In a significant move towards enhancing global pandemic preparedness, members of the World Health Organization (WHO) have recently adopted a new agreement. This initiative aims to address the gaps exposed by the fragmented response to Covid-19. However, the notable absence of the United States raises questions about the treaty’s overall effectiveness.
- Advertisement -
After three years of rigorous negotiations, the legally binding pact was officially embraced by the World Health Assembly in Geneva, generating applause from member nations. This adoption marks a moment of solidarity within the global health community, particularly in light of the recent budget cuts to organizations like the WHO, primarily funded by the US.
“The agreement is a triumph for public health, scientific collaboration, and multilateral actions,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “It will enable us to collectively shield the world from future pandemic threats.”
The pact mandates that participating manufacturers allocate at least 20% of their vaccines, medicines, and tests to the WHO during a pandemic, ensuring that low-income countries have equitable access to these essential resources. Yet, the withdrawal of US negotiators early in the process—prompted by then-President Donald Trump’s move to discontinue the US’s financial contributions to the WHO—has compromised the treaty’s inclusivity. As a result, the US, which invested significantly in vaccine development during the Covid crisis, is not bound by this new agreement.
US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. expressed concerns, labeling the WHO as “moribund.” He added, “I urge the world’s health ministers and the WHO to interpret our withdrawal as a wake-up call,” suggesting that aligned nations should contemplate similar actions.
During the assembly, Slovakia challenged the adoption of the agreement, leading to a vote. Ultimately, 124 countries voted in support, zero against, while 11 nations—including Poland, Israel, Italy, Russia, Slovakia, and Iran—abstained.
Despite this progress, some health experts are cautious about the agreement’s potential. They view it as a positive step toward greater fairness in global health, especially after many poorer nations were left vulnerable during the Covid-19 pandemic. “The treaty includes vital provisions in research and development that, if properly enacted, could promote greater equity in global pandemic responses,” said Michelle Childs, Policy Advocacy Director at the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative.
Conversely, others have critiqued the agreement for failing to meet initial expectations. Gian Luca Burci, an academic adviser at the Global Health Centre of the Geneva Graduate Institute, remarked, “It is an empty shell… While it’s a good starting point, we need to see stronger implementation frameworks for it to be effective.”
The agreement will require an additional annex focusing on the sharing of pathogenic information before it can be enforced. Negotiations regarding this annex are slated to begin in July, with hopes of bringing it before the World Health Assembly for approval. A diplomatic source indicated that this process might take up to two years to finalize.
In conclusion, while the treaty signifies a united front in global health, its success will depend on collective commitment and robust implementation strategies.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring.
