Source: Global News, WHO Press Response to the US leaving the WHO.
By Wilmer Hak
With one Executive Order, Trump shook the WHO to its core for the second time. This happened not only due to the financial consequences of the US’s departure from the WHO but also because of the profound geopolitical ramifications that this decision brought. It is therefore no surprise that the WHO is doing everything in its power to ensure the continuation of its work.
Cuts
Hence, the WHO immediately began calling off drastic cuts. With approximately 15% of its budget gone, most staff meetings were switched to a hybrid format. Additionally, it was proposed to allow for the postponement of the implementation of decisions by WHO member states. This means that decisions can still be adopted, but the implementation and impact of those decisions will be delayed.
Although some cuts are necessary, especially considering that the WHO has been accused before of spending more on travel than on combatting diseases, the WHO is still partly missing the mark when it comes to the areas where cuts will be made.
Pandemic Treaty and IHR
What stands out is that little attention seems to be given to the WHO's largest potential cost item: the pandemic agenda. Estimates from the WHO, the G20 High-Level Independent Panel, and McKinsey & Co indicate that the WHO's plans to prevent 'pandemics' will cost between $31.1 billion and $171 billion over the next five years. This, while the WHO's 2024-25 budget is ‘only’ $6.83 billion.
These plans to fight pandemics are particularly reflected in the already adopted amendments to the IHR and the still hotly debated Pandemic Treaty. Although the purpose of these documents is noble, namely protecting countries against the spread of diseases, CCI has repeatedly spoken out about the far-reaching consequences of these binding decisions.
Vaccination mandates, the promotion of abortion, and potential cuts in efforts to combat malaria or tuberculosis are some of the far-reaching consequences. The "One Health Approach," which sets a global standard for humans, animals, and plants, along with the definition of when something constitutes a pandemic, also raises concerns. It is therefore crucial to see what will unfold in May during the annual World Health Assembly with regard to the Pandemic Treaty.
Trump signs one of the 89 Executive Orders
United States
However, it is not only the Pandemic Treaty or the amendments to the IHR that convinced the United States to leave the WHO. "The White House has indicated, based on a report from the House of Representatives, that China's influence, the failure of the COVID-19 response, and the refusal to reform the organization are key reasons for their stance. The potential misuse of the WHO – and especially its private donors – in determining when something constitutes a pandemic seems to have played a lesser role."
Also leaving?
Although the United States was followed by Argentina in its decision to leave the WHO, not everyone seems convinced of that position. Israel, Italy, Hungary have considered a possible departure, though no decisive decision seems to have been taken. However, other countries, such as most countries within the European and African Union, expressed unconditional support for the WHO.
CCI understands the concerns of departing countries and those considering departure. WHO has clearly exceeded its mandate in the last 10 years. Its advisory role has morphed into a political role with Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights taking precedence.
Change
But does leaving this organization truly solve the problem? Of course, on a national level, leaving the WHO could lead to significant changes, but does this actually help the world? Does it not lose sight of the fact that the WHO was established to assist countries in addressing dangerous diseases? The fact that the WHO has contributed to supporting healthcare in less developed countries?
Now, more than ever, the United States should stand up within the WHO for life, family, and freedom! While leaving the organization might seem like the safest option in the short term, driving change in the long term is what would be most valuable. Many unnecessary tasks and policy areas within the WHO could be phased out in this way. The WHO would no longer have to be a threat to life, family, and freedom worldwide but could instead make a valuable contribution to improving healthcare in every country.
Wilmer Hak is CCI Policy Officer Geneva