[ad_1]
The World Health Organization has always provided its services to countries in the world far from political considerations; otherwise, it would hold the US accountable. USA For Washington’s poor health services to Americans as the country faces the strongest waves of the new coronavirus illness.
Dalton Price, an incoming doctorate. Oxford University candidate, whose research focuses on global health policy and effective coordination of actors in times of crisis, says: “If WHO became political, perhaps the United States would not have chosen the corporate benefit on basic human rights because the WHO would question why the richest country in the world cannot provide medical care. “
“I agree, Mr. President. The WHO is not prepared to handle the COVID-19 pandemic, but not for the reasons that you allege. You suggest that they are focused on China, deceived and lied to the United States, and they obtained” all aspects “of the wrong answer. These falsehoods led to the dangerous decision to suspend funding for a leading health agency during an unprecedented health crisis and when we need it most,” he wrote in his research published by Common Dreams.
But the mark of where the WHO is going wrong is lost. There is an elephant in the room, a part of the story, which we overlooked but which explains this lack of preparation: that one of the first and most important WHO rules was to avoid politics at all costs. It is not configured to deal with you. This forgotten story seems to be more relevant now than ever.
Imagine that it is the 1920s and you are given a seat at the table of what would soon become a 30-year discussion of a new international intergovernmental health organization tasked with protecting humanity. It is one of the first conversations, and would be the first of its kind. The need for global cooperation to realize this bold idea is very clear. However, outside the walls of the building they sit in, there are mounting tensions between communist and capitalist countries, authoritarian and democratic regimes alike.
National politics is as unstable as the international conflicts that recently manifested as a world war, the First World War. You see the rise of communism and a civil war in China in 1927, a new authoritarian dictatorship after the Spanish Civil War in 1939, and The rise of Nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy. Internal tensions quickly turn into international actions with many involved in expansionist and interventionist policies, despite the League of Nations’ continued call for world peace.
You hear about Germany’s remilitarization of the Rhineland, Italy’s colonization of Ethiopia, and countless other offensive actions in China and Poland. The French President, the Prince of Yugoslavia and the Chancellor of Austria are killed. You are completely embedded in these tumultuous conditions, and you watch with fear as World War II begins. There is the intensification of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Indo-Pakistani war; The use of nuclear weapons by the United States to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima; and Japanese invasion of Hong Kong, the Philippines, French Indochina, Portuguese Timor, Indonesia, and Malaya. You heard of millions of Jews dying in Germany, but you weren’t quite sure how many. Europe is tired of more wars, divided and jaded, but you too. And when you think it’s finally over, your home continent is suddenly at stake in the eyes of the western world and the Soviet Union.
There is a geopolitically tense Cold War and a battle between capitalism and communism, and you are right in the middle, both geographically and ideologically. Watch the parliaments of Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo fall, and World War II comes to a slow conclusion.
But it’s okay. Buck up. You have to go back to the mission: global cooperation on the largest scale in history. You need to build this: The International Health Organization, the World Health Organization, is still not sure what it will be called. You are sure it will save lives. And frankly, that’s all you want to do during these dark, bloody, tense, and painful times.
He tries to make it all work, he tries to bring the right people to the table and make something productive happen, but wartime politics stifles his efforts. You are required to speak to foreign ministers, diplomatic commissions, and other government figures. They are suspicious of hidden political agendas, and really of everything western. The tension and hostility between them are palpable. He wishes that there were more medical representatives or ministries of health involved, as he felt that they were always the most charming. You will see regional blocks quickly form with some countries that already group and share public health data, but these groups are not available to everyone.
He expects the split between the capitalist and communist countries, but then is puzzled by the secret collaborations between the United States and Britain, whom they catch trying to suppress talks about an independent health organization. You are exhausted, fed up with politics and regret to wonder if a new global agreement would even be possible. You shudder to think of this game-changing health organization, in which you completely believe, remaining at the negotiated agreements between certain countries or regions. You realize there is only one way out. It must do everything possible to depoliticize the issues, to make international and transversal cooperation possible. You must avoid politics at all costs.
And so you do. It weaves an anti-politics into the fabric of what will soon become the world’s largest and most influential international health organization, the WHO.
You are right, Mr. President. WHO has flaws; It is poorly prepared. An effective response to COVID-19 would require policy. However, they have avoided politics since its founding at a politically charged time and continue to do so today. It is the perfect anachronism.
But if they became politicians, perhaps our outbreak in the United States would not be so bad. Perhaps we would not be the only O.E.C.D. country without universal health coverage, because the WHO would have pushed us to comply with this standard. Perhaps we would not have chosen the corporate benefit over basic human rights, because the WHO would question why the richest country in the world cannot provide medical care. Perhaps black Americans would not suffer disproportionately from the burden of COVID-19, because the WHO would long ago have pointed to institutionalized racism and the profound health disparities it has created. Perhaps, just perhaps, thousands of Americans would not have lost their lives to COVID-19, because the WHO would have pressured us for the past 70 years since its founding to simply improve.
And boy, I wish the WHO would become political. It seems more necessary now than ever.
In mid-April, President Trump announced that he would receive funding from the United States to the World Health Organization for 60 to 90 days as his administration reviews the management of the coronavirus pandemic group. He made the announcement at his press conference at the time, saying he wanted to suspend contributions from the United States “while a review is underway to assess the World Health Organization’s role in mismanagement and cover up the spread of the coronavirus.”
Trump said the WHO was slow to respond to the crisis and that the organization has been “focused on China.”
“We regret the decision of the President of the United States,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a press conference a day after Trump’s decision. “WHO is reviewing the impact of our work on any withdrawal of funds from the US, and will work with our partners to fill any financial gaps we face and to ensure that our work continues without interruption.”
The agency, founded in 1948, describes itself as “the authority that directs and coordinates international health within the United Nations system.” It coordinates activities and provides guidance for its 194 member states and two associate members (Puerto Rico and Tokelau).
Activities range from promoting the polio vaccine to supporting child nutrition and leading role in the event of health emergencies.
“There will be guidelines on what kinds of essential drugs there should be, what kinds of essential diagnoses there should be, what might be the regimens to use in relation to HIV in different countries, taking into account the available resources,” says Rifat Atun, professor of Global health systems at Harvard University, was quoted by the NPR news website, adding: “Countries do not have a legal obligation to follow these guidelines, but many do so in relation to epidemics.”
The World Health Organization runs on a two-year budget cycle. For 2020 and 2021, its budget to carry out its programs is $ 4.8 billion, or $ 2.4 billion per year.
“The WHO has a budget the size of a large United States hospital. It is about a quarter of the budget for the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” says Lawrence Gostin, a law professor at the Georgetown University and director of the World Health Organization. Collaborating Center in National and Global Health Law, which is an independent agency that works with that WHO.
Annual donations from its member states accounted for 51% of WHO funds, according to a report from its 2018-2019 budget cycle.
These contributions fall into two categories: evaluations (i.e. membership dues) and voluntary contributions.
“The money assessed is as operational support,” says Jennifer Kates, director of global health and HIV policy for the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Here’s the money. You can find out what to do with it.”
Each member state pays assessment fees based on the country’s wealth and population.
Countries also make additional voluntary contributions, as do the United Nations, philanthropic foundations, and non-governmental organizations. Donors often earmark these funds for specific causes. The largest allocation of voluntary contributions goes to polio, which has a budget of $ 863 million in 2020-2021. “It means that the organization is primarily driven by many of the external influences from donors in terms of how it can budget,” says Kates.
Over time, Kates says, voluntary contributions have grown to dominate the WHO budget.
For the 2020-2021 budget, $ 957 million comes from evaluations and $ 4.9 billion comes from voluntary contributions.
“The United States is the world’s largest government donor,” says Gostin, “so the WHO budget is highly dependent on US contributions.”
For the two-year cycle of 2018 and 2019, US contributions represented approximately 20% of the total WHO budget.
Money comes in two streams. The contribution of the EE. USA The set of assessed rates is $ 237 million. That’s 22% of total assessed rates, most of any nation. In comparison, China contributes 12% of this group of money, and some low-income countries pay 0.1%.
Additionally, the United States pledged more than $ 656 million for specific programs, according to the WHO program budget portal. These voluntary contributions went to programs that include polio eradication, health and nutrition services, vaccine-preventable diseases, tuberculosis, HIV, and outbreak prevention and control.
What does a US funds freeze mean? ? There is no definitive answer to this question. At the press conference, Trump said the review would take 60 to 90 days and that a “very thorough investigation” is underway. But no details have been released on how the suspension of funds will be implemented.
And it is unclear whether the president has the authority to unilaterally stop funding for an international institution like the WHO.
“If the money is already committed and given, you probably can’t take it away from you,” Gostin says, but the president could withhold pending payments or instruct agencies like the United States Agency for International Development to reduce cooperation with the WHO. .
“Much of the voluntary money is provided at the agency level,” says Kates, so the president may be able to demand that CDC from the State Department stop providing money to WHO for project work.
MJ
