Trump who was deprived of funding: they will lose the organization and the world

The main objective of the world health organization (who) is a solution to the problems that threaten the health of mankind. This is stated in the video “Real time”.

Трамп лишил ВОЗ финансирования: что потеряют организация и мир

Photo: Shutterstock

It is who establishes international standards for the treatment of illness and helps underdeveloped countries to support the health care system and assumes responsibility for combating previously unknown diseases, from the study to develop a treatment technology — as is now happening with a new type of coronavirus. Name COVID-19 the disease was assigned to exactly who.

Who has multiple sources of funding. Conditionally they can be divided into 2 types — mandatory contributions for States which are members of the who and donations from sponsors to fight a specific disease.

For example, the Foundation of Microsoft founder bill gates, who donated $1.6 billion to fight polio.

Excluding sponsorship funds total who budget currently stands at $4.4 billion Budget say every 2 years. Who Director delivers a report to representatives of States, voiced the main challenges that can threaten the health of mankind and the amount that is needed for their solution.

For example, the report on the 2018-2019 main objectives was to fight infectious diseases, increase life expectancy and support for health systems in developed countries.

United States were the largest sources of financing for who. In 2019, their contribution was $400 million, which is about 15% of the budget of the entire organization. While China according to the President of the United States Donald trump financed the who only $40 million.

For more than 70 years of existence, who among our main achievements is called, for example, the complete eradication of smallpox in the world, a reduction of 2 times the spread of malaria, HIV and different types of respiratory viral infections.

In 2009, during the swine flu epidemic, the Council of Europe accused the who of exaggerating the dangers of the virus. Who insisted on mass immunization of the population.

In 2015 nekommercheskaya international organization “Doctors without borders” has criticized the who for ignoring the threat of Ebola, outbreaks have been recorded in the countries of Central and West Africa, killed more than 11,000 people, while in 2006 the who announced the end of the Ebola epidemic in the world.

While pandemic coronavirus continues to spread around the world, raised the issue of the role that who played in the initial suppression of the virus, and how effectively it was used its budget, writes Fox News.

Trump announced at a press briefing on the coronavirus in the White house that the United States will immediately stop financing of the who, stating that she had put “political correctness over measures to save lives.”

Trump announced that the United States will hold 60 or 90-day investigation of why the action “China oriented” who caused “so much death”, why “hide” the evidence of the spread of coronavirus.

What will change in the who

“In the short term not much will change, because the who will be hoping for a change of leadership in November or that other countries will fill a real hole in the budget,” said Dr. Roger Beit, scholar from the American enterprise Institute and an expert on public health and emerging markets.

However, many experts also claim that the United States is not a good time to stop funding.

USA was the largest sponsor of the who since its founding in 1948, and currently provide almost 10 times more money than China, both in assessed and voluntary contributions, which amount to about $500 million a year compared with $48 of ln, which gives Beijing.

Brett Schaefer, senior fellow for international regulation at the heritage Foundation, also stressed that the total amount of the contributions the U.S. is 15.9 percent of the total budget of the organization, and the impact of the abolition of payments will not be immediately devastating.

“However, the immediate cessation of funding will be a significant reduction of funds who. Affected developing countries that depend on international aid to combat COVID-19, — he explained. — Although the U.S. provides substantial assistance through other channels, the withdrawal of funding for who may adversely affect the response COVID-19 in these countries.”

But despite the fact that the money still comes from voluntary contributions, the bill and Melinda gates Foundation and other countries and organizations, such as South Korea, Australia and Japan, in the world of health there are rumors that even this is not enough.

Many analysts emphasize that without the United States and other member States — all those who are fighting for the containment of the virus, most likely, will not be able in the near future to step up and fill the financial gap. Instead, the burden may lie on private sponsors such as the gates Foundation, the GAVI Alliance, and even a Fund for emergency response in the United States.

In a report in November 2018, published by BioMed Central, it is emphasized that the who “continues to experience great financial stress,” and it underlines the fact that the “under-funded”.

“The who needs to assert its presence as a credible leader in the global namespace of health,” the report said. Member States refused to allocate more money, “for reasons including” because of a lack of political will and financial commitment by member States, especially the rich countries-sponsors, because they found the inefficiency, lack of transparency and minimal accountability within the organization.”

According to his own admission the who internal audit conducted by the Office of internal oversight services and “are intended to add value and improve the Organization and enhance the integrity and reputation”.

In the latest report, released in may of 2019, most of the programs and regional offices were evaluated in Ethiopia, Somalia, Chad, Myanmar, Afghanistan and the global headquarters for the fight against malaria as “partially satisfactory”.

A few of these, such as offices in Yemen and Mongolia and was considered “unsatisfactory”, and Ukraine was marked by rare “satisfactory”.

Moreover, as shown by internal, not published reports, obtained by the Associated Press in 2019, it was discovered that in 2018, the organization has spent more on travel expenses — and sometimes unauthorized — than to fight with some of the biggest problems in public health.

Within one year of “lack of cash” who allegedly was provoked by almost $200 million worth of travel by aircraft, and employees sometimes violate their own rules of the Ministry, traveling in business class by booking expensive tickets at the last minute, staying in five-star hotels to five and traveling, not agreeing in the organization.

For example, in 2019, who only invested $59 million to fight tuberculosis and about $71 million for the fight against AIDS and hepatitis.

“Every year, who requests money from countries around the world and rarely, if ever, reaches the budget,” said Curtis Ellis, economic expert and political Director of America First Policies, and a former adviser to the election campaign Trump 2016. — If the US kept their money, they would have to reconsider their actions and to prohibit government officials to fly business class”.

The US government usually advises officials not to fly business class, but conditions are created under certain circumstances such as disability or training at their own expense.

Of the total funding to the who to $6.27 bn only $554 million, or about 9 percent, went to the emergency Programme in the field of health, who and another $306 million for the prevention and control of outbreaks within the “humanitarian response Plan”.

“In other words, it seems that less than 15% of who’s funding in 2018-2019 was aimed at identifying and addressing international pandemics. More funds were directed to corporate services and support functions, and not on an Emergency health programme of the who,” said Schaefer.

Other health issues that who allocates resources: equity, social determinants, gender equality and human rights ($21.5 million); reproductive health, health of mothers, newborns, children and adolescents ($230 million); violence and injuries, e.g. in road traffic accidents ($27.5 million); and mental health and substance abuse ($50,3 million).

“Despite the fact that health problems, in contrast to infectious diseases and pandemics in the first place are health issues in the family and pose no threat spread from one country to another, Shafer said. — The center of attention who must be a true international threat to health”.

From his point of view, instead to stop funding during the current crisis, the United States should provide funding in the future to complete of the who response against COVID-19 and the potential impact of China on the decision of the organization, the revision of the who policy in order to enable it to respond more quickly to emerging pandemics and to restructure the financing of the who, to focus on infectious diseases and to respond to international emergencies in public health.

“If the who refuse, the U.S. should explore the possibility of establishing a new international organization dedicated to infectious diseases and responding to international emergencies in the field of health,” said Schaefer.

According to Brett Bruen, a former American diplomat, who previously held the position of Director of global engagement at the White house, now manages communications firm Global Situation Room, to freeze the funding akin to “proposal to withdraw from NATO in the middle of the battle against the Taliban”.

“Of course, we wish the organization had done more, but it is crucial to combat coronavirus. No way out of the epidemic no. own. We need other countries, he stressed. — Who can have no alternative. Who have their problems, but now we hope for a speedy end to this crisis”.

As previously wrote ForumDaily:

  • Trump announced that he had ordered to withhold U.S. contributions to the budget of the world health organization (who) due to the fact that she was, in his opinion, has not coped with the pandemic coronavirus.



Educational program