Italy, like the US, 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 the US lead, is once again showing its "sovereignist" side. After deciding two months ago to abstain from the vote on the World Health Organization's new pandemic plan, which received 124 votes in favor and 11 abstentions (including Italy, the only G7 country), now comes another clear rejection of international health cooperation, raising the risk of possible "invasions." This time, the focus is on the amendments approved in 2024 to the International Health Regulations (IHR), also proposed by the WHO to introduce more stringent rules for member states in the event of health emergencies and pandemics. This was made official by Health Minister Orazio Schillaci himself in a letter dated July 18 to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. The crux of the matter is the protection of national healthcare sovereignty, a position similar to that of the United States, which yesterday rejected the amendments, citing a "violation of American sovereignty." Schillaci and the Italian government, which at home are following the path of past decisions on vaccines and preventive healthcare policies, are instead reticent when it comes to the WHO, which was also criticized yesterday by many members of the majority for its handling of Covid. This uncompromising position mirrors that of the Trump administration, which has already decided to withdraw the United States from the WHO starting in 2026. Health Minister Robert Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued in a statement yesterday that "these amendments risk unduly hindering our sovereign right to develop our own healthcare policy." But what do these WHO-sponsored measures, which would have come into force in Italy on September 19th had it not been for the renewed "no" vote, entail? The amendments include a new definition of a pandemic, including the activation of measures at the discretion of the WHO, which is responsible for declaring an international emergency even against the advice of individual states, as well as coordinating international response efforts. New coordination bodies are also envisaged, along with a legally binding framework for responding to public health emergencies and "greater solidarity and equity" for developing countries, for example, in vaccines and medical devices. The amendments also focus on "systemic preparedness," which requires investments beyond the emergency phase, and the international certificate model, which somewhat resembles a "green pass," has been revised.

The government's move has sparked a flurry of mixed reactions. Brothers of Italy applauded the decision, noting that the amendments would have resulted in "a reduction in national sovereignty." Lucio Malan, president of the Brothers of Italy (FdI) senators, called the WHO "excessive powers granted." "Many national economic resources, based on the amendments, should have been allocated to international needs at the discretion of the WHO director," he stated. The Five Star Movement (M5S) took a different view, arguing that Meloni "is selling out citizens' interests to Trump: Italians, in the event of a new pandemic, could face difficulties in international travel, with the possibility of restrictions, controls, or mandatory revaccination according to the protocols adopted by all the others." The Democratic Party (PD) considers it a "very serious decision, which excludes our country from the international arena."