President Donald Trump has stopped US funding to the WHO—the only international nodal health body at the centre of fight against Covid-19—accusing it of mismanagement and being too China-centric. WHO head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said he regretted the US’ decision. Bill Gates, whose Foundation is the second-biggest donor to the WHO, called Trump’s decision “as dangerous as it sounds” and announced an extra $150 million funding as part of Covid response.
ThePrint asks: Will Trump’s WHO attack hurt global health readiness or much-needed wake-up call?
Trump’s decision to halt funding is unfortunate, not the right time to blame WHO
Former union health secretary
This is not the right time to blame the World Health Organization — WHO — when every country is struggling with the coronavirus pandemic. It is the only international agency that has the power to convene and coordinate nation states on public health actions related to this pandemic.
It also has a significant role to play in finalising standardised treatment protocols and strategies to tackle this virus, about which so little is known. More importantly, in the event of a vaccine being discovered, it won’t be the Trump administration but rather WHO that will act as a convening body to lobby for this vaccine to be treated as a public good.
For these reasons I don’t believe there is an alternative to WHO. One can reform or amend it or change its leadership architecture but WHO as an institution must remain, more so now to fight the coronavirus crisis. In this respect, Trump’s decision to halt funding to WHO is unfortunate and discouraging.
It is especially unfortunate that President Trump has chosen this time to attack the WHO when it was perhaps his administration that was slow to respond to the crisis brewing in the country, downplaying the seriousness and urgency of the situation. His early judgements were inaccurate and have cost the country a lot in terms of lives lost.
While the timing of President Trump’s attack may be wrong, WHO is also not blameless. Despite reports about the spread of the virus in China in December, it only declared Covid-19 a pandemic as late as 11 March. A more rapid response would have been useful.
Trump’s action firm, only viable alternative to putting Tedros on trial for criminal negligence
Senior fellow, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
As Abba Eban, former foreign minister of Israel used to say, “Men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other resources”. That’s what Trump has finally done. Global health had, for a long time, been one of the big lacunae of US foreign policy. Some of this had to do with domestic politics in the pro-choice versus pro-life debate, but mostly this had to do with the fact the world at large was overconfident. Why? Because previous epidemics, be it human or animal, SARS and Swine Flu or, the BSE epidemic in the UK had been successfully contained with minimal disruptions to the global order.
American disinterest had allowed the WHO to become the cesspit of cronyism and corruption. And even though other countries like the UK and Germany continued to have an interest, they could not match the diplomatic heft of China when it came to the sleazy politics of WHO jobs for the boys.
That has now ended and Trump, by withholding the biggest tranche of WHO national funding, has shown that China may win elections but its victory will result in bankrupt, hollowed out organisations. This is a firm and decisive action and must be applauded given that it’s the only viable alternative to putting up Dr Tedros Adhanom on trial for criminal negligence, if not war crimes.
Trump is derailing the fight against coronavirus by withdrawing WHO funding
Professor of Health Economics at Indian School of Public Policy
Trump’s criticism of the WHO has its merits, but his decision to stop funding the organisation when it needs all support possible, is simply bizarre. The big bully, at a slight hint of being rebuffed, is now running away with the bat. If there is any hope of preventing the recurrence of Covid-19 in the future, it will be through the efforts of a multilateral collaboration in developing a cure and a vaccine against the coronavirus. Vaccine research requires enormous effort and needless to say billions of dollars. It is also something that the private sector has abandoned now for decades, as the investment is high and returns are negligible.
The price that the inventor can command is often very low, because of the government regulation, or acute competition that kicks in almost as soon as the patent is registered. Even otherwise, anti-virus vaccines become obsolete quickly as herd immunity kicks in. That is why it is important that public investment, helped by philanthropic funding, takes responsibility for vaccination and cure against neglected diseases and in particular against viral infections. The war against HIV/AIDS, for example, would not have been fought as well without active support from all rich nations.
Trump’s withdrawal signals yet again the demise of the US as a world leader. A President who at first denied the seriousness of the problem, then tried making it a jingoistic issue against China, is now derailing the entire fight back by refusing to play ball. This is unacceptable.
Trump not fully wrong in attacking WHO, his response stems from political anger
Public health activist and co-founder, Jan Swasthya Sahyog
WHO’s primary job is providing technical advice to member states on health-related issues. Its secondary role is coordinating between different stakeholders like, drug manufacturers, vaccine researchers etc., at a global level.
However, having been funded by the richer, first-world countries, WHO quickly turned into an elite organisation, which at critical times, has not sided with the concerns of the marginalised of the world saying that they wanted to keep away from politics of health. This is the very criticism put forth by the People’s Health Movement, a global body of civil societies that works on health at grassroots level. Equity and justice in health is something that WHO has professed but not as much as preferred. That said, issues with regard to the functioning of WHO should be addressed in a year or so, not now during a pandemic.
I do not condone Trump’s attack on WHO and dismissal of the body as a whole. His attack comes from a place of political anger over the fact that WHO didn’t condemn any specific country and in this case, the US’ strategic competitor China. Trump’s announcement to withdraw US funding to WHO sends a dangerous message that the US and the world does not need a global technical resource body in health. His decision is immoral as it comes during a pandemic and effectively damages the efforts of WHO to provide health advisories, PPE, diagnostic tests and vaccine development to countries that are desperate for a helping hand.
Also read: US, Australia, Japan target China on Covid-19. Should India join or act in self-interest?
By Pia Krishnankutty, journalist at ThePrint