Recorded April 14, 2021
The human and economic toll of COVID-19 has focused attention like never before on the inadequacies of the global health regime. Nations, multinational organizations, and global finance may be receptive to proposals to take public health more seriously. Asia has arguably enjoyed more success than any other region of the world in controlling the pandemic. Our panel of experts from Asia share their ideas about how the world community should harness the emergency to improve the way global public health programs are organized and funded, both to address longstanding problems of health inequality and insecurity and prepare for future pandemics. Learn more about the event and speakers. In partnership with Centre for International Law - National University of Singapore

Event Summary:
Our distinguished panelists and discussants doled out both praise and criticism for the WHO’s response to COVID-19. The following were among the points raised by individual speakers. Please note that we and they did not attempt to develop a consensus view or common set of recommendations.

The WHO remains an important moral voice that speaks to the better angels of humanity, and the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) are already a great achievement. Going forward, we should not pursue grand reforms of the WHO or IHR but improve the implementation of the existing framework.
For that, technical assistance and more funding is critically needed. Countries could be incentivized to do better through carrots (providing them with assistance) rather than sticks (enforcement measures). Member states also should reflect on their own behavior and how they can better cooperate with the WHO and the international community.
The WHO is over-dependent on voluntary contributions and needs more robust financing.
Although the WHO and heads of 25 countries recently called for a “new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response,” negotiating such a treaty would be difficult and slow, and might well distract attention from more immediate needs. Even if achieved, a new treaty would not necessarily prevent nation-states from prioritizing their own interests in times of crisis – as we have seen during COVID-19 with hoarding of PPE and vaccines.
The WHO has played a useful role during the pandemic as an information clearinghouse and source of guidance. That said, its advice with respect to COVID has been behind the curve and contradictory, leaving an opening for misinformation and “wacky theories.” The WHO cannot move “faster than science,” but “soft guidance” that takes into account the precautionary principle (for example, earlier recommendations for mask wearing and social distancing) can be useful. Making clear what is and isn’t known at the outset can allow later shifts in guidance to be more readily accepted.
The WHO should be more responsive to policies advanced by governments that show relative success in mitigating the pandemic’s spread.
The WHO also should better coordinate surge capacity with respect to medical personnel and the supply of PPE and equipment.
On the other hand, the WHO may be attempting to do too much. Some functions, such as resource mobilization and research and development, could be played by other U.N. agencies or non-government actors.
The lessons of COVID should be captured by a global repository, including not just emergency response lessons but lessons about the longer-term effects such as mental health and excess mortality in other diseases.
We should consider building on the new Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, the WHO’s year-old collaboration with nation-states, other international organizations, scientists, businesses, civil society, and philanthropists to accelerate development, production, and equitable access to COVID-19 tests, treatments, and vaccines. (COVAX is one of its best-known components.)
More attention needs to be paid to achieving universal health coverage and making sure that states have the capacity to develop the minimum core medical capacities needed to fulfil their basic reporting obligations under the IHR. States need a better foundation for good health before pandemics start.
Pandemics should be treated as global security risks. Measures that the United Nations reserves for major security risks might be considered against non-cooperating nations in a pandemic.