Introduction:
The spread of the deadly pandemic COVID 19 is still happening. There is a respite in some countries which saw many deaths like Italy and Spain where after proper lockdown measures the death rate has decreased but now some new countries like India are facing a rapid increase in cases and over 7000 are dead. This shows that the disease is far from gone and it might take years for its complete eradication and the life to go normal as it was before the arrival of this virus. There will be a time when the governments across the country would have to contemplate their actions during this world-changing event. Organization that all eyes will turn too is the World Health Organisation because as the name suggests they were the ones who had to take most action.
Lack of Strong Control
Many have criticized the WHO for not taking strong measures at a fast rate and bowing to the demands of self-centered countries and thus ruining the prospect of stopping the virus at its initial stage. It is desperately trying to make all its 194 members to follow its rule but many are making their provisions. A severe jolt for WHO is the stopping of funds by the USA. President Donald Trump said that “ I am directing my administration to halt funding while a review is conducted to assess the World Health Organization’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus”.[1] USA is the largest contributor to the organization giving 400 million dollars in 2019. Cutting of funds at this crucial stage could prove disastrous for WHO as they are trying to work out a vaccine.
The fact is that the WHO does not have much power. Unlike other organizations like the World Trade Organisation, it cannot bind or sanction its members. Its annual budget, about $2bn in 2019, is smaller than that of many university hospitals and is split among many of its ventures. It is a very small amount because many developing countries depend on their support in the healthcare sector. In some past years, its power and resources have been decreased and its ability to direct an international response has become minuscule. All this downturn is happening because of the fact that there is a rise of aggressive nationalism in many countries who first would like to see their self-interest and then act on some international cooperation.
The organization was built on a perceived sense of internationalism after the end of World War 2 and so it cannot be successful if countries keep on propagating their actions and not provide funds for international welfare. Many of its general contributing nations are seeing a rise of nationalistic government which will prefer their nation first then the international cooperation. This along with a lack of strong control over its members is leading to the helpless situation of WHO in the face of this global pandemic.
Need of Strong Direct Action
It’s not that the WHO has always been a weak organization. It has helped humanity at many stages by implementing strategies that were more swift and ground actions. Its success stories include the elimination of smallpox which was killing thousands every year. Its most vital work was organizational and diplomatic tactics like convincing Russia to create millions of vaccines which lead to many countries sending a ground weekly report to WHO on the status of the disease in their country.
Another important success tale happened when in 1998 Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland was elected as director-general. In her tenure, the 2002 SARS outbreak happened. It had no cure and spread as fast as COVID 19 has spread. But Brundtland believed that international bodies should be prepared to lead when necessary, rather than being bossed around by powerful nations.[2] She pushed the WHO to use its local contacts and look out for potential outbreaks which made them less reliant on governments for information. Because of this approach despite of lack of communication from China they were able to declare about it to the world. She was not shy in accusing China of withholding information because of which China quickly fell in line. It also issued a travel advisory for the first time. Her approach was a success and fewer than 1000 died. This type of direct action helped the WHO in maintaining itself as a strong global organization and also caring for the people.
After the initial success, it faced many shortcomings one of which was the Swine Flue epidemic. First was the 2008 financial crisis which leads to a severe drop in its budget and the 2008 Swine Flu virus in which it overestimated the limit which leads to a lot of financial losses. Therefore they decided to take a cautious approach. But this along with the financial cut lead to the Ebola Virus blunder in which it took 5 months to declare it a global threat and in the end from a request by the affected countries, the USA and a special UN committee took over the reins from WHO. Then director-general Margaret Chan said that WHO was more of an apolitical agency that is still followed today and it is different from Brundtland approach.
Conclusion
It’s time that the World Health Organisation should look at the way it works. It is clear that China had tried to cover up the situation and the WHO director-general took a soft chance on this disaster. In the one month that China tried to stop the information from going out, many countries could have brought their measures and the spread could have been stopped at an early stage which could have led to lesser deaths in many countries. WHO should have been strong in its policy implementation and called the nationalist countries which were bullying it into inactivity. It should have used the same strategy that it did during the SARS virus because after all, it is an international organization it cannot stand out for only one country just because it gives good funding otherwise people may lose faith in its transparency. Now that the mistakes have been committed it will have to stand to answer questions from many sectors and make necessary changes to bring back its former glory.
References:
[1] Coronavirus: US to halt funding to WHO, says Trump, BBC, (Apr 15, 2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52289056
[2] Stephen Buranyi, The WHO v. Coronavirus: Why it cant handle the pandemic, The Guardian, (Apr 10, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/apr/10/world-health-organization-who-v-coronavirus-why-it-cant-handle-pandemic
0 Comments