why-leaving-the-who-could-harm-the-us-more

Within hours of being inaugurated as the President, Trump scurried to the Oval Office and signed a flurry of executive orders. One of the anticipated, dreaded and controversial of them being Trump initiating the beginning of the process of ending the US membership of WHO.

 

The move, being interpreted as a bid to express the sincerity of his election speeches and his intention of putting America first, is myopic at best, fear health experts. While signing the order, Trump cited WHO’s mismanagement of Covid-19, it being partisan towards China and disproportionate contributions made by its member nations.

 

“The World Health Organisation ripped us off,” he said, noting that the US pays WHO $500 million annually. Largest contribution made by any member nation especially when compared to China’s $39 million.

 

“Should the US pay so much more than China when its population of over 1.4 billion is way larger than America’s 341 million? Seemed a little unfair to me,” Trump quantified, with his reasoning even being applauded by many of the right-wing Americans.

 

Also read: US to withdraw from WHO by 2026, confirms UN

 

In order to leave, the process entails that the US provide one year’s advance notice, pay any remaining dues and then leave the United Nations’ healthy agency in 12 months’ time and thereafter stop all financial contributions. In a statement responding to Trump’s order, the WHO has said that it “regrets” and hopes that the US “reconsiders” the decision. “We hope the United States will reconsider and we look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership between the USA and WHO, for the benefit of the health and well-being of millions of people around the globe.”

 

What does it mean for the world?

 

To begin with, US withdrawal means a huge financial hole for the WHO. It also means that some other nation will have to immediately step up. The US provided far bigger sums in voluntary funding in recent times. In 2022-23, it contributed a total of nearly $1.3 billion to the health agency. The third world nations relying solely on US funding for their basic healthcare find themselves worrying about survival after the announcement. Africa and its health initiatives happen to be among those directly and immediately impacted. Within days of the withdrawal announcement, the Africa Centre for Disease Control and Prevention called on African countries to find alternate sources of financing. A day before, Zimbabwe’s finance minister had expressed concern about the same saying that, “the withdrawal could mean cuts in health aid to countries such as Zimbabwe which are most affected by HIV/AIDS.”

 

Health threats don’t respect borders

 

Experts fear that any assumption that US withdrawal will not circle back to the US is myopic at best. The Pandemic established a few key takeaways for the world to acknowledge. The fact that health is a very public phenomenon, inextricably interlinked has been one of them. Health crises in any one corner of the world can impact the rest of it and be a threat everywhere else. Stefano M Bertozzi, former dean and current professor of health policy at UC Berkeley School of Public Health, calls the development a tragic one.

 

“If it’s true, if it happens, it is tragic for the US, and of course, the rest of the world as well. I would have thought that we learned very well from the Covid-10 pandemic that there is no way that you can isolate yourself from the world and be safe from the many health threats that don’t respect borders— infectious diseases being just one of those,” he said to Berkeley Public Health.

 

Withdrawing is not the solution, staying back is 

 

While many member nations have been vocal about its flaws lately, WHO, part of the United Nations, was founded in 1948. Ever since it’s been single-handedly instrumental in shaping the landscape of global health.

 

With 194 countries working together with their resource pool to counter public health problems, WHO also remains unparalleled in terms of reach and research initiatives. WHO provides mandatory guidelines, works to fight malnutrition, develop and deliver vaccines, apart from its staff fighting communicable diseases such as Covid, Zika and HIV viruses.

 

Many policy experts argue that stopping the funds and withdrawing from an organisation can’t be a catalyst for introducing changes. In fact, it is imperative to stay a member, if the US wants to exert any influence on the international health agency and introduce reforms. Dr Ashish K Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health and former White House Covid 19 response coordinator, believes that the US should stay and reform the WHO and not leave it.

 

“Abandoning the organisation would rather create a leadership vacuum that others, especially China, would surely fill — to our detriment and the world’s,” he writes further in the health journal STAT.

 

Americans will be affected, eventually

 

Many health policy experts also express fear that for Americans the impact may not be obvious or immediate, but given all the factors driving communicable disease outbreaks, the US won’t stay unaffected for long.

 

The most direct and immediate consequence would be that the US won’t have access to WHO’s samples of updated and ever changing influence strains. Thereby making Americans more susceptible to hospitalisations and fatalities from flu infections. Among those who have been vocal against the development is Doctor Michael Osterholm.

 

The University of Minnesota’s infectious disease expert has called the move “a public health disaster.” A large part of the US is immune to several diseases because the WHO with the help of US funding is able to stop those outbreaks in the originating third world countries.

 

Maybe we reconsider: Trump

 

This is not the first time that Trump has attempted to terminate US association with WHO. During his first term, citing the same reasons, Trump submitted a letter to the Secretary General stating US’ intention to withdraw. While the US funding stopped, official withdrawal did not happen as six months later President Biden reversed the decision.

 

Now again, a few days after signing the order, Trump said on Saturday that the US might consider rejoining. “Maybe we would consider doing it again, I don’t know. Maybe we would. They would have to clean it up,” he said while at a rally in Las Vegas.