The WHO pandemic treaty is neccessary and absolutely no threat to sovereignty
Prof Martin McKee explains what is *actually* happening with the pandemic treaty
The chaos of the panedmic’s first year
Within weeks of its emergence in Wuhan, the SARS-CoV-2 virus had spread to almost every part of the world. The only exceptions were some island states that had been able to close their borders before it reached them. Faced with terrifying scenes from hospitals in the countries first affected, such as Italy, governments everywhere scrambled to acquire essential supplies, like PPE and ventilators. In their rush to get to the front of the queue, many mistakes were made and, here in the UK, billions of pounds were wasted. Almost a year later, disputes broke out between governments as they sought to secure scarce vaccine supplies.
The need for international cooperation
These experiences make crystal clear that a micro-organism with pandemic potential, and the responses to it, demand concerted international action. And once the vaccine became available, offering a light at the end of the tunnel, governments and international organisations began to look at how this might be achieved.
In Geneva, the World Health Organization (WHO) convened an Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, co-chaired by Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former President of Liberia, and Helen Clark, former New Zealand Prime Minister. Among its recommendations was one that called for a new treaty to address gaps in the international legal framework around pandemic preparedness and response.
Meanwhile, the WHO Regional Office for Europe convened a Commission on Health and Sustainable Development in the Light of the Pandemic. Chaired by Mario Monti, former Italian Prime Minister, it developed recommendations that addressed the particular circumstances of Europe, always liaising closely with the Independent Panel. I chaired its Scientific Advisory Committee and led the production of the evidence review that informed its work. It too called for a pandemic treaty.
These proposals were widely welcomed. In March 2021, 25 world leaders, including Boris Johnson, them British Prime Minister, came together to stress the urgency of reaching agreement, writing in newspapers across the world that “Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly coordinated fashion. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a stark and painful reminder that nobody is safe until everyone is safe”.
Then, in December 2021, governments agreed to begin negotiations on what by now was labelled a “convention, agreement or other international instrument … to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”. Given WHO’s status as the lead United Nations body on health, it would take this forward.
Progress on a pandemic treaty
Yet memories are short and the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) has had to find ways to get governments to agree on what the treaty should say. In particular, it has had to balance intellectual property rights and the need for equitable access to medical countermeasures. Rich countries have been reluctant to share intellectual property, safeguarding the patents that protect the drug and vaccine manufacturers that are mostly based there, while poor countries want greater access to lifesaving technologies during pandemics. However, there is a clear commitment to produce an agreed text for the World Health Assembly, starting in Geneva on 27th May 2024.
Disinformation is rife
As if things weren’t difficult enough, the negotiations have been plagued by the disinformation that did so much damage during the pandemic. As the WHO Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has said “We are operating amid a torrent of fake news, lies, conspiracy theories and mis- and disinformation. There are those who say – whether they believe it themselves or not – that the accord will cede sovereignty to WHO; that it will give the WHO Secretariat power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries, and other nonsense. This agreement will not, and cannot, cede sovereignty to WHO. Period.” Indeed, the latest draft text of the agreement states, in terms, that “the principle of sovereignty of States Parties in addressing public health matters” and that “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the general principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies”.
Many of those attacking the pandemic agreement are no stranger to disinformation. Here in the UK, their cheerleader is Nigel Farage. Echoing his friend Donald Trump, the Daily Mail reports him as saying that the UK must be prepared to leave the 'failing, expensive, unelected, unaccountable' WHO to prevent it from 'running roughshod' over sovereign countries. He even says that the UK should be willing to adopt a ‘Trump-like approach’. His language has a somewhat familiar tone as he calls on the UK to “take back control” and looks forward to “a second Brexit”. He even said that the agreement would be “just as bad as being in the European Union”.
Farage has convened a familiar cast of supporters comprising parliamentarians from the fringe of the Conservative Party and the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, some of whose members often seem to have struggled with accepted scientific concepts. They have come together in the so-called “Action on World Health”, whose main aim seems to be to cut the funding available to safeguard world health. Quite why anyone would want to do this at a time when global climate records are being shattered, with obvious consequences for health, might seem puzzling until one recalls that Farage has frequently dismissed arguments for action on climate change. Not surprisingly, the identity of those funding Action on World Health is obscure.
Meanwhile, British ministers have at least conceded that talk of giving away vaccines is nonsense, but have failed to dismiss other vague assertions of threats to sovereignty, gaining support from Labour’s Andrew Gwynne, who said “I want to be clear that a Labour government would not sign anything which would leave our population unprotected in the face of a novel disease”. And Cabinet Office minister Esther McVey had made clear that the UK will only sign the agreement if it safeguards British sovereignty, writing that “We will ensure that it is only a democratically elected UK Government and Parliament that can decide how we respond to a future global crisis here in the UK”. In all these cases it seems reasonable to conclude that the imperative to be seen to be standing up to foreigners in a pre-election period takes precedence over considerations of global health.
Even though they are demonstrably false, Farage’s comments will resonate with the many consumers of online conspiracy theories, now facilitated by changes to X (formerly Twitter). Many of the messages these people (presumably joined by numerous bots) are spreading are even more ludicrous. They include claims that WHO will force people to be vaccinated (how?), will monitor all our movements (again how?), or will deploy troops to enforce pandemic restrictions (UN peacekeeping forces can only be deployed following a vote in the Security Council, which any of the five Permanent Members can veto). Some American politicians have even argued that the agreement would be used to promote abortions!
Another myth, and one that has gained traction among some British politicians, is that the UK would be forced to give away a fifth of its vaccine supplies. Again this is nonsense. Manufacturers need viral material to develop vaccines to new strains but, especially with influenza, there have long been concerns that while poor countries supply this material they don’t benefit from the vaccines that are then produced. This simply isn’t fair. It’s a bit like what happened in the past when drugs were tested on people in poor countries who would never benefit from them. This issue has attracted a lot of discussion. One approach would be that the manufacturers would have to hand over their intellectual property rights to poor countries. Another is that they would pay for the viral material that they need. They, and the governments that host them weren’t particularly keen in either so discussions are currently focussing on an in-kind exchange, whereby they would offer a small percentage of what they make to WHO for free, to be distributed to the poorest countries, and a small amount more at a low price. This may not be the best solution but it’s one that might work and it’s nothing like what to fearmongers are claiming.
Tackling disinformation
Fortunately, there are a few journalists that have taken the trouble to read the documents and speak to people who know what is happening. One is Paul Nuki, who has also interviewed my former colleague Nina Schwalbe. Nina has been providing one of the most detailed and insightful commentaries on progress so far. His highly readable and perceptive article in the Daily Telegraph provides, as he notes, a somewhat contrasting picture to that appearing in some of the op-eds in his own paper.
The world needs a pandemic treaty
As the world’s health ministers gather in Geneva, they owe it to the families and friends of the over seven million people who lost their lives in the pandemic, the many others who live on with Long COVID, and those whose livelihoods were devastated by the pandemic to do far better next time we face a pandemic, which we undoubtedly will. And this means putting in place an international agreement that works for everyone. As former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has noted, “The pandemic accord both recognizes and demonstrates that we live in a deeply interconnected world. We must be prepared to share each other’s challenges, even (or especially) in difficult times”. But this will only happen if our governments show vision and commitment to creating a safer world and if we all understand the scale and nature of disinformation being peddled, once again, by those who have spent years sowing chaos and confusion.