.png)
The newly elected 47th president of the United States of America has announced the country's withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 20, 2025. This decision will undoubtedly have a drastic impact on the power dynamics of the global order.
Illustration by The Geostrata
The WHO, formed in 1948, consists of 194 members that “come together and work worldwide to promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable.” The US was the founding member of the organization and joined in 1948 under its 33rd President, Harry S. Truman when both houses of Congress passed a joint resolution.
REASONS
The major reason for withdrawal as cited in the executive order was the “organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic”. Furthermore, the WHO demands enormous amounts of money from the country and does not consider the proportion of the population while doing so.
In the order, the white house argues that China has a 1.4 billion population, 300 percent of the population of the United States, whereas the country contributes nearly 90 per cent less to WHO than the United States. Lastly, the administration also accused the WHO of being unfairly biased towards certain members, especially China.
This move does not come as a shock to observers since President Trump has attempted this in his first term during July 2020. On May 29, 2020, President Donald Trump stated that the U.S. would terminate its relationship with WHO and restore funds to U.S. global health priorities.
On July 6, 2020, the U.S. administration formally notified U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres of its intent to withdraw from WHO membership. However, since withdrawing from WHO requires a year's notice, the decision never took effect. It was reversed by President Biden upon assuming office in 2021. Not surprisingly, the decision aligns with a record increase in daily COVID-19 cases worldwide and rising infections in over three-quarters of U.S. states.
CLAIM 1: WHO WAS INEFFICIENT DURING THE PANDEMIC
According to the records, WHO had officially declared a “global public health emergency” on 30 January 2020. But, contrary to the acquisition, WHO had declared the presence of "a pneumonia of an unknown cause" on 31 December 2019 in China as and when it was informed by the Government officials. Further research by the WHO officials also revealed the evidence of human-to-human transmission in Wuhan, which led to the declaration of a Global emergency.
CLAIM 2: US CRITICISES WHO DEPENDENCE ON CHINA
This acquisition came to light following the statement released by the organization praising China's initial response to the virus outbreak. The WHO has been criticized for its attitude toward Taiwan. Taiwan states that its warnings about human-to-human transmission were brushed aside.
However, the evidence so far shows that Taiwan's exchanges with the WHO were silent on the issue of human-to-human transmission.
It is also notable that President Trump himself has praised China for its quick pandemic response multiple times on social media in January 2020.
CLAIM 3: WHO FUNDING IS BURDENING US RESOURCES
The United States is the biggest donor to the WHO and contributes about 18% of WHO's total funding for this organization. This includes 22% of assessed contributions, or $264 million for the 2024/25 budget, which is paid as a fee based on the agreements of member countries.
In addition, 16% of voluntary contributions, equating to $442 million, which are usually earmarked for specific priorities such as HIV/AIDS, polio eradication, and health emergencies, are also provided by the U.S. If the U.S. were to pull out and not pay these fees, it would violate U.S. domestic law, setting the stage for contentious legal cases.
DOMESTIC IMPACT
Withdrawal from the World Health Organization would bring catastrophic consequences for the security, diplomacy, and global influence of the United States. The WHO, because of its unique global outreach and legitimacy, is the focal point of international health governance.
The United States has been greatly integrated into WHO programs that have U.S. officials collaborate with the WHO, including key efforts between such U.S. institutions as the CDC and National Institutes of Health on priority areas like polio eradication, cancer prevention, and global health security.
Image Credits: Rightful Owner
The WHO global influenza surveillance system and Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework are crucial for the United States’ access to important virus samples.
Terminating the partnership might exclude the United States from playing a crucial role in international health efforts, including, for example, the WHO-led ACT Accelerator and Solidarity trial for COVID-19 vaccine and treatment development, thereby potentially restricting vaccines for Americans and travel abroad.
Certainly, the United States has benefited from the WHO's response to outbreaks such as the Ebola outbreak, as well as the WHO's continuous fight against infectious diseases such as HIV, TB, and malaria. The very existence of the WHO as a major player in global health necessitates continuous United States engagement because withdrawal would largely negate health security at home and abroad, especially during such a time of health crisis.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WORLD
US withdrawal and the subsequent financial vacuum will adversely impact underdeveloped and developing countries, especially African nations. U.S. funding is needed for important programs like polio eradication, HIV/AIDS response, and health emergencies.
The absence of these funds could severely hamper specified services, including tuberculosis and malaria treatment, maternal and child health, and pandemic preparedness, which will increase mortality and morbidity.
Having stepped into the breach in 2020, European countries have a far lesser chance of doing so this time around, given their unprecedented requirements. Withdrawal is hateful for the global health system but strengthens the chance for African leadership in global health while also providing space for China. The truth of the matter is that funding for one or two regional initiatives, facilities, or training, cannot simply substitute for WHO's international engagement and expertise.
NEW GLOBAL ORDER?
Immediately after President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), concerns arose that the decision would serve as a medium to enhance China’s role in global health governance. Although Trump offered the WHO's susceptibility to Chinese political influence and the disproportionate financial burden to the U.S. as reasons, China, by contrast, has shown a preference for bilateral aid in international health as opposed to multilateral contributions.
China's Health Silk Road initiative and growing presence in countries across the developing world allow Beijing to expand its influence without having to make much higher commitments to the WHO. Though its contributions to the organization are, so far, not quite underwhelming compared to that of the U.S., its diplomacy-based aid is establishing China as a leader in global health.
Moreover, as China's positions within WHO are fast enlarging, its growing patterns of influence over global health policy will allow Beijing to reshape the global health architecture in conformity with its strategic interests.
The U.S. withdrawal from WHO will allow China to dominate global health governance not through filling any financial vacuum left behind by the U.S. but instead through a blend of alternative diplomacy and economic muscle.
IMPACT ON INDIA
As a huge recipient of WHO assistance, India could encounter real challenges following this withdrawal. WHO has contributed technical assistance and disease surveillance to support India's health systems strengthened through public health policy. When bilateral programs, including tuberculosis eradication and vaccine distribution, become competing for dwindling global resources, the likelihood of these activities getting delayed or receiving reduced funding will be very high.
Moreover, much of the streamlining between Indian bodies and WHO could be adversely affected, such as programs on antimicrobial resistance, maternal and child health, and health systems strengthening.
The loss of the WHO budget would also come to bear upon the pharmaceutical industry in India, which is an important contributor to the global vaccine supply. Moreover, the exit from the U.S. would lead to a loss of expertise and data-sharing platforms that would have placed great burdens on India in addressing global health challenges effectively.
A bigger threat to India is the U.S. withdrawal from the Pandemic Agreement negotiations, which would jeopardize future efforts for global health security. Geopolitically, the possible emergence of China as a leader in formulating Global health policies places India in a tricky position. India largely considers China a threat to its regional autonomy and an increase in China's power is not of the best interest for India.
Hence, the exit of the United States from the WHO represents a turning point for global health governance. The absence of U.S. funding and participation will undoubtedly leave behind a huge void in global health where the need for WHO-led programs is particularly acute: the underdeveloped world. It provides China with an opportunity to exert its influence on global health through an alternative diplomatic strategy, while it would also allow countries like India to have a larger say.
This long-term possibility now comes with the potential alteration of global health history, giving countries a foothold to rethink their collaboration strategies and methods for providing funding and preparedness. With health threats emerging, the need for strong, multilateral collaboration becomes all the more critical, which stresses the importance of institutions like WHO in the protection of public health worldwide.
BY MALAVIKA
TEAM GEOSTRATA
This research aptly covers the analysis of the WHO and its significance to regional and global actors