Italy, like the USA, says no to the WHO regulation against new pandemics

Faced with the threat of new pandemics and the WHO's attempt to better coordinate a new health emergency, Italy, once again following in the wake of the USA, is once again showing its 'sovereignist' face. After two months ago deciding to abstain from the vote on the World Health Organisation's new pandemic plan, which had garnered 124 votes in favour and 11 abstentions (including Italy, the only G7 country), Italy has now issued another blunt rejection of international health cooperation, warning of the risk of possible 'invasions'. This time it is targeting the amendments approved in 2024 to the International Health Regulations (IHR), also proposed by the WHO to introduce stricter rules for member states in the event of health emergencies and pandemics.

The Health Minister himself, Orazio Schillaci, made this official in a letter dated 18 July to the WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. The crux of the matter is the protection of national health sovereignty, a position similar to that of the United States, which yesterday rejected the amendments, speaking of a 'violation of American sovereignty'. Schillaci and the Italian government, which at home on vaccines and health prevention policies follow in the wake of past decisions, instead raise the wall when the WHO is evoked, which was also criticised yesterday by many members of the majority for its management of Covid. This intransigent stance follows that of the Trump administration, which has already decided that the US will leave the WHO as of 2026. Indeed, Health Secretary, Robert Kennedy Jr, and Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, argued in a memo yesterday that 'these amendments risk unduly hampering our sovereign right to shape our own health policy'. But what do these WHO-mandated measures, which would have come into force on 19 September also in Italy had it not been for the new 'no' vote? The amendments include a new definition of pandemic also with the activation of measures at the discretion of the WHO, which is responsible for declaring an international emergency even against the opinion of the individual state, as well as for coordinating international response activities. There are also new coordination bodies, a legally binding framework for responding to public health emergencies, and 'greater solidarity and equity' in favour of developing countries, for example on vaccines and devices. There is also a focus on 'systemic preparedness', which implies investment not only in the emergency phase, and the model of the international certificate is revised, somewhat reminiscent of the 'green pass'.

The government's move triggered a shower of opposing reactions. Fratelli d'Italia applauds the decision, noting that the changes in question would have entailed 'a reduction in national sovereignty'. The president of the FdI senators, Lucio Malan, speaks of 'excessive powers granted to the WHO': 'Many national economic resources, according to the amendments, would have had to be allocated to international needs at the will of the WHO director,' he says. Opposite is the position of the M5s, for whom Meloni 'sells out the interests of citizens to Trump: Italians, in the event of a new pandemic, could find themselves in difficulty in international travel, with the possibility of restrictions, controls or revaccination obligations according to the protocols adopted instead by all the others'. For the PD, it is a 'very serious decision, which puts our country out of the international context'.