Disagreement over WHO pandemic treaty. Why?

In late 2019, the coronavirus began to be discussed across countries such as the United States. Fast forward nearly four years, and the deadly pandemic has captured more than 7 million lives. For these reasons, such as the fatal COVID-19 statistic, the WHO (World Health Organization) pandemic treaty may have sounded like a no-brainer to implement. The treaty aimed to enhance global cooperation in preventing, preparing for, and responding to pandemics by establishing clear guidelines and commitments for resource sharing, information exchange, and collective action. Although the treaty appears to benefit WHO member states at face value, it was never implemented. The disagreement stems from a multitude of reasons: differing national interests, concerns about sovereignty, and the specifics of enforcement and compliance and mechanisms. In this short paper, I will discuss the key points of disagreement and highlight why, ultimately, this treaty was not in the best interest of the WHO and its member states.

Sovereignty and Control:
The WHO is an international body, so many member states are reluctant to cede control over their national health. The treaty included provisions that appear worrisome to member states, such as mandatory data sharing, international coordination, etc. For example, one of the provisions stipulates compliance with WHO guidelines during health emergencies. Article 9 of the draft treaty stated that member states must report public health emergencies within 24 hours of detection and provide all relevant data to the WHO. Although the article does not sound detrimental, member-states are hesitant to abide by such measures as they fear that their national sovereignty could be undermined and thus lead to external interference in domestic health policies. Specifically, high-income countries like the United States and China resist such measures that might limit their autonomy. This comes after the United States and China faced criticism during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic for their lack of transparency and unilateral actions, which hindered a coordinated global response. They fear losing control over such decisions, which is why provisions like Article 9 served as a significant barrier to reaching an agreement.

Equitable Access to Resources:
There is a debate over whether there will be equitable access to resources such as vaccines and treatments during pandemics. Developing countries are pushing for a guarantee that they will have fair access to these resources. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many developing countries did not have fair access to these resources. On the other hand, wealthier nations secured the majority of vaccine supplies. This left lower-income countries with limited access. Articles 12 and 13 focus on ensuring equitable access to vaccines, treatments, and other resources. Given these provisions, some may be curious as to why the question of having equitable access to resources was a reason for the delay in the pandemic treaty. The answer lies in one word: guarantee. Low-income countries want a guarantee that they will be able to secure pandemic resources fairly. Many member states see the treaty's proposed mechanisms for equitable access as inadequate, and they have reason to feel so. By mid-2021, high-income countries had secured more than 75% of vaccine doses, leaving many low-income countries with less than 2% vaccination coverage. The previous failure to distribute vaccines to low-income countries has made member states strive for perfection in ensuring that what happened doesn't happen.

Timeliness and Deadlines:
The pandemic treaty has faced backlash for its untimeliness. Initially, the goal was to finalize the entire agreement by mid-2023. Negotiators have brought up ideas for adopting and implementing various measures. The establishment of an impartial monitoring commission tasked with generating periodic evaluations of state parties' compliance is being proposed during the treaty discussions. This committee would serve as an essential oversight tool to guarantee that nations fulfill their responsibilities on time by confirming the timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of states' self-reports. This idea has faced significant delays and calls for an extension due to the complexity of the negotiations and differing national interests. With 194 member states, negotiators have struggled to adhere to the original timeless. It has proved difficult to navigate member states’ diverse and often conflicting interests. Because the pandemic treaty is legally binding and so many member states exist, it has been difficult to finalize a treaty with which member states can agree. To combat inefficiencies, the WHO aims to streamline these processes to ensure the world is better prepared for future pandemics. However, achieving consensus on these timelines has proven challenging. 

Conclusion:

A pandemic treaty is needed now more than ever. However, many states have deemed the proposed treaty flawed, inadequate, and inappropriate. The complexity of negotiating a pandemic treaty that balances global public health needs with national interests has been at the heart of the disagreements.

Works Cited

Cullinan, Kerry. “EXCLUSIVE: Read Latest Pandemic Agreement Draft ahead of Monday’s Negotiations - Health Policy Watch.” Health Policy Watch, 15 Feb. 2024, healthpolicy-watch.news/exclusive-read-latest-pandemic-agreement-draft-ahead-of-mondays-negotiations/. Accessed 26 June 2024.

Field, Matt. “WHO Member States Are Negotiating a Pandemic Treaty. But Will Countries Follow the New Rules?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 15 Feb. 2024, thebulletin.org/2024/02/who-member-states-are-negotiating-a-pandemic-treaty-but-will-countries-follow-the-new-rules/.

Hanbali, Layth, et al. “Independent Monitoring and the New Pandemic Agreement.” BMJ Global Health, vol. 8, no. 11, 1 Nov. 2023, p. e013348, gh.bmj.com/content/8/11/e013348.abstract, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013348.

Nabaggala, Maria Sarah, et al. “The Global Inequity in COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage among Health and Care Workers.” International Journal for Equity in Health, vol. 21, no. S3, 13 Oct. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01750-0.