Australia supported the adoption of the WHO Pandemic Treaty this week, despite it being a dramatically diluted version of the original plan that drew global criticism for threatening national sovereignty and enabling censorship.
The treaty passed in Geneva late Monday evening during a hastily reconvened committee session with only a limited number of country delegates present. The official adoption followed on Tuesday at the World Health Assembly – but without debate and minus more than 50 contentious provisions present in earlier drafts.
Sovereignty Clause Added, Key Annex Postponed
Protests and opposition from dozens of countries forced the WHO to retreat on core parts of the agreement. The final text included a clause explicitly preserving national sovereignty and postponed decisions on the controversial Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) annex until 2026.
Other sections related to global censorship coordination, compulsory technology sharing, and enhanced WHO emergency powers were cut or softened.
“This was a treaty in crisis,” said one legal observer. “What passed was far from what WHO originally intended.”
Australia’s Role and Cautious Ratification Path
While Australia backed the treaty’s adoption, details of the official delegation remain unclear. The Department of Health confirmed the government is still engaging with the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body but will subject the agreement to full parliamentary scrutiny before any domestic ratification.
This cautious position reflects the treaty’s weakened state and the growing concern about its original scope.
Public Pressure Credited for Softened Text
Outside the UN compound in Geneva, protestors claimed victory. Groups including CitizenGO and a global alliance of NGOs rallied for days, arguing that sustained public opposition forced the WHO to gut the treaty.
“This is a desperate attempt by WHO to save face,” said a CitizenGO spokesperson. “The treaty is hollow. It’s a watered-down shell of what they pushed for.”
Swiss police reportedly stopped protest buses at the French border, but crowds still gathered to denounce what they called “pandemic profiteering.”
U.S. Reaction: RFK Jr. Calls It a Sovereignty Threat
In the U.S., presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. criticized the final agreement. “This treaty is an attack on national sovereignty and public accountability,” he posted on X (formerly Twitter). “We will not comply.”
His stance reflects wider global resistance. Countries including Russia, Iran, and several African states either abstained or publicly rejected key treaty sections.
About WHO Pandemic Treaty
Next Steps and Future Fights
While the treaty is now adopted, domestic ratification remains uncertain in many countries. Australia’s inclusion of a sovereignty clause may help it pass, but the still-pending PABS annex and broader implementation framework could reignite resistance.
For now, WHO has a framework – but far weaker than it envisioned. And the fight over global pandemic governance is far from over.
Australian Government Ministers Announce WHO Pandemic Treaty
Both Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Health Minister Mark Butler issued official statements welcoming the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement, praising it as a vital step towards pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Neither minister mentioned that the treaty was eviscerated, with more than 50 contentious provisions removed from it. They did know this, because Australia served as Vice-Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body for the Pandemic Agreement, representing the Western Pacific region.
Referencing the WHO pandemic treaty, Wong said “We need international cooperation on health to help keep Australia, our region, and the world safe. The adoption of the WHO Pandemic Agreement demonstrates the value of the international community working together to find solutions to shared global challenges.”
Butler said “The next pandemic is not a matter of if, but when. We have a collective responsibility to protect public health in all of our countries. The adoption of the WHO Pandemic Agreement is an important step forward.”
Citizengo v WHO