Kesiah Beere:

On May 20, the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the Pandemic Agreement after three years of development and negotiations. Started in December 2021, the Agreement was proposed to implement strategies to “make the world safer from – and more equitable in response to – future pandemics,” according to the WHO.

On the surface, such an international agreement may seem appealing to mutually protect each nation involved in the WHO; however, some groups have raised concerns about the implementation of the Pandemic Agreement (treaty), including pro-life advocates. Significantly, the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO means it will not be involved with the agreement.

The central idea of the Pandemic Agreement is stated within its objective: “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to pandemics … during and between pandemics.” To accomplish this, it seeks to ensure “that access to protective and therapeutic measures is distributed among all countries, including low-income countries,” commented Rebecca Oas, director of research at the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam). International cooperation and assistance are emphasized through the donation of at least 10 – 20 per cent of “participating manufacturers” “real time production of safe, quality and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics for the pathogen causing the pandemic emergency,” as stated in the treaty. Further, the agreement lays a framework for each country’s internal preparedness to produce effective pandemic responses.

In the construction of the Pandemic Agreement, several challenges surfaced that hindered the progression of the agreement.

One issue was the understanding of the term “equity,” used liberally throughout the document. Stefano Gennarini, vice president for legal studies at C-Fam, explained that Western countries interpreted it to refer to the WHO’s guidance on nations’ internal policy related to “controversial social policies like abortion and homosexual/trans issues.” Alternatively, many developing countries believed “equity” to refer to greater access to resources with the help of wealthier governments.

In addition, Giorgio Mazzoli, director of UN advocacy at Alliance Defending Freedom International, asserted that concerns over freedom of expression were raised with references to “managing “infodemics,” defined as “too much information,” and countering and preventing “mis- and disinformation,” in earlier drafts of the document. This criticism from member states led to its absence in the final version of the Pandemic Agreement.

Another point of scrutiny lies in the ambiguity in the definition of the term “pandemic.” According to C-Fam’s Gennarini a “pandemic emergency” “is understood as referring to the brief periods in time leading up to a pandemic where health alerts and concerted action may derail a full-scale pandemic.” A “pandemic” on the other hand, can be a much longer period. WHO member states seek a legal definition of “pandemic” to delineate the role of each country and the WHO during any period.

Vice president of Campaign Life Coalition, Matthew Wojciechowski, stated similar concerns on the WHO’s power to define and declare a pandemic. Wojciechowski told The Interim: “We shouldn’t be turning to an activist organization like the WHO for definitions.” In recent years, the WHO has redefined “sexual and reproductive health” terms and altered its stance on issues such as abortion, deeming it to be safe. The CLC vice president said that “this wasn’t an update based on scientific research and evidence,” but “a political and cultural change.” He emphasized that the same “‘experts’ calling the shots on these issues were the ones influencing this pandemic treaty.”

Additional pro-life apprehension about the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement concerns “universal health coverage,” which is expressed to include the “full continuum of essential health services.” The Agreement does not provide further definition as to what is “essential,” but C-Fam has warned “sexual and reproductive health” is expected to be included, since the WHO “declared abortion to be an essential service during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Likewise, the WHO refers to sexual and reproductive health services as “a human right” that “should be available to all people throughout their lives, as part of ensuring universal health coverage” on their own website.

Wojciechowski said that “the WHO’s pro-abortion priorities will seep into Canada through this treaty” should Prime Minister Carney ratify the agreement. It could create significant challenges for the pro-life movement if abortion and related issues are legally defined as “essential” in Canada.

Another aspect of the Pandemic Agreement that troubles many Canadians concerns the sovereignty of nations that ratify the Pandemic Agreement.

Though state sovereignty is listed as one of the treaty’s guiding principles, Conservative MP Dr. Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand-Norfolk) raised concerns on how this principle will be adhered to since it will be “legally binding on signatory nations,” according to the WHO Director-General’s statement. Lewis said, “the treaty could give the WHO the legal ability to direct Canada’s future pandemic response, including mandating any range of measures from lockdowns to social distancing to specific vaccines approved for distribution within Canada.”

C-Fam staff concurred in their concerns since the treaty requires responses by each participating nation should a pandemic be declared by the WHO Secretary General. Responses include “allocating a percentage of gross domestic product for ‘international cooperation and assistance,’ domestic budget allocation for pandemic preparedness, and provision of specific ‘essential’ health services.” Significant decision-making authority will be given to the WHO at its Secretary General’s declaration.

Though the Pandemic Agreement has been adopted, more steps must be taken before member states can ratify it. One key issue needing resolution is the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) annex. Amongst other things, it will define what “particular manufacturers” are, settling which companies will be obligated to give a minimum of ten per cent of their “real time production” to the WHO. Once finalized, likely next year, nations may begin signing onto the treaty.