Italy was one of only 11 nations that abstained from the WHO pandemic agreement, with 124 countries voting in favor and none against. The agreement aims to avoid mistakes made during COVID-19 by improving international coordination and vaccine access. Italy justified their abstention by emphasizing “the primacy of national sovereignty” in public health management.
Italy Takes Stand for National Sovereignty
On May 20, 2025, Italy made a significant diplomatic statement by abstaining from voting on the World Health Organization’s first Pandemic Agreement. The agreement, ratified with overwhelming support from 124 nations and no opposition, seeks to establish a framework for global pandemic response following lessons learned from the COVID-19 crisis. Italy joined just 10 other nations in abstaining from the vote, positioning itself apart from the majority of the international community on matters of global health governance.
The Italian government, led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, defended its decision by emphasizing the importance of maintaining national control over public health decisions. Health Minister Orazio Schillaci articulated the government’s position, calling for a more deliberate approach to reaching consensus on international health agreements.
Today May 20, 2025. The Pandemic Agreement is adopted by the World Health Assembly!
The countries that abstained from the vote on the WHO Pandemic Agreement during the 78th World Health Assembly on May 19, 2025, were: Poland, Israel, Italy, Russia, Slovakia, Iran, Algeria,… pic.twitter.com/GQD6zplgvX
— Cryptopuppetmaster (@Cryptopuppetmas) May 20, 2025
Understanding the WHO Pandemic Agreement
The newly adopted agreement focuses on preventing the missteps of the COVID-19 response by strengthening international coordination, improving disease monitoring systems, and ensuring equitable access to vaccines and treatments during future health emergencies. A key component includes the establishment of a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network designed to guarantee fair distribution of medical resources during crises, addressing one of the most glaring inequities exposed during the coronavirus pandemic.
Contrary to concerns expressed by the Italian government, the agreement contains specific provisions safeguarding national sovereignty. The WHO will not have authority to impose travel bans, mandatory vaccinations, or lockdown measures on member states. Instead, the framework focuses on coordination, information sharing, and mutual support while respecting each nation’s right to determine its own public health measures.
WHO gets its Pandemic Treaty…
🇺🇸 out, 🇮🇹🇮🇱🇵🇱🇷🇺 abstain, and trust on life support.
No votes against — just a global shrug.
Bureaucrats celebrate. The virus doesn’t care.#PandemicTreaty #WHO #GlobalTheatre pic.twitter.com/GRbQnHHYnd— Paul Hennessy (@PPHennessy) May 20, 2025
Political Reactions and Consequences
Italy’s abstention has reignited domestic political debates over the Meloni government’s approach to health policy and international cooperation. The decision follows earlier controversial moves by the administration, including the 2022 repeal of vaccination mandates for healthcare workers and the reinstatement of unvaccinated medical staff. Opposition figures have sharply criticized the government’s stance on the WHO agreement as politically motivated rather than scientifically sound.
Supporters of the government’s position, including Senator Marco Lisei, frame the abstention as evidence of Italy reasserting itself on the international stage rather than simply following along with global consensus. This perspective aligns with the Meloni administration’s broader emphasis on national sovereignty across various policy areas, from immigration to economic governance.
Potential Implications for Italy
Health experts warn that Italy’s decision could have practical consequences beyond symbolic political positioning. As a non-signatory to the agreement, Italy may face limitations in its ability to participate in the governance of the new international pandemic response system. This could potentially restrict Italian influence in future decision-making processes and potentially complicate access to international resources during health emergencies.
The medical and scientific communities in Italy have expressed particular concern about the government’s position. Infectious disease specialist Matteo Bassetti and other prominent health experts have questioned the rationale behind abstaining from an agreement that aims to strengthen global health security while respecting national authority. They argue that effective pandemic response requires coordinated international action, something that may be more difficult for Italy to participate in given its current stance.