Member states adopt World Health Organization’s Pandemic Agreement

Member states at the World Health Assembly on Tuesday unanimously voted to adopt the World Health Organization’s (WHO's) Pandemic Agreement, whose stated objective is “to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics.”

Do countries retain their national sovereignty?

The treaty, which has been three years in the making, has come under heavy criticism and opposition from populists. Language in previous drafts of the agreement has suggested that the WHO aims to use public health as a vehicle to dictate policies in member states, eroding their national sovereignties. Observers have accused the WHO of trying to position itself to mandate vaccines and lockdowns in participating countries during future pandemics.

WHO officials have denied these accusations. The final Pandemic Agreement approved on Tuesday, as well as the press release announcing its adoption, emphasized the WHO’s denial.

“Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the Director-General of the World Health Organization, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic law, as appropriate, or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns,” the document says.

However, some observers may see this clause as a verbal sleight of hand. While affirming that WHO officials cannot dictate national policies, other clauses in the agreement insist that member states adjust their policies to align with the WHO’s.

“Each Party should review and consider amending, as appropriate, its national and/or domestic legislation with a view to ensuring that it is able to implement this Article in a timely and effective manner,” says one clause.

Member states are also required to create policies focusing on “pandemic-related health products,” which would include vaccines, masks, and test kits. 

“Each Party shall develop and implement national and/or regional policies, adapted to its domestic circumstances, regarding the inclusion of provisions in publicly funded research and development grants, contracts, and other similar funding arrangements, particularly with private entities and public-private partnerships, for the development of pandemic-related health products, that promote timely and equitable access to such products, particularly for developing countries, during public health emergencies of international concern, including pandemic emergencies, and regarding the publication of such provisions.”

The agreement also establishes that “the World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

Still, the Pandemic Agreement is significantly more muted than previous drafts, perhaps due to public outrage. For example, it no longer contains a clause granting the WHO director-general sweeping powers to declare pandemics and no longer requires member states to suppress “misinformation.”

However, some ominous clauses remain.

Propaganda

Member states are required to “strengthen science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population,” a euphemism for propaganda. They must provide their populations with “science and evidence-based information on pandemics and their causes,” as well as on the “efficacy and safety of pandemic-related health products” such as vaccines. This is to be done through “risk communication and effective community-level engagement.”

Moreover, while the agreement does not specifically call for mandates, WHO member states are expected to find ways to increase compliance with pandemic mandates and trust in the public health establishment.

“Each Party shall, as appropriate, conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions, authorities and agencies,” the agreement says.

Climate change

The treaty stressed that pandemics should be viewed in the context of other “public health” factors, such as climate change.

“[A]dequate pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery is part of a continuum to combat other health emergencies and achieve greater health equity through resolute action on the social, environmental, cultural, political and economic determinants of health,” the document reads.

It also emphasizes “the importance and public health impact of growing threats such as climate change, poverty and hunger, fragile and vulnerable settings, weak primary healthcare and the spread of antimicrobial resistance.”

The agreement requires member states to see the climate as a factor that “may increase the risk of pandemics” and to “consider these factors in the development and implementation of relevant policies, strategies, plans, and/or measures, at the international, regional and national levels as appropriate, in accordance with national and/or domestic law and applicable international law.”

“The Parties shall promote a One Health approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, recognizing that the health of people is interconnected with animal health and the environment, that is coherent, integrated, coordinated and collaborative among all relevant organizations, sectors and actors, as appropriate, in accordance with national and/or domestic law, and applicable international law, and taking into account national circumstances.” The WHO describes One Health as "an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems."

US withdrawal

The day he took office, President Trump signed an executive order instructing the administration to begin withdrawing from the WHO, which includes cutting off funding and participation in WHO-led projects. The EO also ordered the Secretary of State to withdraw from negotiations on the WHO’s Pandemic Agreement and International Health Regulations.

At a rally in January, Trump signaled he might consider rejoining the WHO at a future date if officials “clean it up,” though he did not elaborate. In February, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (TN) introduced a bill to codify President Trump’s withdrawal.