Critique of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, By Brian Simpson and Chris Knight (Florida)

The World Health Organization (WHO) finalised a draft Pandemic Agreement on April 16, 2025, after over three years of negotiations, with the text set for consideration at the 78th World Health Assembly (May 19–27, 2025). While hailed as a landmark for global health security, the agreement has sparked concerns, amplified by posts on social medias, that its contents threaten national sovereignty, prioritise corporate interests, and institutionalise inequities under the guise of equity. This critique examines the agreement's key provisions,to argue that it risks entrenching global control mechanisms and undermining local autonomy.

The draft agreement, approximately 30 pages, includes several core elements:

1.Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS): This system mandates rapid sharing of pathogen data to enable pharmaceutical companies to develop treatments and vaccines quickly. In return, manufacturers must donate 10% of their production to the WHO for distribution to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and offer another 10% at affordable prices. Details of PABS remain unresolved, with an annex still under negotiation.

2.Global Supply Chain Oversight: For the first time, the WHO will oversee global supply chains for personal protective equipment (PPE), masks, and medical gowns to prevent shortages seen during Covid-19.

3.One Health Approach: The agreement emphasises the interconnection of human, animal, and environmental health to prevent pandemics, promoting upstream prevention like monitoring zoonotic spillover.

4.Technology Transfer: Wealthy nations must share health technologies with LMICs under "mutually agreed" terms, a contentious clause balancing innovation with equity.

5.National Sovereignty: The text explicitly states that the WHO cannot mandate lockdowns, vaccination campaigns, or border closures, affirming national control over public health decisions, at least on the surface, but countries like Australia will do anything the WHO says.

6.Financial and Workforce Mechanisms: It proposes a coordinated financial system and a global health emergency workforce to strengthen national health systems.

Despite assurances of sovereignty, we critics argue the agreement's implications are alarming. Key concerns include:

1.Erosion of National Sovereignty: Critics claim the agreement grants the WHO excessive influence over national health policies. For instance, the WHO could declare global health emergencies and override governments, though the text explicitly denies this authority; they will do it anyway. This fear stems from distrust in multilateral institutions, especially after Covid-19 mandates, and vague language around "coordination" that could be exploited in practice.

2.Corporate Capture via PABS: The PABS system, while framed as equitable, prioritises pharmaceutical companies by ensuring they access pathogen data swiftly, potentially incentivising profit-driven drug development over public health needs. The unresolved annex raises suspicions that corporate interests, particularly from wealthy nations, will dominate final terms. Developing countries' anger over Covid-19 vaccine hoarding fuels scepticism that the 20% allocation (10% donated, 10% affordable) will suffice.

3.Technology Transfer Disputes: The "mutually agreed" clause for technology transfers has been criticised by LMICs as a loophole allowing wealthy nations to withhold know-how, perpetuating inequities. European nations like Germany and Switzerland, home to major pharmaceutical firms, resisted mandatory transfers, valuing industry profits. This undermines the agreement's equity rhetoric, echoing the TRIPS waiver rejection during Covid-19.

4.Global Surveillance and Control: The WHO's new role in supply chain oversight and data sharing, raises concerns about centralised control. Critics warn this could enable global surveillance or resource allocation that favours powerful nations. While the agreement emphasises equity, its reliance on global coordination risks sidelining smaller nations' priorities.

5.Lack of Transparency: The negotiation process, though involving 194 member states, has been criticised for limited public access to drafts until recently. The WHO's engagement with stakeholders like civil society was noted, but public hearings were insufficient to counter perceptions of opacity.

6.U.S. Withdrawal: The U.S., a major WHO funder, withdrew from negotiations under President Trump, weakening the agreement's global legitimacy and raising questions about enforcement without a key player. This absence may shift influence to other powers, like communist China.

The agreement's flaws stem from a tension between idealism and realpolitik. Its equity rhetoric clashes with geopolitical realities, where powerful nations and corporations hold sway. The PABS system risks becoming a token gesture if the annex favours industry. The sovereignty clause, though explicit, may be undermined by economic pressures on smaller nations to comply with WHO recommendations during crises. Public distrust reflects a broader rejection of globalist frameworks post-Covid-19, where mandates were perceived as overreach.

The WHO Pandemic Agreement, far from a neutral tool for global health, is a contested instrument that balances equity aspirations against corporate and geopolitical interests. Critics' fears of sovereignty loss, reflect legitimate concerns about centralised power in a post-Covid world.