In response to criticism about the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organisation (WHO) agreed to set up an independent inquiry to evaluate the global response. This came as a result of a resolution presented by the European Union which aimed to establish a timeline of events for the response to the global pandemic. The WHO was accused of reacting too late in declaring that this was a health emergency, especially when the first signs of the virus arose in November 2019, and emergency status was declared at the end of January 2020. 

THE CURRENT RESPONSE

There has been a varied response from world leaders to the announcement of the inquiry. Notably, Donald Trump has been highly critical of the WHO, accusing the organisation of working with China to cover up important information which, had we known sooner, may have prevented the virus from having such a catastrophic impact. Trump referred to the WHO as a ‘puppet of China’, and has suspended US funding to the health body – a powerful move given that the US was their biggest contributor. He has long held the belief that China is to blame for withholding and censoring information and wants the WHO to hold them to account. Both China and the WHO have denied any cover up and the overarching allegations. 

The EU is also encouraging the WHO to invest in determining how the virus managed to spread on this scale in order to prevent anything like this from happening again. EU spokeswoman Virginie Battu-Henriksson acknowledged that many unanswered questions remain, but now is not the time ‘for any sort of blame game.’ Both Australia and South Korea called for more powers to be granted to the WHO to enter countries earlier during potential outbreaks in order to carry out effective investigations. China agreed that an inquiry should take place but insists that this should be done once the pandemic slowed down. 

THE BIGGER PICTURE

The main question arising from the resolution is whether the response from world leaders to the virus outbreak was appropriate and proportionate. The outcome of the inquiry will likely be of huge importance when it comes to assessing decisions made by leaders in balancing the public health crisis with their human rights obligations. For instance, how those decisions impacted issues such as privacy, access to healthcare, and access to information about the virus.

For instance, China has been accused of censoring the release of information at the early stages of the virus (as told by Dr Li Wenliang). The doctor was one of the first people to raise the alarm about the virus, but the information was found to have been suppressed by the government and represented as being ‘false’. Its government has also been accused of misrepresenting the number of those who have been infected. Preventing vital statistics from being published may have contributed to the thousands of Coronavirus related deaths, compromising the right to access healthcare and relevant information. China strongly denies all accusations. 

The resolution calls for ‘transparent, equitable and timely access’ to any treatments developed, although the US has expressed some concerns. In a written statement, they claimed that the language may ‘negatively affect countries abilities to incentivise new drug development’. This position has been criticised by the charity Oxfam which argued that the resolution has not gone far enough in guaranteeing access to any future vaccines and upholding the right to healthcare. Oxfam encourage the development of a vaccine which will be available to all individuals free of charge.

Whilst other global leaders have agreed to increase cooperation between countries, the US confirmed they will not be taking part in this initiative. This has led to fears that any vaccine would not be as readily available to developing countries as it would be to wealthier countries - a situation which would have a severe impact on the right to healthcare for all. 

Tanya is a Law student heading into the final year of her degree at the University of Manchester. She is interested in bringing attention to human rights issues arising from her Pro-Bono work at University (volunteering at the Legal Advice Centre and taking part in volunteering projects). Her main goal is to become a Barrister practising in either Criminal or Family Law. 

LinkedIn