The United States Opposes UN Declaration - The US Objects to Ideals, While the EU Resists Technology Transfer: A Deep Rift Emerges in Infectious Disease Control

Why is the Promise to "Cooperate Next Time" So Difficult?

When the next global pandemic spreads, will the necessary vaccines and treatments reach those in need in time?

Based on the experience with COVID-19, it seems there is little major opposition to countries strengthening their preparedness. However, when it comes to actually writing down the conditions for cooperation, interests related to politics, industry, and funding come into play.

According to a New York Times article dated September 25, 2026, the United States and the European Union (EU) did not support a United Nations declaration promising international cooperation and solidarity in pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.

It is important to note that this document is not a law that directly orders countries on how to handle infectious diseases. It is a political declaration without legal binding power, and not supporting it does not mean that existing international measures against infectious diseases will immediately disappear.

Nevertheless, the fact that political promises did not align is significant. To share medical supplies during a crisis, a system of mutual trust must be established beforehand.

According to the same article, the declaration will be reviewed in future United Nations General Assembly meetings, and there is still a high possibility of gaining the necessary support for adoption. It is important to distinguish between "not gaining unanimous support" and "the declaration being ultimately rejected."

The U.S. and EU Did Not Oppose for the Same Reasons

Summarizing it as "U.S. and EU opposition" might make it seem like a single bloc rejected international cooperation altogether. However, the statements that can be confirmed show differences.

In an excerpt from the NYT article, Erika Schwartz, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), speaking as the U.S. representative, acknowledged the amendments but stated that she could not support the entire document due to the inclusion of contentious ideas without consensus on definitions.

However, from the provided portion alone, it is not possible to determine exactly which expressions the U.S. is referring to. It should not be supplemented with speculation about specific policies or social groups.

On the other hand, the official statement released by the EU on the same day lists their objections more specifically. They argue that technology transfer should be voluntary and based on agreed terms by the parties involved, and they also commented on the description of international rules regarding intellectual property. They demand accuracy and realistic commitments concerning funding shortfalls and the handling of international funds.

At the same time, the EU has declared its commitment to the larger goal of pandemic response. The core of the disagreement is not just a binary choice of whether to cooperate, but under what conditions cooperation should be implemented.

It's Not Enough for Vaccines to Just Be "Invented"

The key to understanding this controversy is to consider development and supply separately.

Even if researchers and companies create effective products, that alone does not mean they will reach the world's medical settings. Mass production facilities, manufacturing technology, quality control, raw materials, storage facilities, transportation, and purchasing funds all need to be in place.

From the perspective of those with the technology, a system that allows them to recoup their investment in development is important. If conditions change significantly with each crisis, it will affect decisions to invest in research and facilities.

Conversely, for those waiting for supplies, the pressing issue is whether they can actually obtain them in an emergency. If cooperation relies too heavily on goodwill or individual negotiations, countries with weaker negotiation or purchasing power may be pushed to the back of the line.

This is not a problem that can be solved by dismissing one side's reasoning. It is a design issue of how to combine conditions that allow for continued development with those that prevent being left behind in supply during peacetime.

For example, how far should public funding for research support be conditioned on emergency supply and technical cooperation? If companies are asked to cooperate, how should compensation and responsibility be clearly defined? Without such specifics, merely advocating for "fair distribution" is unlikely to create a functioning system in times of crisis.

Do Not Confuse Political Declarations with the WHO Pandemic Agreement

In the discussion surrounding the current UN political declaration, distinguishing it from the WHO Pandemic Agreement is also important.

The WHO Pandemic Agreement is a separate document adopted at the World Health Assembly on May 20, 2025. The lack of support for the current political declaration does not invalidate that agreement. Furthermore, the adoption of the agreement and the procedures for ratification and implementation by each country are not the same.

The official explanation at the time of the WHO's adoption states that the agreement does not grant WHO the authority to dictate domestic laws or policies, mandate vaccinations, or order lockdowns.

The necessity of international cooperation and monitoring of its authority can coexist. However, if political declarations, agreements, and domestic regulations are treated as one, it becomes unclear what is being supported and what is being opposed.

The political declaration draft dated July 28, 2026, that could be confirmed also mentions the primary responsibility of states for the health of their citizens and sovereignty concerning public health, along with international cooperation. However, this document is a draft and cannot be assumed to completely match the wording addressed on September 25.

Two Different Anxieties Visible on Social Media

Regarding social media posts that directly reacted to the September 25 report, no sufficiently verifiable examples could be secured. Therefore, related posts about past pandemic agreements are introduced here. These do not indicate reactions to the current declaration or the overall trend in public opinion.

Related posts on Reddit that could be confirmed through searches express concern about the weakening of international preparedness. In r/Coronavirus, an article criticizing the weakening of global plans to address the next pandemic was shared in 2023. These posts draw attention to the retreat of cooperation promises during negotiations.

On the other hand, a 2024 post in r/DebateVaccines had a title that welcomed the retreat over the agreement as a victory for freedom. This reflects a view that sees the strengthening of international frameworks as a threat to individual freedom.

However, the concern about mandatory vaccination included in that post cannot be taken as a factual institutional matter. At least regarding the agreement adopted in 2025, it has been officially explained that WHO is not granted such authoritative power.

The range of confirmation is limited to the title of the post and the text displayed in search results, and the overall comments and scale of dissemination have not been verified. Nevertheless, the two examples of posts illustrate the difficulty of the debate. One fears that "cooperation is too weak," while the other fears that "authority is too strong."

To bridge this gap, it is necessary not only to call for solidarity but also to explain who decides, what authority they have, and what they cannot do. At the same time, when discussing fears about authority, one must not attribute powers to international organizations that are not actually written in the documents.

"Domestic Preparedness" and "Cooperation with Foreign Countries" Also Questioned in Japan

This conflict also includes issues that Japan should consider.

Both strengthening the domestic medical system and production capacity and maintaining cooperation with overseas are necessary. Even if the number of things that can be prepared domestically increases, information about infectious diseases occurring abroad cannot be generated solely within the country.

Moreover, there is a difference between signing supply contracts and having supplies arrive as planned in emergencies. It is essential to have a perspective that examines where the weaknesses lie, from research to manufacturing, procurement, and delivery to the field.

The challenge that can be derived from this discussion is to turn peacetime promises into concrete procedures. It is necessary to finalize the order of supply when demand surges, the support needed for increased production, information sharing with foreign countries, and cost-sharing before a crisis occurs.

Furthermore, being able to explain these decisions to society is also part of the preparedness. On what basis are measures decided, when are they reviewed, and how much is the administration responsible for? If the explanation is vague, it will be difficult to gain understanding for the necessary measures.

What Can Be Executed Beyond the Declaration

The meeting where the U.S. and EU expressed objections reflected political gaps that cannot be filled by scientific preparedness alone.

However, it is not possible to evaluate all the preparations of each country based solely on their stance on the declaration. A country that agrees may not secure the necessary budget or personnel, and a country that voiced objections may not cease all cooperation.

What should be observed in the future is not only the presence or absence of agreement but also the subsequent execution. Can the monitoring system be maintained? Can healthcare workers be supported? Can supply be expanded when products are scarce? And can cross-border cooperation continue even in the midst of a crisis?

Preparation for the next pandemic is not completed the moment a declaration is adopted. The question is whether the word "cooperate" can be transformed into supplies that reach the necessary places and personnel that can act.

Sources and Reference URLs

1. The New York Times (September 25, 2026) "U.S. Rejects U.N. Declaration on Preparing for Future Pandemics." Reporting on U.S. and EU's lack of support, statements by U.S. representatives, the non-binding nature of the political declaration, and future General Assembly reviews.
   https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/25/us/politics/us-rejects-un-declaration-on-preparing-for-pandemics.html

2. European External Action Service (EEAS, September 25, 2026). Official statement by the EU and member states. Lists objections regarding technology transfer, intellectual property, and funding, and confirms involvement in pandemic response.
   https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un-new-york/eu-general-statement-un-high-level-meeting-pandemic-prevention-preparedness-and-response_en

3. Draft of the UN Political Declaration published by Health Policy Watch (document dated July 28, 2026). References to national responsibility, sovereignty, and international cooperation. Not treated as the final adopted document.
   https://healthpolicy-watch.news/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/PPPR-Political-Declaration-Final-Text-for-Silence-Procedure.pdf

4. WHO (May 20, 2025). Official announcement at the time of the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement. Confirms the adoption date and explains that WHO is not granted authority over domestic policies, mandatory vaccinations, or lockdowns.
   https://www.who.int/news/item/20-05-2025-world-health-assembly-adopts-historic-pandemic-agreement-to-make-the-world-more-equitable-and-safer-from-future-pandemics

5. Reddit, r/Coronavirus (related post from 2023). Example of sharing an article criticizing the weakening of global pandemic response plans. Not a direct reaction to the current report. Uses the range confirmed in search display.
   https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/13ze9yu/

6. Reddit, r/DebateVaccines (related post from 2024). Example of a post welcoming the retreat over the agreement from the perspective of freedom. Not a source guaranteeing the accuracy of the post content, nor a direct reaction to the current report. Uses the range confirmed in search display.
   https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/1cbwtle/