The World Health Organization declared victory this week after adopting a pandemic treaty in Geneva – but critics say the last-minute move shows desperation, not consensus.
Gutted Pandemic Treaty Passes
The stripped treaty passed late Monday night, in an unannounced committee session with just 124 countries represented. No debate was allowed. No objections recorded. The WHO formally adopted the revised text the next day.
“They did it – with no transparency, no schedule, and barely half the room present,” said Sebastian Lukomski of CitizenGO, who was on the ground in Geneva. “This was a desperate push to save face before the whole thing fell apart.”
The adopted version is a stripped-down shadow of the original sweeping agreement the WHO had sought for three years. One of its key pillars – the controversial Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) annex – was not even ready. That section governs control of virus samples, vaccine supplies and patent rights, but negotiations stalled. A decision has now been pushed to 2026.
“They rushed through a half-baked text and declared victory,” Lukomski said. “That’s desperation, not triumph.”
Citizen Pressure Forced Major Changes
Lukomski credited public resistance for derailing the WHO’s original plan.
“Two years ago, this treaty lurked in the shadows,” he said. “Now it’s one of the most disputed global deals on the planet.”
CitizenGO claims more than three million people joined their petitions. The group said public pressure forced multiple delays, helped bring countries like the U.S. and Argentina out of the process, and led to over 50 contentious provisions being cut from the final text. These reportedly included censorship powers, mandatory data sharing, and broad emergency authority for the WHO.
A sovereignty clause, not present in early drafts, was added late in the process. According to CitizenGO, it gives governments legal grounds to opt out of the agreement entirely.
“That clause is one of many changes we forced into the text,” Lukomski said. “It gives us a powerful legal lever.”
Pandemic Treaty Now Heads to National Parliaments
While the WHO declared the treaty adopted, it cannot yet be signed. Each member state must now consider it domestically. That process could take years – and faces stiff opposition.
Lukomski said public scrutiny will intensify as the treaty reaches national legislatures.
“The fight is just beginning,” he said. “We’ll fight this in parliaments, in courts, and in public squares – clause by clause.”
RFK Jr Also Raised Alarm
U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had earlier condemned the treaty as a “power grab” and a threat to national sovereignty. He said Americans should not be ruled by “unelected officials in Geneva.”
Kennedy’s opposition echoed concerns raised by CitizenGO and others about how the WHO handled the process.
“The WHO’s credibility is collapsing,” Lukomski said. “Three years and millions of dollars later, this is all they could show.”
As attention now shifts to individual countries, campaigners vow to continue pressuring governments not to ratify the treaty.
The WHO may have declared victory in Geneva, but critics say the rushed approval of a gutted pandemic treaty marks a major retreat. With one of its core annexes deferred to 2026, and national parliaments now in control, the fight over the future of pandemic governance is far from over.
The WHO issued a face-saving statement headlines “World Health Assembly adopts historic Pandemic Agreement to make the world more equitable and safer from future pandemics.” This is only partially true,because there was no mention of the fact that many of its components were not included in the document. Neither did it mention that it was pushed through without debate or comment.
In Australia, Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Health Minister Mark Butler each issued official statements welcoming the adoption of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Pandemic Agreement. They both praised it as a vital step towards pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Like the WHO, they didn’t mention it was not “passed,” nor that it was watered down.
