The World Health Organization (WHO) has officially adopted a landmark Pandemic Agreement during the 78th World Health Assembly, aiming to coordinate global responses to future pandemics. This pact, which follows over three years of negotiation, includes improved surveillance, data-sharing, and vaccine access. While many celebrate this as a win for science and global cooperation, critics, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., warn against potential overreach and corporate profiteering. African nations express concern over recurring inequities in global healthcare delivery. The debate highlights the ongoing tension between global health mandates and individual sovereignty.
Why the WHO and UN Pushed for a Global Health Pact
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep weaknesses in global public health readiness, prompting the WHO and United Nations to pursue an agreement designed to prevent such chaos in the future. The Pandemic Agreement, adopted at the 78th World Health Assembly, outlines improved international collaboration, real-time pathogen surveillance, and equitable access to critical medical resources. One key component, the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system, is aimed at ensuring countries contributing biological samples receive fair access to resulting diagnostics and vaccines.
WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus praised the agreement as a triumph of “science and multilateral action.” The plan stresses that pandemic response must be science-driven and grounded in national sovereignty. It also distances the WHO from domestic enforcement power, stating it will not dictate lockdowns or vaccination policies.
However, global unity remains fragile, with tensions between sovereignty and standardization still prominent.
African Nations Still Feel Forgotten in the Global Health Hierarchy
African leaders, including Angolan President João Lourenço, voiced their continued frustration with the global health system. “Countries in Africa are rarely the starting point of these crises but always are on the front line,” he noted. During COVID-19, many African nations were last in line for vaccines and treatments, receiving aid only after wealthier countries secured their needs.
These nations argue the agreement lacks binding language on technology transfers and still depends too heavily on the goodwill of developed nations. Without mandatory provisions, the fear remains that the next health emergency will once again leave lower-income nations waiting at the back of the line.
RFK Jr.’s Criticism: Health Mandates or Corporate Control?
U.S. presidential candidate and health activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. strongly opposed the agreement. He criticized the WHO as “bloated,” and said it was “unduly influenced by China and Big Pharma.” Kennedy expressed concern that the WHO’s mishandling of COVID-19, including suppression of early treatments and rapid promotion of vaccines, should disqualify it from expanded authority.
What Is the PABS System in the WHO Pandemic Agreement?
At the heart of the World Health Organization’s newly adopted Pandemic Agreement is the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system. This framework is designed to enhance international cooperation by ensuring the rapid sharing of pathogens and genetic sequence data between countries when new viral threats emerge. The goal is to improve early detection, boost preparedness, and allow a faster response to potential global health crises.
In addition to data-sharing, the PABS system promises equitable access to the benefits that result from scientific research on these pathogens—such as the development of vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics. WHO leaders have hailed this as a crucial step toward correcting the global imbalance that left many developing countries waiting for life-saving medical tools during the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, not everyone agrees with the vision behind PABS. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has strongly criticized the system, labeling it a “pipeline for profiteering.” According to Kennedy, the arrangement favors large pharmaceutical corporations by guaranteeing them global market access while offering only the illusion of equity to poorer nations. He further warns that the PABS mechanism could undermine national sovereignty by pressuring countries to align with WHO directives, regardless of local health policies or values. For Kennedy and like-minded critics, the promise of solidarity masks a troubling trend toward centralized control.
Civil liberties groups echoed these concerns, pointing out the risk of vague wording that could justify overreach in future emergencies. While the agreement affirms national sovereignty, critics fear international pressure may still lead to backdoor mandates.
Takeaway: Defending Health Autonomy in a Post-COVID World
The pandemic of 2020 reshaped the global health landscape, but it also sharpened the importance of individual healthcare rights. In the U.S., privacy laws protect individuals from mandatory disclosure of medical information to employers or government agencies. No citizen was legally required to disclose test results, and treatment decisions remained voluntary.
While vaccinations remain vital, especially for children, the final decision has traditionally rested with parents—a stance deeply embedded in American values of freedom and personal responsibility. The experience of COVID-19, including mandates and shifting guidelines, has made clear the need for transparency, accountability, and respect for individual autonomy.
As the world builds mechanisms for future health crises, it must ensure that global readiness does not come at the cost of national liberties or personal choice.
External Links: