“WHO Pandemic Treaty Passed: Global Health Power Grab?”

In a move critics say dangerously centralizes power and undermines national sovereignty, the World Health Organization (WHO) has adopted the first-ever Pandemic Agreement—a sweeping international framework aimed at coordinating global responses to future health crises. Passed by consensus at the 78th World Health Assembly following three years of behind-closed-doors negotiations, the agreement has been hailed by WHO leadership as a “historic” milestone. But beneath the lofty language of equity and safety lies a set of mechanisms that some fear could entrench unelected global health authorities with the power to dictate responses in national emergencies.

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, called the agreement a “victory for public health, science and multilateral action,” framing the initiative as a way to ensure the world avoids the losses suffered during COVID-19. But that framing ignores the deep controversies that surrounded the WHO’s role in the pandemic—including delayed warnings, conflicting guidance, and an overreliance on the Chinese government’s information in the early stages of the crisis.

At the heart of the agreement is the creation of systems to enforce “equitable and timely access” to vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics worldwide, particularly through the implementation of a Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system. Under this model, pharmaceutical companies would commit to allocating 20% of their real-time pandemic-related production—such as vaccines—to WHO for global distribution based on “public health need.”

Critics argue this effectively gives WHO bureaucrats—who are not elected, not accountable to the public, and have questionable records of transparency—a privileged role in redistributing medical supplies during crises, potentially at the expense of national interests and autonomy. The PABS system, now under negotiation, is also expected to standardize how countries report pathogen samples, raising concerns about intellectual property, national data sovereignty, and biosecurity.

While the agreement includes language that “respects” national sovereignty and claims not to give WHO power to impose mandates or lockdowns, its vague phrasing leaves much to interpretation. The assertion that the WHO cannot “mandate or otherwise impose requirements” on national governments offers cold comfort to skeptics, who note that coercion doesn’t always need to be direct. Financial leverage, international pressure, and coordination with NGOs and private interests could exert de facto control, even without formal authority.

“This agreement is being sold as voluntary, but in practice, it opens the door to a supranational health regime operating with its own logic and incentives,” said one health policy analyst critical of the deal. “It paves the way for public health mandates and vaccine passport systems to be harmonized across borders, whether people want them or not.”

Even the agreement’s stated goal of “equity” has raised eyebrows. “Equitable access” often translates to centralized control over who gets what and when—removing distribution decisions from national agencies and placing them in the hands of a global bureaucracy. Critics argue this model risks undermining responsiveness, accountability, and medical pluralism in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach.

The agreement also sets the stage for the creation of a Coordinating Financial Mechanism and a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network, further entrenching centralized infrastructure that would operate outside traditional national oversight.

Though the agreement is not yet legally binding, it will become so once 60 countries ratify it through their legislative processes. Many are now urging lawmakers to scrutinize its implications carefully before proceeding.

If ratified, the Pandemic Agreement would become only the second such international treaty adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution—the first being the 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Given the profound implications for civil liberties, economic autonomy, and national decision-making, critics are warning this is not a step to be taken lightly.

As debate continues, one thing is clear: a global health treaty forged in the name of safety could come at the cost of sovereignty, transparency, and the ability of nations to chart their own course during the next global emergency.

Rewritten: Source article posted here: https://www.who.int/news/item/20-05-2025-world-health-assembly-adopts-historic-pandemic-agreement-to-make-the-world-more-equitable-and-safer-from-future-pandemics