After three years of tortuous negotiations, governments look like failing to agree a controversial new global pandemic treaty described as “critical for humanity”.
Representatives from 194 member states of the World Health Organization (WHO), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and pharmaceutical companies have spent hundreds of hours in formal and informal talks. But with the deadline for approving the treaty, 27 May, approaching rapidly, they remain deadlocked on key issues.
The negotiations have become increasingly fractious. Governments have reportedly become “impatient with one another” and accused each other of refusing to make compromises. At one point, the head of the WHO lashed out at the “litany of lies and conspiracy theories” about the treaty.
Even an intervention by 23 former national presidents, 22 former prime ministers – including Sir Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – a former UN Secretary General and three Nobel Laureates has failed to move negotiators.
Covid-19 global response
The move to agree a global treaty to prevent, prepare for and respond to future pandemics was kick-started in March 2021 by a group of world leaders, including Boris Johnson, who was then the British prime minister.
This was a reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic which has claimed seven million lives worldwide and wiped two trillion dollars off the global economy. The aim was to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience against future pandemics by sharing data, research, and local, regional and global production and distribution of vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.
Their proposal was referred to the WHO, where member states unanimously approved launching negotiations.
Since then, a number of issues have proved intractable. These include the transfer of technology, protecting the intellectual property of drugs manufacturers, sharing information on pathogens, and funding.
There is also a widely shared concern that funding a global pandemic treaty would divert funds from domestic public health priorities. Mariska Meurs, from a Dutch health NGO says: “This is exactly what we’ve seen happening under Covid-19 – the shifts in global and domestic funding and how funding for basic health care has gone down.”
Under fire from the right
The proposed treaty has also been under fire from right-wing organisations like the influential Heritage Foundation, which claims it would threaten US sovereignty. In the UK, Conservative ministers are worried that the treaty would allow the WHO to impose lockdowns and vaccine passports or force the UK to spend 5% of its health budget on pandemic preparedness.
This provoked Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO director-general, to forcefully deny that the treaty was a “power grab by WHO that will cede national sovereignty to WHO and give it the power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries.
“Unfortunately, some of these lies have been spread even by members of parliament, and in some cases by heads of government. These claims are utterly, completely, categorically false.
“This agreement is being written by countries, for countries, and will be implemented by countries, in accordance with their own national laws.
“The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power to dictate policy to any country.
“In fact, it says exactly the opposite.
“I find it difficult to understand how elected officials could mislead the people they are supposed to serve on this issue – either knowingly or unknowingly.
“If unknowingly, it’s negligent not to be properly informed. If knowingly, it’s a deliberate deception that puts at risk the health of future generations, and the social and economic stability of nations, for some short-term political goal.”
Treaty on the brink
Negotiators will hold further eleventh-hour discussions from 29 April to 10 May, with the aim of presenting something to the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva on 27 May; however, observers are not optimistic.
They fear that unless there is an unexpected breakthrough the best-case scenario will be for the WHA to adopt an “instrument of essentials,” a bare-bones text that will be fleshed out over the next 12 to 24 months in advance of a proposed Conference of Parties.
In fact, the focus has switched to finding a consensus rather than provide a “shopping list” of issues.
In a further effort to save the treaty, the WHO director-general has called on the leaders of the G20 countries to intervene, urging them to show courage, cooperation and leadership.
Trump looms large
Regardless of whatever progress is made during the frantic last-minute talks, a huge shadow hangs over the negotiations – the outcome of US elections in November.
There are fears that if he becomes president again, Donald Trump will pull the US out of the discussions. Even if he loses, a US Congress dominated by Trump supporters might conceivably refuse to ratify any treaty.
In a similar vein, it seems plausible that right-wing forces in the UK could try to obstruct the treaty, whatever the result of our next general election.
