For the first time since the 1990s, the World Health Organization has been asked by member states to update its assessment on the health impacts of nuclear war, although not without significant resistance, led by Russia and North Korea, but also including many other major nuclear states. 

The resolution calling for an updated assessment of the “effects of nuclear war on public health” was approved by a margin of 84-14 votes with 28 abstentions.  

It was sponsored by a dozen nations, including Western Pacific, African and former Soviet states that were deeply affected by nuclear tests of the 1950s and 60s, while opposition was led by the Russian Federation along with (DPRK) North Korea. 

Europes two leading nuclear powers, the United Kingdom, France, also voted no along with ten other European states, including Germany, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, on the mandate to update WHO’s guidance, saying it would duplicate the work of other UN nuclear and non-proliferation bodies. India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, also abstained. 

Duplication or not? 

“The international community has always known that a nuclear war would have devastating consequences upon all humankind. This was written into the preamble of the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, it’s been reaffirmed many times since, and is at the core of our efforts to avert such a war,” said the UK delegate, speaking on behalf of about 16 European member states. 

“No update to existing WHO studies could materially alter that established understanding of the devastation of nuclear war.”

Added India,  “We are neither convinced of the added value of initiating another study on this subject, nor of WHO being the relevant forum. We therefore abstained.”

Furthermore, the work WHO is mandated to do would “duplicate that of other international bodies when a constrained WHO budget is driving an urgently needed prioritization exercise,” the UK delegate maintained, referring to a 2024 mandate by the UN General Assembly for such a study.

“Of course, people understand the consequences of a nuclear war, but a constant reminder would also be important,” responded WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “And as many of you have already said, it’s not new for WHO;  There were reports in the 1980s and 1990s.”  

“So we can consider this, as you suggested, as an update,” he added, stressing that WHO could do the update cost-efficiently in collaboration with other UN bodies engaged in the discourse over nuclear weapons and disarmament. 

WHO produced two series of reports on health and nuclear war, with the last more than 30 years old.  Those included the “Effects of Nuclear War on Health and Health Services” in 1983 and 1987, followed by a 1993 report on “Effects of Nuclear Weapons on Health and the Environment,” Chuck Johnson of the NGO International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War noted.

“This will extend study on both of these issues,” Johnson said, adding that it would cover “a broader area of public health than the UN General Assembly study” mandated last December.

He added that the European “No” votes on the measure also were a “very NATO-influenced vote.  No NATO country voted yes” he observed, referring to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s 32 members.

African and Asia Pacific nations make emotional plea for closer examination of nuclear war’s health impacts 

The support of many WHO member states for the review was palpable, and at times highly emotional. Pacific Island states recalled the legacy of nuclear testing in their region, which left long-term health and environmental scars.    

“To this very day, survivors and their descendants are still in pain, suffering and continue to perish from the effects of nuclear weapons and nuclear war,” said the delegate from Samoa. 

“While science and technology have advanced, evidence-based information on the health and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons remains stagnant at WHO.… Now is the time for WHO to renew its mandate and have an updated, comprehensive report. We urge all states to do what is morally right and support this resolution… We should continue the pursuit of the truth, for the truth shall set us free.” 

Algeria, meanwhile, noted it was the only African nation that had suffered the effects of nuclear testing during the colonial period – but those effects are still being felt. 

“We are are still suffering from what we experienced during the period of colonialism as a result of the adverse effects of nuclear tests that took place during that era,” said Algeria’s representative, “We are in a situation still today where large parts of the Algerian Sahara are still suffering from the impacts of what happened. 

“People still have serious diseases and disabilities because of high rates of radiation.  We see, for instance, more cancer there than in other parts of the country. There are also more cases of children born with physical deformations, because at that time, the colonial powers didn’t even bother appropriately disposing of nuclear waste, and they didn’t tell us precisely where the testing was carried out.”

Numerous co-sponsors of the WHA resolution know the health effects of nuclear war and weapons first-hand, “as they hail from states which were the blast sites or experienced the fallout from nuclear tests,” South Africa observed. 

“Not only were they robbed of their loved ones, together with the land of their ancestors, but their bodies still carry the scars. 

“As Africans, we too know the damage caused by the nuclear tests which were conducted on our continent. The effects transcend national borders, go beyond the impact on health of current conditions, to future generations, and pose repercussions for human survival, and we therefore welcome the provision for updated studies. 

“In this regard, it is the tragedy of this nuclear legacy which underpins the urgent need for a nuclear weapons free world now more than ever, we owe it to the victims of these deadly experiments and their families, together with the hibakusha, to ensure that we save succeeding generations from the unacceptable suffering that they still confront.” 

Correction:  We originally reported that the United Kingdom, France and Germany abstained from the vote. In fact, they all voted ‘no’.

Image Credits: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization.