As the World Health Assembly prepares to vote on nuclear war, US allies are forced to choose
A resolution led by the small island nations of Samoa, Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands seeks to revive the World Health Organisation’s role on nuclear weapons—and puts U.S. allies in an awkward bind.
GENEVA — After a 30-year hiatus, global nuclear politics return to the World Health Assembly this week, as Samoa, Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands—on behalf of a cross-regional group of more than 32 states—bring forward a resolution on “The Effects of Nuclear War on Public Health.”
The resolution, expected to be tabled for decision on Monday or Tuesday, marks the first serious effort to put the issue of nuclear weapons back on the WHO’s agenda since a series of landmark reports in the 1980s and early 1990s spelled out just how catastrophic a nuclear war would be from a medical perspective.
In a world where the use of nuclear weapons can no longer be seen as a mere hypothetical, the resolution reflects a renewed urgency to understand exactly what a nuclear war would mean for public health. The text makes no radical demands—only that the WHO update its earlier findings and report back in four years.
The initiative has drawn strong support from the medical community: more than 130 health journals recently issued a rare joint editorial urging the WHO to renew its focus on nuclear weapons, calling prevention “the only option.”
“New developments since the last report reinforce the need to re-establish WHO’s mandate to provide authoritative and current evidence on this risk to human survival and the stability of Earth systems,” said Professor Sir Andrew Haines, former Dean of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, on behalf of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War—recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.
The resolution’s lead sponsors had hoped the text could be adopted without a vote, making several concessions during the drafting process—including changes to the resolution’s title. But late last week, delegates from the Russian Federation signalled their intention to break consensus, seemingly bringing those efforts to an end.
Echoing Russia’s stance, the United States—though no longer a member of the WHO—has reportedly pressured its NATO allies to reject the initiative, raising uncomfortable questions about European countries’ willingness to let Donald Trump’s America dictate their global health positions from the outside.
In October last year, the establishment of an Independent Scientific Panel on the Effects of Nuclear War at the UN in New York forced a split within NATO: while a majority of NATO states supported the initiative, France and the United Kingdom—together with Russia—voted against, and a small group, including the United States, chose to abstain.
With Washington taking an increasingly hardline approach with its allies, a growing number of European NATO states are expected to vote against or abstain on the Health Assembly resolution—many pointing to its $100,000 annual price tag as justification. Whether framed as a budgetary concern or a political calculation, the vote will indicate the extent to which governments are prepared to let science, facts, and public health evidence inform their military and security policies.
UPDATE, 27 May 2025 — The resolution on “The Effects of Nuclear War on Public Health” was put to a vote in the World Health Assembly on the afternoon of Monday, 26 May, and was adopted by a clear majority: 86 countries voted in favour, 14 against, and 28 abstained. All countries that voted against or abstained were either nuclear-armed or allied with a nuclear-armed state.
This means that the WHO, for the first time since the early 1990s, will revisit and update its evidence on the medical impact of nuclear war. For more on the vote — and the debate — read Elaine Ruth Fletcher’s story in Health Policy Watch: WHO Mandated to Update of 30-Year-Old Review on Health Impacts of Nuclear War – After Heated WHA Debate.