8.B. Round table: Protecting public health through global cooperation and advocacy defending WHO: forum theatre

Abstract You have just accepted an appointment as Head of National Public Health Association in your country. As your staff briefs you on your new realm, you realise that your country's government is considering to follow the US and to withdraw its membership in the WHO. How would you consider to act? To advocate and protect public health? Description In light of growing populist and nationalist movements questioning the legitimacy of international health institutions, this workshop offers an immersive experience that blends theatre and strategic thinking. Participants will explore the political, societal, and ethical tensions surrounding national withdrawal from WHO through forum theatre and roleplay, in a simulated parliamentary setting. A. Setting the Stage The session opens with an introduction to WHO, adapted from our “Strengthening Public Health Advocacy” webinar (April 2025). It highlights WHO's critical roles-from setting global standards and supporting health systems to coordinating pandemic responses and driving equity. We will screen provocative video clips such as the Israeli Parliament hearing where a public health expert is shouted down, to illustrate how emotionally charged and politicised the health space has become. B. Forum Theatre Simulation 1. Role Assignment: As participants enter, they receive a colour-coded role card representing one of three groups: • Pro-WHO / Pro-Public Health (Green): you are a member of parliament committed to international cooperation. • Undecided / Politically Ambivalent (Yellow): you are a parliamentarian who is open but uncertain. You can be politically ambivalent, pragmatic, or distracted. • Anti-WHO / Pro-Sovereignty (Red): you are a member of parliament who believes in national sovereignty. You receive money from harmful industry to defend their commercial interest through lobbies or personal interest. Each card outlines their position, a few arguments, and questions to raise. Participants read it silently and prepare their stance. 2. Opening Performance: Two former politicians, Charlotte Marchandise and Ricardo Mexia, perform a short scene as parliamentarians debating WHO membership-one defending continued membership, the other calling for withdrawal. The tone is lively and confrontational. 3. First Parliamentary Vote: Participants vote on whether to stay or leave WHO based on their assigned role. 4. Interactive Debate: Participants are invited to take the floor, improvise, replace an actor, or defend their stance. Audience reaction is encouraged to recreate the mood of real parliamentary debate. 5. Second Vote: After interventions, a second vote takes place. Has the room shifted? C. Conclusion with Panellists We close with a panel debrief formed of the speaker, parliamentarians, and one of the authors of the EUPHA-ASPHER WHO advocacy toolkit, and reflections on how to take these advocacy lessons into national and local settings. We call on participants to act, disseminate, and stand up for multilateralism in health. Key messages • The workshop will provide with a critical understanding of the role and impact of WHO. • Participants will improve their skills in Real-time strategic advocacy in high-pressure political environments. Speakers/Panelist Dorit Nitzan Ben Gurion University, Copenhagen, Israel Natasha Azzopardi Muscat WHO, Copenhagen, Denmark Charlotte Marchandise EUPHA Ricardo Mexia INSA - National Health Institute Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Lisbon, Portugal Alison Mc Callum University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK