The United States government’s decision to block a major global declaration on pandemic preparedness “severely weakens” the effort and signals intent to disrupt international cooperation, says Prof Lawrence Gostin, a leading expert on global health law from Georgetown University.
UN General Assembly Declaration Blocked
The United Nations general assembly had been due to adopt a political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response on 25 September after a high-level meeting on the subject. The document would have seen countries agree to work together in solidarity to tackle global health threats and express concerns that the world remains unready to deal with future pandemics.
However, the US delegate said it was “not in a position” to support the text, blocking its adoption by consensus – the UN process whereby negotiated documents are assumed to be agreed unless there is an objection. Italy also rejected the document, while the EU delegate said that although it was “fully and unreservedly committed to the important overarching objective”, there were “red lines” around some references to intellectual property, such as whether the transfer of technology between countries should be voluntary or mandated – a key sticking point in the ongoing World Health Organization treaty negotiations.
US and EU Concerns
Dr Erica Schwartz, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said critical issues remained unresolved, referring to “the inclusion of divisive ideologies that lack definitional consensus” and references within the document to ongoing, WHO-led negotiations over the fair sharing of vaccines and drugs between countries in any future pandemic.
It is understood that the Trump administration was unhappy with mentions of equity and universal access to sexual and reproductive healthcare services. Earlier this year, President Trump signed executive orders expanding a “global gag” rule that bans US aid recipients from work related to abortion to also include bans on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and what it called “gender ideology”.
Broader Context and Reactions
A separate WHO-led agreement governing how the world should respond to future pandemics is on hold while countries try to find agreement on the issue of pathogen access and benefit sharing – or what countries should be guaranteed in terms of vaccines and treatments in return for sharing data on any emerging diseases on their territory. The US withdrew from the WHO shortly after Trump took office.
UN documents of this kind do not impose legally binding requirements on countries but instead serve as a sign of commitment and intent. Gostin said: “Since this is a political declaration, its value is only as strong as the political will to adopt and implement its provisions. The US decision to dissent severely weakens the document.
“For many decades, it was American financing and scientific innovations that were the bedrock of outbreak detection and response. This signals a clear US intention not to cooperate globally to health threats common to all nations. There is no rational reason to reject a political commitment to preventing and responding to dangerous outbreaks. The only thing gained by the Trump administration is to put a stick in the wheels of international cooperation.”
The US has been accused of exploitation in its pursuit of individual agreements with poorer countries in return for aid. The political declaration is still likely to be adopted when it is considered again at a later UN general assembly meeting where a majority rather than consensus vote is needed.
Helen Clark, a former prime minister of New Zealand and a co-chair of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, said: “It is disappointing that the high level meeting was not asked to endorse the political declaration which had been negotiated by member states. Agreeing to collaborate to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics should not be controversial.”
Eloise Todd, the executive director and founder of Resilience Action Network International, said: “It is unacceptable that member states were unable to advance a political declaration at the close of the high level meeting on Friday, and an unfortunate reminder of the continued challenges to drive consensus for the global good in the current geopolitical environment.”
