CDC director cites ‘divisive ideologies’ in explaining US objection
The United States on Friday 25 September blocked adoption by consensus of a UN General Assembly political declaration on pandemic preparedness at a high-level meeting in New York. Italy also rejected the document, and the EU delegate said the bloc was “fully and unreservedly committed to the important overarching objective” but flagged “red lines” around some references to intellectual property — specifically whether the transfer of technology between countries should be voluntary or mandated.
The declaration, negotiated in advance of the meeting, would have had countries agree to work together in solidarity to tackle global health threats and express concerns that the world remains unready to deal with future pandemics. Consensus adoption is the UN process by which negotiated documents are treated as agreed unless a member objects; a single objection blocks the text. The US delegate said the country was “not in a position” to support the document.
Dr Erica Schwartz, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said critical issues remained unresolved. She cited “the inclusion of divisive ideologies that lack definitional consensus” and references within the document to ongoing WHO-led negotiations over the fair sharing of vaccines and drugs between countries in any future pandemic.
The Guardian reported that the Trump administration was unhappy with the declaration’s mentions of equity and universal access to sexual and reproductive healthcare services. Earlier this year, President Trump signed executive orders expanding a “global gag” rule that bans US aid recipients from work related to abortion to also include bans on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and what the administration called “gender ideology.”
Prof Lawrence Gostin, a leading expert on global health law from Georgetown University, told The Guardian that the US decision to dissent “severely weakens” the document and signals intent to disrupt international cooperation. “Since this is a political declaration, its value is only as strong as the political will to adopt and implement its provisions,” Gostin said. “The US decision to dissent severely weakens the document.”
“For many decades, it was American financing and scientific innovations that were the bedrock of outbreak detection and response,” Gostin continued. “This signals a clear US intention not to cooperate globally to health threats common to all nations. There is no rational reason to reject a political commitment to preventing and responding to dangerous outbreaks. The only thing gained by the Trump administration is to put a stick in the wheels of international cooperation.”
The Guardian reported that the US has been accused of exploitation in its pursuit of individual agreements with poorer countries in return for aid.
A separate WHO-led agreement governing how the world should respond to future pandemics is on hold while countries try to find agreement on the issue of pathogen access and benefit sharing — what countries should be guaranteed in terms of vaccines and treatments in return for sharing data on any emerging diseases on their territory. The US withdrew from the WHO shortly after Trump took office. UN documents of this kind do not impose legally binding requirements on countries but instead serve as a sign of commitment and intent, according to The Guardian.
The Guardian reported that the pandemic preparedness declaration is still likely to be adopted when it is considered again at a later UN General Assembly meeting where a majority rather than consensus vote is needed.
Helen Clark, a former prime minister of New Zealand and a co-chair of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, called the outcome “disappointing.” “It is disappointing that the high level meeting was not asked to endorse the political declaration which had been negotiated by member states,” Clark said. “Agreeing to collaborate to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics should not be controversial.”
Eloise Todd, the executive director and founder of Resilience Action Network International, described the failure to advance the text as “unacceptable” and said it was “an unfortunate reminder of the continued challenges to drive consensus for the global good in the current geopolitical environment.”