The director general of WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wishes to maintain “constructive dialogue” with the United States.Credit: Sean Gallup / Getty
The Board of Directors of the World Health Organization (WHO) will meet this week, just days after US President Donald Trump has made the decision to withdraw the United States from WHO. This loss of a founding member is, without a doubt, a blow; In 2022-2023, the United States contributed approximately a sixth of the overall income of the agency.
In his Liaison speech to the board of directorsWHO The director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called for a “constructive dialogue to preserve and strengthen the historical relationship between WHO and the United States”. Even if Trump had to change his mind, his decision to withdraw the United States must always act as an alarm signal so that the WHO remains 193 member countries to intensify. The organization cannot afford to become again so dependent on a single donor.
Vaccines save lives: how to increase absorption?
Part of the difficulty faced by is that it is not easy to succinctly articulate what the agency does. This is the only global authority in the world to coordinate international public health work. For low -income countries, the WHO provides a rescue buoy to affordable drugs and vaccines, access to quality standards and helps increase the capacity of health care. All countries benefit from it when WHO’s actions limit the spread of infectious diseases.
The agency signature is the eradication of the smallpox in 1980. Since then, the governments of the world have given the responsibility of the WHO for the monitoring and control of epidemics of infectious disease. He works with national health systems to promote good health and establish standards for vaccines and therapies. Increasingly, the agency exploits science and evidence in its decision -making, through an office (still relatively new) of the chief scientist.
The work that the American contribution, which, in 2022-2023, reached some $ 1.3 billion, helped finance, including efforts to contain epidemics of infectious disease such as MPOX in the Democratic Republic of Congo And neighboring countries, and Marburg virus disease in Rwanda. The United States has played a decisive role in the fight against the Ebola virus, as well as to provide humanitarian and emergency health aid in areas affected by conflicts.
The American contribution was considerable. But the financing gap left by its exit could be filled by the remaining WHO members – in particular high -income and average income nations – and philanthropic foundations. Perhaps anticipating an outing in the United States last November, the management of WHO obtained $ 3.8 billion in additional donor promises, which will go around the additional $ 7.1 billion necessary to cover The organization until 2028. These promises must be converted into money into a bank without delay. In the past, some donors have suggested structural reforms of WHO governance. We can support whether, at this time of the crisis, such a reform should be the number one priority.
MPOX: Apply lessons coche to control the epidemic in Africa
WHO, like most major multilateral agencies, is complex. It is both a standard body led by experts and an organization involved in relieving suffering in the field. However, at the same time, it is political: the WHO chief is elected by the governments of the world by a vote in the World Health Assembly, a kind of parliament of the health ministers. This means that candidates are campaigning for the position, as is the six elected directors of the WHO regional offices. All directors who, from the first, Brock Chisholm, to the holder, Tedros, had to work in such a political framework. There is an argument to separate the agency’s political and technical functions. However, unless the United States agrees – which is unlikely in the current geopolitical climate – current architecture will not change.
That said, the world is very different today compared to 1948, when the WHO was founded. Regional public health organizations established such as the Pan American Health Organization have been joined by most recent, in particular Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to establish health standards and supervise their delivery. Philanthropic organizations also offer a source of funding. These beneficial developments help share the charge previously transported mainly by national governments and WHO.
Diseases, especially infectious diseases, do not respect borders. This is one of the reasons why WHO has been created as a global organism, and it should have indicated the global responsibility for its funding. As the largest economy in the world, it is understandable that the United States has become the largest donor in the WHO, and we hope it will soon join the agency. But if the countries want and really appreciate an organization that defends health for everyone, they must all intensify to pay it.