Following two years of negotiations, on Friday, the 194 member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) proved unable to reach consensus on a draft of its new wildly contested ‘Pandemic Treaty.’
The treaty was originally aimed at pooling resources and knowledge in a pandemic and at centralizing management—including legally binding decisions on lockdowns, mandatory vaccinations, border closures, vaccination passports, and other measures—giving unprecedented power to unelected officials at the WHO.
Several countries, as well as individual MEPs and national politicians, have resisted and campaigned against the UN agency’s perceived power grab. Earlier this month, former UKIP and Brexit leader Nigel Farage grabbed headlines as he joined the Action on World Health (AWH) in their efforts to stop the treaty, going as far as recommending Britain leave the WHO rather than comply with the treaty’s measures.
A watered-down, vaguely formulated version of the treaty was eventually presented, after public pressure to address sovereignty concerns. Even so, experts warned that the treaty would open the doors for a more opaque and gradual power grab if adopted.
The UN-based organization had set the goal of formally adopting the pact at its annual meeting in Geneva this week. At the conclusion of the failed talks, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus addressed delegates, saying:
This is not a failure. We will try everything—believing that anything is possible—and make this happen because the world still needs a pandemic treaty.
Dutch MEP Rob Roos (European Conservatives and Reformists), has campaigned against the treaty across the world. Roos reasons that the Pact would transfer too much power to China and ‘big pharma’ lobbyists while ordinary citizens would lose their democratic rights to a WHO executive that cannot be voted out.
“These are global players with huge geopolitical and financial interests. And who pays, decides,” Roos was quoted as saying. In addition, he has cited the folly of implementing one common policy in different countries:
During a pandemic, the best approach will not be the same everywhere. One thinks of differences in culture, but also population density, or how the [proper] balance between risk and freedom is viewed [in each culture].”
Supporters claimed that the Pact would end uncoordinated responses to future pandemics—citing the experience of COVID-19—and ensure all WHO signatories would have equal access to masks, medicine, and vaccines.
Ghebreyesus said work on getting the treaty accepted would continue in the future.
“Of course, we all wish that we had been able to reach a consensus on the agreement in time for this health assembly and cross the finish line,” Tedros said. “But I remain confident that you still will—because where there is a will, there is a way.”
What exactly ensnared the negotiations has not been disclosed officially, but diplomats have cited vast differences between nations being willing to share information about emerging pathogens and the technologies to combat them.
The latest draft proposed that WHO get 20% of all pandemic-related products (such as tests, treatments, and vaccines) countries have in stock while urging them to disclose their arrangements with private companies.
Contradicting Farage’s claim that the former would be mandatory, and would thereby undermine sovereignty, earlier this month, UK health minister Andrew Stephenson responded that this concerned a voluntary mechanism that would involve firms agreeing to give away vaccines in return for information that would help them develop their products.
In place of a pandemic treaty, the WHO will look at amending its nearly two-decades-old International Health Regulations (IHR)— legally binding regulations focused on helping countries detect and respond to health emergencies.Such potential amendments will be part of the discussion during the 77th World Health Assembly, which concludes on June 1th.
