By: Taliyah Winn

By the evening session of 25 November 2024, the World Health Assembly had passed five resolutions on the topic of women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health. However, Resolution 1/4 triggered a hearty discussion about wording and claims of supporting terrorism. The Resolution passed by the smallest margin of any resolution so far. 

Representative Ethan Harp of Israel identified issues in Draft Resolution 1/4 Operative Clause two section six which states that the WHA “emphasizes that these (humanitarian) resources ought not fall into the hands of hostile non-state actors, but its construction should not be denied merely due to the presence of such actors.” 

“Do you recognize that this subclause and the resolution, if this is not amended, could potentially send health aid workers in humanitarian workers into danger?” Representative Harp asked. 

The following were efforts by Representatives to defend the clause.

“The delegation of Libya does believe that the implications of your statement do not quite align with the intention of the clause,” said Representative Jude Beekman of Libya. “To clarify this language, does not endorse terrorism. This clause does not endorse violence. Just because somebody happens to identify with a group and live in an area does not mean that that area does not deserve basic healthcare access.”

Another advocate for the resolution aimed to sway the body in favor of the resolution’s wording. “We like to believe that this resolution faces the most backlash, because it is the most ambitious in its scope,” said Representative Sam Salvador of Lebanon. “It is unafraid to ask for financial aid in the areas that have been most saliently affected by conflict, by war, to protect these women, adolescents and children and the future of our nations.” 

Some argued that it was necessary to address this topic sooner due to the needs of those in active combat. “This is a risky process,” said a Representative of Senegal. “However, we’re committed to the fundamental right of all people to receive health care, regardless of where they are driven, settings redevelopment that has to be done after work and just because there’s active conflicts going on”

After a brief suspension, the Representative of Saudi Arabia moved to close debate, but Representative Harp spoke in opposition to closure on the topic. “In regards to draft resolution one four, discussing the number of my colleagues, specifically my colleague from Ukraine, it has… furthered my concern with operative clause one and two,” Representative Harp said. “I believe that these clauses would be responsible for creating adverse effects that would actually do the opposite of what this resolution sees and until these issues are resolved, I believe that the closure of debate would be ill advised”

Despite this speech, the body moved to close debate on Draft Resolution 1/4 with a roll call vote. The resolution passes with the most contentious vote thus far: 23/16/20. 

In response to this decision, Representative Harp expressed his concern with the state of the resolution as passed.

“Israel holds that the resolution that was passed by a thin, thin majority, puts health care workers and people that would seek to build infrastructure at risk, at significant risk, and does not do nearly enough to mitigate the risks attached to it,” said Representative Harp. “Resolution 1/4 is under the eyes of Israel, ill advised, and seeks whether intentionally or unintentionally, seeks to do far more harm than it does good.”

Representatives of South Sudan viewed the voting process as rushed and also shared hesitations about the wording as passed. “It felt kind of rushed. It felt like I didn’t have time to get my full questions on the table,” said Representative Ava Larson of South Sudan. “The wording on the refugee clause was just not specific enough, and left a lot of open to conflict, to disagreements, to being utilized in the wrong ways in many nations… that was a deal breaker.”

Representative Madeline Kenney of Kenya acknowledged that more time could have led to a more amicable solution, but was still proud that the resolution passed due to its attention to vaccination that could prevent the spread of HIV in African countries. 

“I think the unmoderated caucus was too short of a time for people to really like, digest what went down there,” said Representative Kenney. “I could see their concerns, and I wish we would have had a more robust conversation, because I think it could have been resolved in maybe another caucus, through conversations. I think the delegates were open to adjustments, there just wasn’t enough space to do so.”