W.H.O. Goes into Overtime Drafting Pandemic Treaty as Opposition Grows

Representatives of the countries comprising the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) failed to submit a finalized draft this weekend of a proposed international accord to govern how to address pandemics, meaning the parties will likely continue to debate the document until the World Health Assembly begins.

The World Health Assembly, the W.H.O.’s annual meeting to address issues of global concern, is expected to begin on May 27. Under the leadership of Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the W.H.O. has spent much of the past three years encouraging the establishment of a global “pandemic treaty” to empower the United Nations to address international health emergencies. The idea surfaced in the aftermath of the W.H.O.’s total failure to competently respond to the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, which began as an isolated epidemic of a novel disease in Wuhan, China, and rapidly spread as the Chinese communist government opposed travel restrictions and obfuscated W.H.O. research to investigate its origins.

W.H.O. member parties have reportedly hotly disagreed on several of the provisions in the multiple drafts of what is formally known as the “W.H.O. convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response,” or “WHO CA+.” The two most controversial matters are how much to expand the W.H.O.’s authority to declare public health emergencies within countries, potentially curtailing national sovereignty, and provisions in the text demanding “equity” in responsibility for developing medications and vaccines, stockpiling personal protective gear, and other costly health services.

The W.H.O. conceded in a statement on Friday that the negotiators had failed to make the progress they were hoping for by May 10. They nonetheless claimed the parties involved were committed to creating a workable pandemic treaty and would continue their work beyond the deadline.

“Governments meeting at the World Health Organization headquarters in Geneva agreed to resume hybrid and in-person discussions over coming weeks to advance work on critical issues,” the W.H.O. asserted, “including around a proposed new global system for pathogen access and benefits sharing (i.e. life-saving vaccines, treatments and diagnostics); pandemic prevention and One Health; and the financial coordination needed to scale up countries’ capacities to prepare for and respond to pandemics.”

“During more than two years of intensive negotiations, WHO’s Member States have shown unwavering commitment to forging a generational agreement to protect the world from a repeat of the horrors caused by the [Wuhan coronavirus] pandemic,” Tedros said in a statement published Friday. “I welcome the determination that all countries have shown to continue their work and fulfill the mission on which they embarked.”

One of the co-chairs of the collection of international representatives working on the draft, Roland Driece, conceded that talks were “challenging,” but insisted, “We cannot afford to miss this historic opportunity to make the world safer from the next pandemic threat.”

The publicly available draft text of the pandemic treaty as it existed in March includes extensive provisions urging countries to share intellectual property related to medical technology, to share medical supplies, and “facilitate or incentivize the transfer of technology and know-how for pandemic-related health products.” The text encourages member parties to “promote the transfer of relevant technology and related know-how for pandemic-related health products by private rights holders” and establishes a vague responsibility among developed states to help “developing” states pay for the healthcare infrastructure necessary to abide by the treaty. These provisions have caused controversy in the past as the second-largest economy in the world, China, still claims “developing” country status.

The draft text also includes the establishment of a “Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network,” apparently overriding economic agreements made by sovereign states with each other.

“Each Party undertakes to avoid having national stockpiles of pandemic-related health products that unnecessarily exceed the quantities anticipated to be needed for domestic pandemic preparedness and response,” another divisive part of the text reads.

According to Reuters, the draft agreement as it existed last week included a more specific call for “pharmaceutical manufacturers to reserve 10% of such items to donate to the WHO, and 10% for the agency to buy at affordable prices to distribute in poorer countries during health emergencies.” The ten percent number prompted alarm as some member countries were reportedly concerned the number was too high to ensure those countries would be prepared for internal health emergencies.

The United Kingdom’s health officials issued statements during negotiations last week suggesting London would not sign to the draft as it currently exists, as it is a threat to the country’s sovereignty. Conservative leader Nigel Farage launched a campaign this week to oppose the adoption of the W.H.O. pandemic accord, warning that the draft could result in an international push “for mandatory lockdowns and vaccinations.”

“It must reform to respect national sovereignty, stop interfering in people’s lives, and abandon the frankly terrifying pandemic treaty,” Farage said, referring to the W.H.O. itself. “The WHO can no longer ignore the growing dissatisfaction from people across the world. It either reforms, or countries must leave it altogether!”

In the United States, Republican lawmakers have taken the lead in opposing a push to bind America to the pandemic accord, potentially without following the constitutional provisions required for the country to sign into a treaty-level agreement. In March, Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) introduced a bill specifying that, if passed, the White House could not become a signatory to the pandemic accord without recognizing it as a treaty, which would require two-thirds of the Senate to approve.

In April, over half of the Senate signed a letter to President Joe Biden opposing the pandemic accord.

“Some of the over 300 proposals for amendments made by member states would substantially increase the WHO’s health emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty,” the letter warned.

Tedros has responded to criticism by claiming that any concerns about the erosion of sovereignty are “misinformation” and the pandemic accord will actually strengthen sovereign powers.

“W.H.O. will not even be a party to the agreement. The parties are governments and governments alone,” Tedros said in February. “Far from ceding sovereignty, the agreement actually affirms national sovereignty and national responsibility in its foundational principles. Indeed, the agreement is itself an exercise of sovereignty.”

“Had the agreement been in place before [Wuhan coronavirus], we would not have lost so much,” he claimed.

Related: WATCH — President Donald Trump in 2020: ‘We Are Terminating’ Our Relationship with W.H.O.

White House

Follow Frances Martel on Facebook and Twitter.