The New Pandemic Agreement and International Health Regulations
Introduction
The 77th meeting of the World Health Assembly, scheduled from May 27 to June 1, 2024, will witness the negotiation and adoption of the new Pandemic Agreement and revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR). These legal instruments are currently under scrutiny, with many suggesting that developing countries should vote against them. This article, written by Michael T. Clark, a specialist in the political economy of international relations, argues that these proposals should be scrapped. Instead, he suggests a thorough reflection on the Covid-19 pandemic and a fresh start.
Key Points of the Argument
1. Misreading of the Evidence
Clark argues that the concept of a new “era of pandemics” is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the evidence. The identification of new virus outbreaks is a result of recent advances in pathogen testing and identification technology, not the emergence of new pathogens. He also emphasizes that deaths on the scale of Covid-19 due to natural pathogenic outbreaks are extremely rare.
2. The Extraordinary Policy Response to Covid-19
The policy response to the Covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented, including travel bans, lockdowns, and accelerated vaccine development. Clark argues that most of these measures were of dubious effectiveness and disproportionate to the actual threat. The economic fallout from these measures was significant, leading to the largest global economic downturn since the Great Depression.
3. The Policy Response was not Caused by the Pandemic
According to Clark, the policy response to the pandemic was not a result of the pandemic itself, but an expression of the policy preferences of the WHO's primary donors.
4. The Third “Emergency” Event in Less Than 20 Years
Clark highlights that the Covid-19 pandemic was the third major global crisis in less than 20 years, following the 9/11 attacks and the 2008 financial crisis. In each case, the policy response had significant impacts on development, and developing nations had little voice in the decision-making process.
5. Lack of Serious Review and Assessment
Clark criticizes the lack of a serious, sustained multilateral effort to review and assess the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic, the decision-making process that led to the policy decisions taken, and the ultimate balance of benefit and harm resulting from the recommended policy response.
6. Erosion of Public Trust in Public Health Authorities
One of the most negative consequences of the implementation of WHO-recommended policy measures is the significant erosion of public trust in public health authorities, according to Clark.
7. The New Pandemic Treaty and Revised International Health Regulations
The new pandemic treaty and revised International Health Regulations commit Member States to a five-year, $155 billion investment to create a worldwide infrastructure for WHO-centered and directed pandemic surveillance, coordination, monitoring, and compliance enforcement. Clark warns of the political risks and conflicts this could create.
8. The Pandemic Treaty and IHR Revisions are a Power Grab
Clark argues that the pandemic treaty and the IHR revisions are not a power grab by the WHO Secretariat, but rather a power grab of the WHO by its public and private donors.
9. The Vote at the 77th Meeting of the World Health Assembly
Clark suggests that the 194 Member States represented at the 77th meeting of the World Health Assembly should vote “No” to the treaty and IHR package, both “as is” and as the basis for any future negotiations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Clark suggests a complete restart of the negotiating process based on new premises, a more open and inclusive Member States-led process, and a humble and truthful respect for science and its limitations.
What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you agree with Clark's perspective? Share this article with your friends and sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is everyday at 6pm, to stay informed about important issues like this one.
