance, information sharing, and resource allocation offer concrete advantages, particularly for developing countries with limited healthcare infrastructure. However, the requirements to align with WHO guidelines and combat what the organization defines as misinformation present legitimate concerns about the scope of international authority in domestic matters.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR