By Lucretia Hughes Klucken
NEW YORK — Bill Gates spent decades helping usher the world into the computer age. Now the Microsoft co-founder is warning that the next technological revolution could become extraordinarily dangerous if humanity fails to maintain control over how it is used.
The United States announced its opposition Friday during the U.N. General Assembly’s second High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response in New York. The administration objected to provisions it described as involving “divisive ideologies” as well as language connected to an unfinished international system for sharing pathogens and providing access to vaccines, medicines and diagnostic tests. WDIV
“The United States is not in a position to support this text in full,” the U.S. representative told the gathering, according to reporting from the meeting. Health Policy Watch
The decision prevented the declaration from receiving the consensus approval organizers had sought during Friday’s meeting. The proposal is expected to return to the General Assembly for consideration later in its session, potentially through a vote. Health Policy Watch
The dispute comes six years after COVID-19 transformed public health policy around the world and ignited lasting debates over lockdowns, vaccine mandates, government emergency powers and the authority of international health organizations.
The proposed U.N. declaration calls for countries to strengthen pandemic surveillance, laboratory capacity, health systems and financing while improving international access to vaccines, medicines and other medical products. It also contains provisions addressing vaccine hesitancy and health misinformation, gender equality, family planning and sexual and reproductive health services. The Washington Post
The United States objected in particular to references to a proposed pathogen access and benefit-sharing system that remains under negotiation.
That system is related to the WHO Pandemic Agreement approved by World Health Organization member states in 2025. Under the still-unfinished mechanism, participating countries would share information and biological materials involving potentially dangerous pathogens while establishing arrangements intended to improve access to resulting vaccines, diagnostics and treatments. WDIV
The United States was not part of finalizing that agreement after President Donald Trump moved to withdraw the country from the World Health Organization. WDIV
The administration’s rejection does not mean the United States opposes preparing for future pandemics. Rather, its objections concern specific provisions and international arrangements contained or referenced in the proposed declaration.
That distinction matters.
The debate is not whether another pandemic is possible. The dispute centers on how countries prepare for one, how much authority and coordination should exist at the international level and what commitments governments should make before the next emergency occurs.
Supporters of the declaration argue that infectious diseases do not recognize national borders and that countries need international surveillance, information sharing and coordinated access to medical supplies.
U.N. General Assembly President Khalilur Rahman said governments should apply lessons learned during COVID-19 rather than allow the experience to fade from public attention.
“We cannot erase COVID-19 from our memories,” Rahman said. “We have to take a hard look at that period, at where we succeeded and where we failed.” United Nations
World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus also backed the declaration, saying it contained important commitments aimed at addressing remaining weaknesses in global pandemic preparedness. WDIV
The United States was not the only participant expressing reservations.
The European Union said the proposed declaration did not go far enough on financing accountability and efficiency, while Germany sought a stronger emphasis on preventing pandemics before they begin. Other countries, including South Korea, Cape Verde and Guatemala, supported the declaration. WDIV
The disagreement exposes the larger question left behind by COVID-19: How should governments cooperate internationally without surrendering control over decisions affecting their own citizens?
The U.N. describes the initiative as an effort to strengthen international preparedness through “equity and solidarity,” including better surveillance, stronger health systems and greater access to medical products. United Nations
Critics of expanded international health governance have focused instead on national sovereignty, accountability and the possibility that international commitments could influence domestic health policy during future emergencies.
The proposed declaration itself is a political declaration, not a treaty automatically creating a new set of enforceable U.S. laws. The separate WHO Pandemic Agreement and its unfinished pathogen-sharing mechanism are distinct instruments, an important distinction amid claims about what Friday’s U.N. action would legally accomplish. United Nations
For the Trump administration, however, the unresolved provisions were enough to withhold American support.
That means the international community leaves the September meeting without the consensus declaration organizers originally envisioned.
The debate now moves forward with a fundamental disagreement still unresolved.
Countries broadly agree that another pandemic could come.
They do not agree on who should make the decisions, what international commitments should accompany preparedness and how far global cooperation should reach into national health policy.
For the United States under the Trump administration, the answer this week was clear: It would not sign onto the declaration as currently written.
Original article
Comments