Despite all odds and challenges, the World Health Assembly (WHA) finally adopted the Pandemic Agreement on Tuesday after 11 rounds of negotiations spanning three challenging years. The agreement aims to bolster the world’s ability to better prepare for the next pandemic — where the question is not “if,” but “when.” This marks a health milestone for the WHO, whose leadership was widely criticized for its slow and ineffective response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The agreement covers a range of issues: protecting health and care workers, ensuring equitable sharing of pandemic-related products, bolstering health systems, improving risk communications, and addressing animal-to-human transmission through enhanced surveillance and response capabilities. In many ways, the agreement offers a glimmer of hope for a rules-based legal order, renewing faith in multilateralism amid an increasingly divided world.
While the agreement represents a meaningful affirmation in global health cooperation, it faces several implementation challenges that need to be addressed. Most notably, it lacks robust enforcement mechanisms to ensure member states fulfill their obligations, creating potential gaps in its accountability. Additionally, crucial details of the “Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System” (PABS system) remain to be discussed, with a 12-month timeline set for finalizing these essential details.
This uncertainty looms over whether countries would eventually ratify this landmark agreement. The PABS system, in particular, has emerged as a significant source of debate among WHO member states. The core of this contention lies in the challenging negotiations over equitable distribution mechanisms — specifically, how to balance the sharing of pandemic-related medical products with the provision of pathogen samples and genomic sequencing data, both of which are fundamental components for developing effective vaccines and medical countermeasures.
Furthermore, the US’ withdrawal from the WHO — home to world-leading health systems and epidemiological expertise, and a major financial contributor to the WHO’s US$6.8 billion budget — creates additional uncertainties in the world’s pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
Despite Taiwan being denied participation in the WHA for the ninth consecutive year, and the legal and political barriers to formal WHO engagement remaining insurmountably high, several provisions of the Pandemic Agreement are still relevant to the nation. These include combating misinformation and disinformation, protecting health workers from stigmatization and ensuring their safety during emergencies, and incorporating a one-health approach — addressing animal-to-human transmission — into Taiwan’s pandemic preparedness, prevention and response. It should be noted that after the 2005 SARS outbreak, Taiwan revamped its legal architecture based on the 2005 International Health Regulations, another legal instrument addressing international infectious disease control under the WHO. Taiwan’s strategic internalization of international health norms enhanced its whole-of-government approach and bolstered its capability to respond during the COVID-19 pandemic.
While Taiwan’s COVID-19 response was widely recognized and praised, continuing to build resilience and trust through coordinated, open communication among the government, private sectors and the public remains essential. In light of the Pandemic Agreement’s strategic shift toward improving health systems, Taiwan has an opportunity to align its regulatory framework for pandemic preparedness with the agreement. This can be achieved by implementing more participatory and inclusive public policymaking processes that place human rights considerations at their core. Moreover, as the agreement emphasizes the need for geographically diverse manufacturing capacities to ensure global health security, Taiwan can scale up its vaccine research, development and production capabilities so it could support domestic and international needs during future health emergencies and contribute meaningfully to global health security.
Lee Tsung-ling is a professor at Taipei Medical University, with an expertise in global health law and governance.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS