• WHO adopted a pandemic agreement to enhance global preparedness against future health crises.
• The deal aims to improve international collaboration, vaccine access, and surveillance.
• The absence of the U.S., a major funding source, casts doubt on the pact's effectiveness.
• 124 countries voted in favor, with 11 abstentions, including from Poland and Russia.
• The agreement's implementation relies on a forthcoming Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing mechanism.

The World Health Organization (WHO) adopted a landmark Pandemic Agreement on May 20, aiming to improve global coordination and response to future pandemics following the disruptions caused by COVID-19. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus described it as a "historic day," emphasizing the need for a collective defense against future health threats. After three years of negotiations, the legally binding pact was passed during the WHO's annual assembly in Geneva, significantly influenced by the shortcomings of the past pandemic response, according to Channel News Asia, South China Morning Post, and Dawn.

The accord intends to address prior disparities in vaccine access and enhance international collaboration during health crises, including a commitment for manufacturers to allocate 20% of vaccines and treatments for equitable distribution. However, the agreement has been met with skepticism due to the withdrawal of the United States from negotiations, which historically provided significant funding to the WHO, as noted by The Jakarta Post and Al Jazeera.

The vote resulted in support from 124 countries, while 11 nations, including Poland and Russia, chose to abstain, reflecting ongoing geopolitical tensions. Despite the successes heralded by some health experts, the agreement requires a comprehensive Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) mechanism, which countries have until May 2026 to finalize, as highlighted by sources like Reuters and TRT Global.

Concerns remain regarding the effective implementation of the agreement without U.S. participation and the lack of penalties for non-compliance. Critics argue that while the agreement establishes a foundation for future health equity, its impact will largely depend on the commitment of member states to adhere to its stipulations, a sentiment echoed by India Times and Le Monde.