WHO Should Have More Say in Pandemics  05/12 06:12

   

   GENEVA (AP) -- A panel of independent experts who reviewed the World Health 
Organization's response to the coronavirus pandemic says the U.N. health agency 
should be granted "guaranteed rights of access" in countries to investigate 
emerging outbreaks, a contentious idea that would give it more powers and 
require member states to give up some of theirs.

   In a report released Wednesday, the panel faulted countries worldwide for 
their sluggish response to COVID-19, saying most waited to see how the virus 
was spreading until it was too late to contain it, leading to catastrophic 
results. The group also slammed the lack of global leadership and restrictive 
international health laws that "hindered" WHO's response to the pandemic.

   Some experts criticized the panel for failing to hold WHO and others 
accountable for their actions during COVID-19, describing that as "an 
abdication of responsibility."

   Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University said the panel "fails to call out 
bad actors like China, perpetuating the dysfunctional WHO tradition of 
diplomacy over frankness, transparency and accountability."

   The panel was led by former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and 
former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, who were tapped by WHO last year 
to examine the U.N. agency's response to COVID-19 after bowing to a request 
from member countries.

   "The situation we find ourselves in today could have been prevented," 
Johnson Sirleaf said.

   Beyond the call to boost WHO's ability to investigate outbreaks, the panel 
made an array of recommendations, such as urging the health agency and the 
World Trade Organization to convene a meeting of vaccine-producing countries 
and manufacturers to quickly reach deals about voluntary licensing and 
technology transfer, in an effort to boost the world's global supply of 
coronavirus shots.

   The panel also suggested that WHO's director-general -- currently Tedros 
Adhanom Ghebreyesus of Ethiopia -- should be limited to a single seven-year 
term. As it stands, the WHO chief is elected to a five-year term that can be 
renewed once.

   The suggestion to limit the tenure of WHO's top leader appeared in part 
designed to ease the intense political pressure that WHO director-generals can 
face. Last year, the Trump administration repeatedly inveighed against the 
agency's handling of the pandemic -- taking aim at WHO's alleged collusion with 
China.

   An Associated Press investigation in June found WHO repeatedly lauded China 
in public while officials privately complained that Chinese officials stalled 
on sharing critical epidemic information with them, including the new virus' 
genetic sequence.

   Clark said the global diseases surveillance system needed to be overhauled 
-- with WHO's role strengthened.

   "WHO should have the powers necessary to investigate outbreaks of concern, 
speedily guaranteed rights of access, and with the ability to publish 
information without waiting for member state approval," she said.

   Sophie Harman, a professor of international politics at Queen Mary 
University of London, said the panel's recommendations were unlikely to be 
entirely welcomed by WHO's member countries, and thus, unlikely to be 
implemented.

   "Which states would actually allow WHO in to investigate an outbreak without 
their permission?" she asked.

   Many doctors fatigued after treating COVID-19 patients said any reform of 
WHO should include an evaluation of its ability to properly assess the science 
of an emerging health threat.

   David Tomlinson, a British physician who has been campaigning for health 
workers during the pandemic in the U.K., said WHO "failed on the most 
fundamental aspect" in its scientific leadership of COVID-19. He said WHO's 
failure to acknowledge that much coronavirus transmission happens in the air 
has "amplified the pandemic."

   WHO has said coronavirus spread can happen in limited circumstances in the 
air but recommended against mask-wearing for the general public until last June.

   Clare Wenham, a professor of global health policy at the London School of 
Economics, said the report overall was good, but questioned its support for the 
U.N.-backed program for coronavirus vaccines called COVAX, which relies on a 
"donation" model. Of the millions of COVID-19 vaccines administered to date, 
developing countries have received just 7%, WHO said this week.

   "(COVAX) is not addressing one of the main problems, which is we need to 
rapidly ramp up production of the vaccines and distribution of vaccines," she 
said. "And it's still working on the model of a finite number that's only able 
be produced by a certain few manufacturing locations."

   Overall, she suggested politicians needed to budge more than technical 
institutions like WHO.

   "The problems aren't technical. The problems are political. The problems are 
about like: How do you get governments to behave and think about things beyond 
their own borders?" Wenham said. "I don't think that has been resolved."