Aotearoa New Zealand has a long history of international leadership in improving health security, from nuclear disarmament to pandemic control. But recent decisions – including the outgoing coalition government’s apparent retreat from supporting global pandemic prevention, preparedness and response strategies – threaten that reputation, and potentially the population’s safety.In March this year, citing concerns about national sovereignty, the government formally rejected the latest revision of the International Health Regulations.These amendments were adopted by consensus at the World Health Assembly which is made up of members of the World Health Organization (WHO). The changes included strengthening international preparedness, emergency alerts, coordination and equitable access to medical products.The government has also withheld endorsement (pending a full national interest test) of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2025. Following the decision by the United States to quit the WHO in January, Foreign Minister Winston Peters also questioned New Zealand’s funding. He called the WHO a “bloated organisation” that was “not performing the way it should”.Most recently, in October this year, New Zealand abstained from a United Nations declaration supporting pandemic preparedness. It was one of only five countries not supporting the declaration, which received 153 votes in favour.In this light, the 2026 general election is about more than domestic policies. It is also about New Zealand’s place in the world and whether it is prepared to confront threats to collective wellbeing. Global health security means protecting populations from serious threats that cross borders or require international cooperation. These include pandemics and antimicrobial resistance, as well as wider threats such as climate change, pollution, conflict, misinformation and malicious use of AI. These all have something fundamental in common: no country can protect itself by acting alone.Protecting future generations is also crucial. The recent Lancet Commission on 21st century global threats to health highlights why governments need to think beyond national interests and electoral cycles.Sovereignty and cooperation aren’t mutually exclusiveNew Zealand was a founding member of the United Nations, championed nuclear disarmament, and supported agreements protecting the ozone layer and the climate.During the initial years of the COVID-19 pandemic, the country supported Pacific health capacity and pandemic elimination responses, demonstrating the value of international cooperation and science-informed leadership.More broadly, New Zealand is now committed to more than 2,000 international treaties covering trade, aviation, maritime safety, infectious diseases, environmental protection, human rights and security.These agreements are particularly valuable to smaller countries, which cannot rely on economic or military power to protect their interests. The principle of reciprocity means each protects the other because security depends on all doing the same.Pandemic preparedness depends on international collaboration, particularly for detection and prevention, since the next pandemic will almost certainly start outside New Zealand’s national border.The International Health Regulations, the Pandemic Agreement and the WHO’s leadership and coordination role are all crucial to supporting that collaboration.National sovereignty and international cooperation are not mutually exclusive. Governments are entitled to scrutinise international agreements. But the revised International Health Regulations do not give the WHO authority to impose domestic health measures. Article 22(2) of the Pandemic Agreement similarly excludes WHO authority to mandate lockdowns, vaccination or national health policies.Retreating from international cooperation will not insulate New Zealand from global threats. Preventing and managing future pandemics will depend on international surveillance, information sharing, and equitable access to vaccines and other essential supplies.Reducing international commitments also risks damaging diplomatic relationships, weakening Pacific resilience, and diminishing New Zealand’s influence in a rules-based system.Health security decisions for the next governmentIf the next government, regardless of its composition, wishes to prioritise long-term health security over short-term political calculations, it can take three specific steps:First, recommit to international pandemic cooperation. Reverse the rejection of the International Health Regulations amendments. And work towards joining the WHO Pandemic Agreement when possible, subject to a full national interest test on the agreements, based on scientific evidence and health security needs.Second, strengthen regional health security and scientific cooperation. Provide routine assistance for Pacific health systems, disease surveillance, climate resilience and access to essential health technologies.Third, make global health security an accountable government responsibility. Publish a strategy with measurable international commitments, transparent reporting and independent assessment of progress.The election offers an opportunity to reaffirm a fundamental lesson of global health security: no country can protect itself – or future generations – in isolation.Michael Baker's employer, the University of Otago, has received funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Ministry of Health for research he has carried out on COVID-19 epidemiology, prevention and control.Alexander Gillespie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.