Italy's blunder with the WHO
ANSA photo
Editorials
Doubts from several members of the majority on the global pandemic treaty had been raised several times over the past year, but Meloni's no is a dangerous precedent
On the same topic:
“The agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. The world is safer today.” This is how Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the WHO , greeted the adoption of the global pandemic treaty that followed the approval of the agreement that took place the previous day with a vote in committee by delegations of member states. A success in which Italy also played a leading role, but in a negative way, by abstaining when voting in the assembly . A decision that is difficult to explain but which does not come completely unexpected. Doubts about the treaty had already been raised on several occasions in the last year by the Meloni government. There was also strong pressure on this from the League, which has become increasingly intense in recent months after President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the WHO. To the point that Salvini's party had even submitted amendments and proposed laws to Parliament to also withdraw Italy from the WHO . The major doubts concerned the "respect for the necessary national sovereignty", recalled by the Minister of Health himself, Orazio Schillaci .
In reality, this is a topic that does not actually exist. The sovereignty of states remains guaranteed, as established in Article 3 of the treaty. The secretariat is entrusted to the WHO, but only with a coordinating role and without any binding power on national governments, as established in Article 22. The approved text explicitly states that: “Nothing in the WHO Pandemics Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the Director-General, with the authority to direct, order, amend or otherwise prescribe national law or to take specific actions, such as banning or accepting travelers, imposing vaccination requirements or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implementing lockdowns .” A very clear passage. But evidently not enough for a government once again held hostage by an anti-scientific faction.
More on these topics:
ilmanifesto
