The UN General Assembly has adopted a political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, but by a recorded vote rather than the consensus diplomats had hoped for. The United States, Israel and Argentina voted against. The declaration is not binding, and the WHO Pandemic Agreement it welcomes still cannot open for signature until countries agree how pathogens and the benefits from them are shared. Meanwhile, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Ebola outbreak has passed 9,000 confirmed cases.
More than six years after COVID-19 exposed how unprepared the world was for a pandemic, governments are still struggling to agree on what they owe one another when the next one comes. On 12 October in New York, the UN General Assembly adopted the Political Declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response by 153 votes to three, with two abstentions, ANI reported. The United States, Israel and Argentina voted against; New Zealand and Paraguay abstained. The vote count was reported in India during Tuesday, 13 October.
The declaration was meant to be adopted by consensus at the second UN High-level Meeting on pandemic preparedness on 25 September. Objections from the United States and a few others prevented that, so it went to a vote. UN News headlined the result: “General Assembly adopts pandemic declaration, but not by consensus.”
What the declaration says
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the declaration treats pandemic preparedness as a health, development, economic and security priority. Its commitments include:
- sustained investment in national, regional and global capacity to prevent, detect and respond to pandemic threats;
- stronger monitoring and surveillance systems;
- implementation of the amended International Health Regulations (2005);
- empowering communities;
- timely access to pathogens with equitable sharing of benefits;
- expanding local and regional manufacturing and research capacity;
- sustainable financing.
It also welcomes the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which the World Health Assembly adopted in May 2025.
The declaration is a statement of political commitment, not a treaty. It creates no enforcement mechanism and guarantees no money. Its value lies in signalling priorities and in shaping negotiations elsewhere.
The missing piece: PABS
The most consequential of those negotiations concerns the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system, an annex to the Pandemic Agreement. The agreement cannot open for signature and ratification until the annex is adopted.
PABS addresses a grievance that sharpened during COVID-19. Countries that detect a new pathogen are expected to share samples and genetic sequences quickly, so vaccines, tests and drugs can be developed. But the products developed from those samples were largely bought first by wealthy countries. Under PABS, manufacturers using shared pathogen material would commit to providing a share of resulting vaccines, treatments or diagnostics to WHO for distribution in an emergency. The negotiations have stalled over how large the share should be, whether commitments should be binding, and how sequence data are handled. According to ANI, the divide runs between developing countries and some high-income European countries and the United States.
“We urge countries to now fulfil the commitments they have made, especially to finalize negotiations on the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system (PABS) annex,” said WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. The outcome is due to go to the World Health Assembly in May 2027, or earlier at a special session.
The US delegation objected to what it called “divisive ideologies that lack definitional consensus”, as well as references to the ongoing PABS talks, ANI reported. The United States withdrew from the WHO in January 2026. Chile’s representative argued the opposite case: “no country, no matter how big it might be or how prepared it might be, can alone address a threat that knows no borders.”
Ebola: the test in progress
The vote came against the backdrop of the largest Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s history. The DRC health ministry reported 9,066 confirmed cases and 4,381 deaths on 13 October, according to the Associated Press. The outbreak was announced in mid-May and has spread to seven provinces. WHO figures show that only the 2014–16 West African epidemic, with 28,600 cases and more than 11,000 deaths, was larger.
The outbreak is caused by the Bundibugyo species of ebolavirus, for which there is no licensed vaccine or specific treatment. The Ervebo vaccine and antibody therapies used in recent DRC outbreaks target the Zaire species. Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu, who heads WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, said on Tuesday that a trial to evaluate vaccine efficacy against the Bundibugyo strain is being prepared in the DRC and could begin in the coming weeks. Reports differ on the exact status of vaccine trials, and NSH treats the timing as uncertain.
The response faces obstacles that no declaration can address directly: community distrust of responders, and fighting between M23 rebels and government forces that hampers transport of supplies. Kenya recorded its first imported case earlier this month; Uganda, which had 20 cases, was declared Ebola-free in August.
The outbreak illustrates the declaration’s themes. Rapid sharing of samples and sequences helps develop tests and vaccines. Regional manufacturing capacity determines how quickly doses reach the people who need them. And sustained financing determines whether surveillance works before an outbreak grows.
India’s stake
India has more at stake in these negotiations than most countries. It is one of the world’s largest vaccine producers, supplying a large share of vaccines used in low- and middle-income countries. A PABS system that sets benefit-sharing obligations will shape the terms on which Indian manufacturers can use shared pathogen material, and the share of output they may be asked to set aside. India has also consistently argued for equitable access and technology transfer, positions reflected in the declaration’s emphasis on local and regional manufacturing.
The available reports do not record how India voted or what it said. Given that 153 countries voted in favour, India is likely to have supported the text, but NSH has not confirmed this from the UN voting record and does not present it as fact.
What happens next
The PABS negotiations are the decisive arena. If countries can agree an annex by May 2027, the Pandemic Agreement can begin its path to entry into force. If not, the declaration risks being remembered mainly for the absence of consensus.
-Vamsi Priya Potharaju
Key facts
- Vote (12 Oct, New York; ANI via The Tribune, 13 Oct, 12:05 IST): 153 in favour; 3 against (US, Israel, Argentina); 2 abstentions (New Zealand, Paraguay).
- Status: non-binding political declaration; welcomes the WHO Pandemic Agreement (adopted May 2025).
- Next step: PABS annex to the World Health Assembly in May 2027 or a special session; the Pandemic Agreement opens for signature only after the annex is adopted.
- Ebola (DRC health ministry via AP, 13 Oct): 9,066 confirmed cases, 4,381 deaths, seven provinces; Bundibugyo species; no licensed vaccine or treatment.
- Context: the US left the WHO in January 2026.
