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 first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
Taiwan needs to step up efforts to protect its access to rare earths amid escalating geopolitical risks and global economic uncertainty, given that its export-oriented economy relies heavily on imports of the elements to produce electronics. Taiwan is not the only country facing pressure to secure stable access to rare earths — metallic elements used in artificial intelligence servers, smartphones, electric vehicles and military applications such as fighter jets — after China imposed an export licensing measure last year that threatened to cut off supplies. China is using its dominance in rare earths as a bargaining chip in its trade negotiatons
RSS