The US must also ensure that Beijing does not start its ‘Health Aid Diplomacy’ to fill the leadership vacuum
US President Donald Trump, who has been a vocal and strident critic of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) handling of the Coronavirus epidemic and the deferential treatment it meted out to Beijing, finally made good on his threat recently and exited the 72-year-old global body the US had co-founded. The US’ withdrawal will severely impact the overall functioning of the WHO and there has been concern over the timing of the President’s decision as well.
First, it comes at a time when countries continue to see a huge upsurge in cases. Second, global efforts to discover a vaccine have never been as united as they are right now. The US’ efforts to fight or find a cure/drug/vaccine for the Coronavirus, not just on its own soil but around the world, need to further intensify after it chose to exit the WHO. In failing to do so, it will create a leadership vacuum that Beijing will exploit to further cement its position not just as a global alternative to the US but as it possible replacement.
China did so at the time of the initial outbreak when it sent PPEs to Europe, Africa, America, Asia including India, as part of Beijing’s “Mask Diplomacy” despite being accused of deliberately misleading the world. This public relations exercise was part of a larger design where even the pandemic was identified as an opportunity to score points for global supremacy, make big money by selling substandard medical equipment/PPE and cover up its failure to contain the outbreak.
Xi Jinping projected himself as the world’s saviour by sending aid which was a complete eyewash driven by propaganda. In the first 35 days (March 1-April 5) of the outbreak in Europe, China exported medical equipment worth $1.45 billion. These were commercial contracts that Chinese companies entered into with nations that were most severely hit by the virus.
Agencies like the USAID (United States Agency for International Development), which helped Africa fight the Ebola outbreak in 2016, are not around to help countries fight the Coronavirus this time. Caught up in a deep crisis itself, the US, for the first time since World War-II (WW-II), is not at the forefront of relief and aid measures.
Beijing’s propaganda machinery — which aimed to position China as a benign global power, more so in poor CIS countries like Belarus — was helped by the US’ virtual absence from the world stage during the pandemic. Beijing is aware that several countries may start viewing it as a friendly power, which would in turn reduce the resistance that Chinese corporations like Huawei face and also provide fresh impetus to its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative initiative.
The US’ exit from the WTO raises many questions. How significantly will the WHO’s functioning be impacted due to reduced funds? Will the US’ exit lead to a reform of the UN and its key agencies like the WHO? Is the announcement a precursor to setting up of an alternate organisation or will the US spearhead all its aid efforts independently? Will Beijing step in to fill the leadership gap left by the US?
The WHO — for all its noble causes, including eradication of polio and other diseases — has an overall budget of $5.62 billion (2018-2019). Of this, 80 per cent comes from voluntary sources and only 17 per cent comes from assessed sources, with others accounting for the remaining three per cent. In 2019, the US’ contribution was $419 million, which includes $119 million in assessed and $300 million in voluntary contributions. The other top donors to the WHO are the UK, Germany, Japan and the EU. China comes in at number 15.
The WHO reports that the US contribution of $450 million represented nearly 16 per cent of its total revenue in the 2018-2019 biennium and almost a fifth of its programme budget. Compare this to the nearly $12 billion annual budget of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — the US’ leading federal agency for national public health that is working to save American lives. The CDC has over twice the budget of the WHO which has a charter to save all mankind from disease. Clearly, the WHO’s role and scope, in spite of its exalted image as the world’s leading health agency, is practically limited due to its existing funding constraints.
The US’ withdrawal from the agency will impact its functioning to some extent but a part of the gap will be filled by other resources.
While the WHO may be further hamstrung in running its programmes across least developed countries (LDCs) and the developing world, it can be expected to sustain itself, albeit with some interim constraints. This move by the Trump Government appears to be more of political posturing, since the President is set to face an election in five months. For the domestic audience, it is an unequivocal expression of displeasure by the US Government indicating that Trump will focus on policies that protect American interests.
The message to the UN is also clear that the US will not watch from the sidelines if its interests are either compromised or not fully addressed by multilateral agencies like the WHO. Reform and course correction is long due for the UN and its agencies and the US’ exit from the WHO could be the trigger to undertake those tough reforms, including accountability and transparency from the organisation and its top bosses.
To ensure that the US, as the world’s richest country, does not abdicate its responsibility towards low income and poor countries, Trump should immediately announce substantial increase in resources of the USAID from the present $2.7 billion to at least $4 billion. Additional funds should be directed to LDCs in Africa that will be most significantly impacted due to any budget cuts in WHO projects. It will also ensure that the US will focus on providing aid directly to vulnerable and smaller nations and regain some of the leadership vacuum created since February. It will also ensure Beijing does not start its “Health Aid Diplomacy.”
Another major fallout of Trump’s announcement will be the urgent need for most countries to beef up their health infrastructure and create more capacity. It will be the first time since WW-II that low-income countries will have to almost exclusively rely on their internal strengths to tackle healthcare issues due to greater uncertainty around the WHO’s future prospects.
(The writer is a senior journalist)
