By John Q. Hosedrinker 
For only $29, readers can access the FT Digital Edition for three months. This subscription provides complete access to the Financial Times newspaper, on any device. Importantly, this offer excludes access to ft.com and the FT app. The subscription offers a cost-effective way to enjoy the full print edition digitally.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump’s transition team is reportedly planning to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization (WHO) on the very first day of his administration. This proposed action has sparked significant concern among experts who foresee catastrophic consequences for global health.
The decision, if implemented, would leave a massive void in global health financing and leadership. The US is the WHO’s largest single donor, contributing approximately 16 percent of its funding. Losing this substantial contribution would severely hamper the WHO’s ability to respond effectively to future public health crises, similar to the coronavirus pandemic. The resulting lack of funding could force the organization to drastically reduce its staff and capabilities, potentially crippling its response efforts during a time of emergency.
Some within Trump’s team reportedly view this withdrawal as a powerful symbolic gesture, reversing President Biden’s decision to rejoin the WHO on his inauguration day. They see it as a way to quickly and decisively demonstrate their distrust of the organization. However, this symbolic move comes at a potentially devastating cost to global health initiatives, such as collaborative vaccine development and distribution.
While there is internal debate within the Trump team regarding the best approach to the WHO, the faction advocating for immediate withdrawal appears to be prevailing. Some voices within the team are reportedly in favor of remaining within the WHO and working toward reform from within. However, the plan to withdraw on day one appears to be the favored option.
The implications of this withdrawal extend far beyond simple funding. The US plays a crucial role in global health cooperation, providing vital expertise and resources. Removing this contribution will not only severely weaken the WHO’s ability to act but may also unintentionally embolden other nations, such as China, to exert greater influence within the organization. This potential shift in global power dynamics could have long-term negative implications for international health cooperation and leadership.
The transition team has not officially commented on these plans. However, a source close to the plans has indicated a general disinterest in the WHO’s pronouncements. The WHO itself has remained largely silent on the matter. Its director-general has expressed a desire to cooperate with US policymakers, emphasizing that the safety and security of the US is inextricably linked to the global community’s well-being. The organization has stressed its commitment to continuing its work, regardless of any potential changes in US involvement.
The timing of this potential withdrawal is deeply alarming. Concerns are rising about a potential avian flu pandemic. The reported plan to immediately sever ties with the WHO would weaken the global capacity to respond to such an outbreak. This move underscores a potential disregard for the critical role international cooperation plays in managing global health threats.
The potential for a renewed health crisis, coupled with the proposed withdrawal, creates a significant risk for the global community. The loss of US funding and leadership could hinder the swift and effective response necessary to contain a future pandemic, potentially resulting in devastating consequences. The idea of leaving a vital international organization on the first day of a new administration, especially given the looming threat of a new pandemic, demonstrates a disregard for global cooperation and public health. This action presents a profound risk not just to the US but to the entire world.
This decision highlights a broader pattern of prioritizing symbolic gestures over collaboration and international cooperation. The long-term ramifications of such a decision for global health are deeply troubling. The decision raises concerns about the potential for a significant setback in global pandemic preparedness and response.