On May 20, 2025, the Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) unanimously approved the world's firstpandemic agreement(commonly known as the "Pandemic Convention") was formally adopted. Countries agreed on principles and approaches to prevent, prepare for, and respond to a global epidemic of infectious diseases. The agreement was first proposed about a year after the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and took three years of negotiations to reach fruition.

There are several critical issues that led to the establishment of the Pandemic Convention. The new Corona pandemic revealed how fragile the idea of international cooperation was. The major pharmaceutical companies have been trying to maximize their profits in the development, manufacture, and distribution of vaccines and other pharmaceutical products.pursue (e.g. goal)The governments of high-income countries, on the other hand, prioritized the protection of the profits of these companies. On the other hand, governments in high-income countries prioritized protecting the interests of these companies, resulting in the loss of many lives in low-income countries and elsewhere. Extreme disparities in access to life-saving medicines have resulted.

The Pandemic Convention is an initial effort to prevent a similar situation from occurring again in the future. It is also important for the press as an opportunity to reflect on the response to the new corona pandemic.

This article explores the background issues surrounding the pandemic pact, briefly touches on an overview of the agreement, and then analyzes Japanese media coverage of the pact.

WHO Headquarters (Photo:Mattia Panciroli / Flickr [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0])

Novel Coronaviruses and the Vaccine Gap

The novel coronavirus is believed to have originated in Wuhan, China in December 2019 and spread rapidly around the world in early 2020. Many countries invested huge amounts of money in vaccine development, and several vaccines were developed by the end of 2020. However, large international disparities in access to vaccines and other medicines soon became apparent. High-income countries began buying up medical masks, medical equipment, testing kits, vaccines, and any other supplies considered useful in fighting the virus.

This was not merely a matter of high-income countries and companies using their financial power to secure preferential access. Intellectual property rights, such as patent rights, were also a major barrier. The World Trade Organization (WTO), through its Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Agreement), sets minimum standards for intellectual property rights for its members.TRIPS Agreementrequires member countries to provide at least 20 years of patent protection for inventions of vaccines and other medicines. Thus, companies that develop vaccines against novel coronaviruses now have exclusive control over their manufacture and distribution.

As death tolls soar worldwide, in October 2020, India and South Africa submitted a proposal to the WTO for an emergency patent waiver on medical technology related to the new coronavirussubmit (e.g. a report or a thesis)The purpose of the project was to The goal was to enable countries to manufacture in their own countries the test kits, vaccines, and other medicines that they needed to protect their own citizens. Some of the medicines in these countries had existing industrial infrastructures that could produce them quickly, while others could be manufactured only with technology transfer. This proposal includedMore than 100 countriesThe United States, Japan, and the European Union (EU), among others, aggressively blocked it at the WTO. The result was a situation in which high-income countries were buying up pharmaceuticals while at the same time preventing low-income countries from producing the drugs they needed in their own countries.

Thus, WHO's "shocking imbalance in the global distribution of vaccines"representationAs of September 2021, 60% of the population in high-income countries had received at least one dose of the new corona vaccine.vaccinationThe study in 2022 did not result in international sharing of vaccines,1.3 million peopleIt has been reported that as many as 20,000 lives may have been lost.

Outreach to low-income neighborhoods, Corona Disaster, Peru (Photo:Ministerio de Defensa del Perú / Wikimedia Commons[.CC BY 2.0])

Public Funds and Private Interests

Pharmaceutical companies and the governments that support them have insisted on the need to protect intellectual property rights. Thereasonwas that the purpose was to secure the revenue needed for research and development of vaccines and other medical technologies to deal not only with new coronaviruses but also with future infectious diseases. However, theclaimhas been questioned in many respects.

First, the rapid development of the new coronavirus vaccine has been accompanied by enormous governmentpublic fundsIt can be mentioned that this has been made possible by This includes not only direct government subsidies and pre-purchase agreements, but also publicly funded research institutions and universities.Research Activitiesalso included. In other words, even though much of the cost of vaccine development was covered by public funds, all of the enormous profits made from its sale went to the pharmaceutical companies.

Second, the huge sums obtained from the sale of vaccines and other pharmaceuticalsgrace (of God, Buddha, etc.)The first time a new coronavirus vaccine was approved, it was revealed to be in the private interest of corporate management and shareholders. Less than six months after the first approval of the new corona vaccine, the pharmaceutical industry and related sectors40 peopleare the new billionaires (individuals owning more than US$1 billion in assets), according to reports. The personal assets of the nine individuals who became billionaires through vaccine development alone could provide vaccines to nearly the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa.trial calculationThe company has been

Third, governments and human rights organizations in many low-income countriesclaimAs we have discussed, the refusal to waive intellectual property rights is a serious barrier to the equitable distribution of vaccines, and in light of the fact that a large number of lives have been lost, it can be raised as an ethical issue. Some of the contracts for vaccine sales included provisions aimed at restricting distribution. For example, some pharmaceutical companies prohibit the purchasing country from donating or reselling vaccinesconfidential contracthad concluded. As a result, the high-income countries that bought up excessive amounts of vaccine ultimately lost much of it to thedisposalThe first time, the company decided to do so.

New corona vaccine (Photo:Camosun College / Flickr [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0])

Are vaccines a global public good?

As the enormous loss of life caused by vaccine disparities became apparent, there were calls for the novel coronavirus vaccine and related medicines to be treated as a "global public good" rather than a monopolistic private good. This has led to the introduction of open licenses for novel coronavirus-related diagnostic technologies, vaccines, and therapeutics tomeaningshall be made available to the public. In other words, data on their development and manufacture should be made widely available to researchers and manufacturers to promote international participation in R&D and to ensure a diverse manufacturing system.

The argument that the new corona vaccine should be seen as a global public good has been made by the United Nations agency (WHO, ,UNESCO(e.g., the EU'sSome government officialsDoctors Without Borders, Inc.MSFIn May 2020, WHO, together with the Costa Rican government and other partners, will launch the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP(Cuba), a mechanism that allows governments, companies, and researchers involved in the development of novel coronavirus-related technologies to voluntarily share data and technologies. Cuba has also proven that it is possible to develop vaccines without the profit motive of giant pharmaceutical companies, and has established a system to develop effective home-developed vaccines in a short period of time.completionI made him do it.

On the other hand, there were also initiatives that seemed to discourage the open licensing of vaccines and other technologies. A prime example is the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access (COVAXCOVAX will allow low-income countries to access vaccines at a discount through government and donor subsidies, while protecting the intellectual property rights and profits of pharmaceutical companies.structurehad.Bill Gates, through the foundation he runs.A big part of this initiativerolebut the vaccine development companies had been playing a huge role in theinvestmentand the protection of intellectual property allows for a largegrace (of God, Buddha, etc.)COVAX is also the person who has obtained the finalTargetand vaccine inequality continued.

In addition, for some countries, the provision of vaccinesdiplomatic strategyIn some cases, the vaccine was used as a There have been attempts to strengthen relations with certain low-income countries by providing vaccines, first in China and Russia, and then in Western countries. On the other hand, there have also been attempts to sabotage the provision of vaccines by other countries: in 2024, the U.S. military conducted a covert campaign using fake accounts on social networking sites in countries in Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East where Chinese vaccines were provided, in order to spread distrust of Chinese vaccines.disinformation campaignIt was revealed that the company had conducted

Bill Gates unveiling a vaccine at a press conference, 2011 (Photo:UN Geneva / Flickr [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0])

pandemic treaty

Against the backdrop of the above situation, the need for a pandemic convention was raised and subsequently promoted, ultimately leading to its adoption in May 2025. This Convention is "Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response".Objective.The basic principles of the program, which are set forth as "solidarity with all people and nations in the health crisis" and "ensuring equity" are emphasized as the basic principles of the program. Countries are expected to work to "eliminate unjustified, avoidable, or correctable disparities among individuals, communities, and nations.

The treaty text states that countries are obligated to promote "research collaboration, access to research, and the rapid sharing of research information and results, especially in public health emergencies of international concern." It also calls for the establishment of sustainable and geographically diverse local manufacturing systems and enhanced transfer of pandemic-related knowledge, skills, and technologies.

Of particular importance is the fact that the Treaty allows the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS) toestablishmentThe PABS is a new system for the collection of scientific information on pathogens in countries that often do not benefit from vaccine development. Under PABS, participating pharmaceutical companies are obligated to provide WHO with a portion of their diagnostic, vaccine, and therapeutic production in exchange for access to pathogen information. WHO is responsible for distributing these to low-income countries.

However, several criticisms exist with the treaty. In particular, the relatively low level of shared obligations, the lack of enforceability, and the fact that important implementation details are left to future negotiations.pointing outThe Convention was adopted unanimously, but the United States did not participate in its negotiation and adoption. In addition, although the Convention was adopted unanimously, the United States did not participate in its negotiation and adoption because it had withdrawn from the WHO. Overall, the Convention can be regarded as a small but important step toward improving responses to future pandemics.

WHO flag (Photo:United States Mission Geneva / Wikimedia Commons[.CC BY 2.0])

Japanese Press Coverage of the Pandemic Convention

The major Japanese media have not followed the process leading up to the pandemic treaty that continuously. The idea of a treaty was first proposed in 2021, but in the four years since then, the term "pandemic treaty" has appeared in only 18 articles in the Mainichi Shimbun, 17 in the Yomiuri Shimbun, and 16 in the Asahi Shimbun. None of the newspapers ran a front-page article or special feature on the adoption of the treaty, and the only editorials that covered it wereAsahi (newspaper)andMainichi NewspapersThe only

Furthermore, all of the press articles during the final stages of the adoption of the Convention were brief, with little explanation delving into the background of the Convention or its necessity. Many important issues and points of contention were either ignored or only very briefly touched upon. For example, a May 20, 2025 Yomiuri Shimbun article on the adoption of the Convention stated, "Based on the lessons learned from the spread of the new coronavirus, the Convention includes the strengthening of international cooperation, including the distribution of medicines.statementAnother on May 29.articleIn the "Vaccine and Vaccination in Developing Countries" section, some background explanation is provided, but the content of the explanation is questionable. It states, "The background to the introduction of the vaccine was the reflection that the developed countries rushed to secure the vaccine after the coronary disaster, which delayed vaccinations in developing countries," and describes the vaccine gap as simply a speed issue. It does not mention any structural factors such as vaccine hoarding or intellectual property rights issues. The same article states that "negotiations between developed countries, which want to reduce the corporate burden, and developing countries, which want to expand support, have been protracted," but by blurring the intention of corporations to maximize profits as "burden reduction" and describing the demands of low-income countries as "support," the essential issue of pursuing fairness is covered up.

The Asahi Shimbun report was a little closer to the reality: on May 21articleIn the May 26 edition of the "Japan's National Institute of Health (JNIH)", it is stated that there is "a conflict between developing countries seeking the transfer of pharmaceutical and vaccine manufacturing technology and developed countries seeking to prevent the outflow of technology", and on May 26, "the issue was raised that developed countries were buying up vaccines and not distributing enough to developing countries, which delayed vaccination.Reportedly.. However, these articles, as a whole, also lack information and do not provide sufficient background explanation. In addition, the May 23editorialThe company also hopes that companies will "pool their wisdom to create a system that is beneficial to them as well.

The Mainichi Shimbun published slightly more articles than the other two newspapers, with the May 28articlestated, "In the negotiations for the Convention, the main issue was how to distribute vaccines and medicines developed by companies in developed countries to developing countries," and in the June 2editorialalso touched on the issue of vaccine "hoarding" by high-income countries. Also, on May 20, the South African representative to the negotiations said that "special consideration must be given to developing countries"introductionand was the only one to address the perspective of low-income countries in the form of a direct quote. However, the specifics of that "consideration" were not mentioned, and no further details were provided.

Medical examination at Corona Disaster, India (Photo:Trinity Care Foundation / Flickr [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0])

Important Issues Missing from the Press

In their coverage before and after the adoption of the pandemic treaty, none of the three newspapers mentioned the fact that many lives were lost in low-income countries due to the vaccine gap, or that these countries were prevented by intellectual property rights restrictions from producing their own generic vaccines and other medicines. Nor did it address the structural causes of the problem, including the continued refusal of high-income countries to relinquish these intellectual property rights. There was also no critical discussion of the pharmaceutical companies that profited enormously from these situations, and few even mentioned them.

Interestingly, just five days after the adoption of the treaty, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported, "'I want to set an example,' asks Bill Gates, 'I want to give all my money to international health.interview (i.e. television, newspaper, etc.)published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The article continued to ask favorable questions about Gates' philanthropy and "Japan's contribution to global health," but no critical questions were asked about the Pandemic Pact, intellectual property issues related to life-threatening drugs, or the gains he made from the investments he made during the pandemic.

The viewpoint that vaccines should be regarded as public goods in the event of a pandemic was also not addressed in the 2025 report. The Asahi Shimbun reported on June 14, 2024, about a year before the adoption of the Convention, thateditorialIn the "Drugs in the event of a pandemic should be considered a public good," he stated, noting that a large amount of public funds had supported the development of vaccines by companies. However, this perspective disappeared from the press when the Convention was adopted.

All three newspapers have been discussing the non-participation of the United States in the pandemic pact.interestindicated, but did not clearly mention the crucial Japanese position and situation. Japan was one of the few countries that strongly opposed the abandonment of intellectual property rights during the pandemic, presumably with the intention of protecting the economic interests of the Japanese pharmaceutical industry. For example, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, which was involved in the distribution and manufacture of vaccines during the pandemic, and the image analysis technology related to the new coronavirusofferAs a result, Tadasu Tanimura, the representative director of the company, wasbillionaireThe list includes companies such as M3, which became

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Tokyo (Photo:Lombroso / Wikimedia Commons [Public domain])

Thus, the Japanese government also bears some responsibility for the loss of life caused by vaccine inequality. Furthermore, given the size of Japan's economy and the influence of its pharmaceutical industry, how Japan engages in the strengthening and implementation of future pandemic treaties could have a significant impact on the future of the world as a whole. However, there was no attempt in any of the three newspapers to question the Japanese government's past response or future stance, and discussion of the Japanese pharmaceutical industry and its handling of intellectual property rights was completely absent.

Were lessons learned?

It is not surprising that there has been relatively little coverage of the pandemic pact and little media attention to the important issues surrounding the pact. This is because since the start of the new corona pandemic in 2020, the Japanese media has paid little attention to the impact of the virus on low-income countries, the vaccine gap, and issues related to intellectual property rights.

Of course, the media showed strong interest in the new corona pandemic itself. Especially in the early months of the pandemic, international coverage in major Japanese newspapers60-80% of the totalThe coverage was so concentrated that it accounted for more than half of the total. However, the focus was mainly on the situation in high-income countries in Europe and the United States and in China, the country where the virus originated, with little coverage of the plight of low-income countries. For example, only 1.9% of the articles in the Asahi Shimbun in 2020 that included "corona" in the title were about Africa, and only 2.3% were about Latin America (*1).

The issue of intellectual property rights in general also received little media coverage: in 2021, GNV conducted the Asahi Shimbun'snews analysisfocused their attention on intellectual property rights related to the new corona vaccine mainly on the U.S. government's expressed support for patent waiver, with little mention of the issue of vaccine access in low-income countries. In fact, none of the Asahi, Mainichi, or Yomiuri newspapers ran a single article about the India-South Africa-led proposal for a waiver of new corona-related intellectual property rights at the WTO in 2020, which was supported by more than half of the world's countries. Despite the fact that both countries were severely affected by the pandemic, India was the 13th most mentioned country and South Africa the 41st most mentioned country in the Asahi Shimbun's coverage related to the new coronavirus in 2020.

Children learning to wear masks (Photo:RDN Stock project / Pexels[.Pexels License])

summary

The new corona pandemic had a devastating impact on the world not only by the adverse effects of the virus itself, but also by the response measures taken in response to it. As noted above, actions related to the development, production, and supply of vaccines and medicines were of course a major issue, but lockdowns and restrictions on movement and activity also had a profound impact on the lives and economies ofdamageand many lives were lost. The world's disparities have also rapidlyenlargementThe World Bank has been working with the people of the United States to help them. While many new billionaires were born and the wealth of existing billionaires grew rapidly, those who fell into what the World Bank calls "extreme poverty" wereApprox. 100 million peoplealso increased. In addition, many governments have used the pandemic to increase the freedom and voice of their citizens, especially those who question their policies.restrictionand power.reinforceThe phenomenon that the number of people who had been living in the same area was also observed.

The new corona pandemic also showed how shortsighted home-centric reporting attitudes can be in today's globalized world. Infectious diseases do not care about national borders or nationalities. Under the pandemic, the concept of "international cooperation" was even more conspicuous than usual in its inadequacy. This is not just a matter of charity, but of human rights and equity. At the same time, however, global cooperation to prevent and contain future pandemics would be beneficial to high-income countries. The Asahi Shimbun on May 26, 2025.articleAs pointed out in the previous section, "As long as there are countries and regions where the infection continues to spread, the pathogen will mutate and otherwise spread around the world again. Stopping the spread of infection in other countries will help protect their own security.

From the coverage of the new corona pandemic and the recently adopted pandemic treaty by the Japanese press, it is difficult to say that enough lessons have been learned from the pandemic. Perhaps now is the time to change that situation.

1 Data courtesy of Seita Morimoto

Writer: Virgil Hawkins