Managing the WHO

US is correct about WHO errors, wrong to defund it

President Donald Trump last week announced the US would freeze its payments to the World Health Organization (WHO) for 60 to 90 days over its handling of the pandemic. Mr Trump accused the WHO of “severely mismanaging and covering up” the threat of Covid-19 when it first emerged, and noted in particular the WHO’s apparent softness on the People’s Republic of China as being responsible. This suspension of payments from the WHO’s biggest contributor in the middle of a pandemic is extremely irresponsible and dangerous. As the philanthropist Bill Gates — whose foundation is also a big contributor to the WHO — pointed out, there is no other global body that can do what the WHO does, in terms of co-ordinating the global response to such a crisis. It is crucial to note that the flu pandemic is truly a global crisis — unless it is addressed everywhere in the world, it will eventually find its way back to countries that think they are immune or believe they have stamped it out. For this, international cooperation and support are vital, and the WHO is, for better or worse, the only agency in place to manage the trans-national fight against Covid-19.

That said, although Mr Trump’s action is precipitate and counter-productive, his complaint against the WHO has a great deal of validity and is widely shared across the world. The president complained that the WHO had “defended the actions of the Chinese government, even praising its so-called transparency”. This is correct, and is in accord with the facts. It is also true that the WHO meekly accepted how late it was allowed into Wuhan to check Chinese claims for itself; that it said early on that there were no signs of human to human transmission, on the basis of claims from China, when Taiwanese authorities had clearly indicated otherwise; and that it advised against travel restrictions to Wuhan long after the virus had begun spreading in that community. All these were severe misjudgements, born of a desire to kowtow to Beijing, which will certainly have to be addressed. The WHO’s snubbing of Taipei at Beijing’s behest is particularly grating — Taiwan has been one of the most effective fighters against the virus’s spread, within the format of a democracy and free society, and thus the WHO’s attitude means that crucial lessons are denied to the world.

The WHO leadership must certainly be held accountable in the coming months. There are valid concerns that the WHO has been too trusting of the Chinese government narrative regarding the virus. This should be a wake-up call regarding Beijing’s increasing control over multilateral organisations, which is frequently an exercise of pure power politics and not a commitment to multilateralism. That said, the US’ response cannot be defended, either, because it reveals its own flawed approach to multilateralism, which has been established under the current administration. It is necessary for the US to step back from the brink, ensure that the WHO has enough funds to do its job — and then, some months down the line, ensure that in the future it does its job correctly.