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.
The most troubling message coming out of Washington for Taipei is not any single statement but the cumulative effect of a series of signals suggesting that US President Donald Trump is rethinking Taiwan’s strategic value while viewing the US-China relationship through the lens of a transactional great-power bargain. The danger behind Trump’s new softness toward Beijing is a potential US-China bargain that undermines Taiwan’s core interests. During Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) recent state visit to Washington, Trump and Xi appeared to rewrite the history of World War II. In a Sept. 25 fact sheet on Xi’s visit, the White House said,
The official English name for Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen’s (沈伯洋) campaign is “the Taipei Current.” It comes from the Chinese term yangliu (洋流), a direct translation of which would be “ocean current,” using the last character of Shen’s name, yang (洋, “ocean”). The Chinese term is a reference to the 2018 campaign for Kaohsiung mayor that swept a hitherto marginal player within the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), who is now legislative speaker, whose successful campaign then was termed the “Han Wave” (韓流). Shen’s usage of the Chinese term is intentional.
Early this month, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) held two large election campaign rallies in Taichung and New Taipei City on the same day. However, KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) was marginalized at the rallies. Cheng shouted herself hoarse campaigning onstage for the mayoral candidates, but neither candidate was onstage at the time. In the morning of that day, the KMT’s Taichung mayoral candidate, Deputy Legislative Speaker Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), entered the venue accompanied by Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) and New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜). That afternoon, the party’s New Taipei City
China’s revised National Defense Mobilization Law took effect on Oct. 1, allowing the government to mobilize civilians and redirect resources for military purposes, and ensures a rapid transition from peacetime to wartime. It has a wide scope of “national interests” pretexts, which would likely be used against Taiwan. The amendment incorporates Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) “Military-Civil Fusion” principle into law, and stipulates that once the state initiates national defense mobilization, “the people’s governments at or above the county level may expropriate and requisition civilian resources,” and “all organizations and individuals shall have the obligation to accept the lawful expropriation and
RSS