Should the United States halt funding to the World Health Organization?
Short on time?
We consolidate every article and add some fun visuals for our email subscribers. Click below to get this article delivered to your inbox and get signed up for fresh content every week!
KEY THEMES
Politics
Health
2020 Elections
location
Global Implications
KEY SOURCES
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
American Enterprise Institute
Council on Foreign Relations
Kaiser Family Foundation
Nature
WHY THIS QUESTION MATTERS:
In April, the White House announced that the U.S. would halt funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) pending a review of the organization’s purported missteps responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The United States is usually the largest funder of the WHO, followed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the United Kingdom.
This decision has sparked heated debate. We’ll get to that in a second.
First, here’s some things to know before we begin:
WHO is part of the United Nations and is comprised of and run by 194 member nations
Member states choose a delegation to represent the country in the World Health Assembly.
The Executive Board operationalizes policies set by the World Health Assembly.
In its seventy-year life, the WHO has logged both successes, such as eradicating smallpox, and perceived failures, such as its delayed response to the Ebola outbreak in 2014 (read more here and here).
A QUICK REVIEW OF THE WHO:
The UN was founded in 1948, several years after the United Nations was formed. Although it’s headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the organization functions through a collection of six semi-autonomous regional offices. The Director-General of the WHO is Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who is currently serving a five-year elected term.
The WHO is funded by assessed contributions and voluntary contributions. The assessed contributions are required of each member state, scaled by income and population. Meanwhile, voluntary contributions may be made by member states (in addition to assessed contributions) or may be made by individual donors. As noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO via voluntary contributions. Overall, voluntary contributions make up 80% of the total.
The WHO’s objective is to monitor and coordinate activities related to health issues including, genetically modified foods, climate change, tobacco and drug use, and road safety.
WHO RESPONSE TO COVID-19:
Many have been critical of the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is particular concern over the influential role that China has played in curating the information released in the early stages of the crisis. A new article in the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine, notes “influence from powerful political donors, which has become most evident in the current COVID-19 pandemic. The global community can no longer tolerate an ineffectual and passive international response system, nor tolerate the self-serving political interference that authoritarian regimes and others have exercised over the WHO.”
However, the White House move to halt funding entirely during the pandemic has also been met with considerable criticism. In the analysis below we’ll walk through the key points made by proponents of halting funds and opponents to halting funds.
THE COMMON THREAD:
Both sides say that the world needs effective and coordinated leadership to respond to global health crises.
FIND YOUR THREAD:
Proponents claim halting WHO funding is necessary to address the missteps and clear political bias demonstrated by the WHO. Opponents of halting WHO funding say that it’s irresponsible to discontinue funding of the world’s most influential health organization in the middle of a pandemic.
What do you think?
Yes, de-fund the WHO until an investigation is complete
Reason 01
The WHO’s response to COVID-19 demonstrates their bias towards China.
The WHO endorsed Chinese actions throughout the COVID-19 crisis and potentially missed the opportunity to forestall a global pandemic. They failed to recognize proven human-to-human contamination until January 23. In fact, the organization tweeted there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission” on January 14th, despite strong indications to the contrary. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
The UN (and WHO) maintains a one China policy, which means Taiwan has no independent seat at the table. The impact was devastating. Taiwan tried to alert WHO to probable human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 in December, but WHO’s policy prevented this. American Enterprise Institute
Any quick review of “unofficial” sources in China, including the doctors in Wuhan, would have pointed to clear human-to-human transmission as of December 2019. So why would a $3.8 billion UN agency with large regional offices fall prey to “official” Chinese sources downplaying the virus risk? One can conclude that WHO was hampered by China’s limited communication and “by a clear political will at the top of the organization to avoid calling out that country.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Reason 02
Global agencies have long been susceptible to influence. This needs to be addressed.
80% of the WHO funding is through voluntary donations. Meaning donor nations can drive its policy and “unfortunately its ethics.” American Enterprise Institute
Unequal power between countries in global forums extends to the broader UN. The “United States talks loudly but carries a small stick, China now speaks softly but carries a big stick throughout the UN system” based on their “sheer geopolitical weight and above all its capacity to say no.” The question therefore becomes: how reliable is the WHO when major epidemics originate in China? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Reason 03
The WHO has had missteps on previous health crisis and was slow to react to COVID-19.
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) reputation became irrefutably damaged during the Ebola outbreak, with a general consensus in the global health community that it fell short of its leadership responsibilities. Council on Foreign Relations
In the context of COVID-19, the organization refused to declare a pandemic until March 11, when 114 countries had already reported 118,000 cases. It took WHO a month and a half after China’s first report to WHO of an “unknown illness” to send a full expert WHO mission to China, and with very limited access to Wuhan. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
No, don’t de-fund the WHO in the middle of a pandemic:
Reason 01
We are in the midst of a health crisis, we shouldn’t de-fund the only intergovernmental health authority.
We are in the midst of a global health crisis. While WHO is generally not a direct funder of health services and programs in countries, it does provide supplies and other support during emergencies and carries out programs funded by donors. Countries around the world rely on their guidance to inform policies at the national and local levels. Kaiser Family Foundation
The WHO is irreplaceable at this juncture. There is no other global body that would be able to address the COVID-19 health crisis. Council on Foreign Relations
It’s not just about COVID-19. De-funding the WHO is especially dangerous for those low-income countries in which the agency’s work is crucial to maintaining standards of public-health infrastructure, and also to tackling killer diseases. Nature
Reason 02
To date, the WHO has largely served its purpose in the COVID-19 crisis.
The WHO was notified of a cluster of pneumonia cases by China on December 31, and it began an emergency-response process the following day. Its many actions since then include posting and updating guidance on how to diagnose COVID-19, vetting diagnostic tests and distributing them around the world. Nature
The agency’s science division convened world experts to survey potential therapeutics. From this, it developed an adaptable clinical-trial protocol, known as SOLIDARITY, that has been launched globally. Nature
Reason 03
The WHO is not reliant on China’s funding and must act as a uniting body.
WHO is certainly not financially reliant on China’s contributions, because they are very small at this point. In 2017, China's total contributions are less than 10% of what the United States contributed overall in the same year. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Though the WHO's response has not been perfect on several accounts, many countries are using the WHO as a scapegoat for delayed responses at the national level. While "this excuse may be valid for smaller, less developed and experienced nations, it does not hold for larger member states with strong participation in the WHO process." Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Subscribe to our weekly email to cast your vote on a fresh topic every week.