The Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed cutting its budget by a fifth. This comes after its largest contributor, the US, decided to withdraw. The organisation must now reduce its tasks and staff, it said.
The Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed cutting its budget by a fifth. This comes after its largest contributor, the US, decided to withdraw. The organisation must now reduce its tasks and staff, it said.
I can hear the echoes of people saying “why should I care about US politics?”
This is one example. The biggest problems we face as humanity can only be solved with a global effort.
We should get to the point of being knowledgeable about the WHOs function, current financial support and reasons thereof, and what we can do to support its functions. Focusing on what another country does or does not, even if related to a common resource it’s a waste of time at best.
… Except what a country does or does not do directly impacts the WHOs functions and financial support, so… Kind of important.
There are many contributors, some substantially more than others, and any of them leaving will have an impact on the efficacy of the WHO.
For a program that has such a profound impact, that seems like such a small budget. It’s a shame that the US cuts $116M to save precious money, while maintaining $16 billion in, for example, petroleum subsidies.
It is.
Its a shockingly stupid decision. Not surprising considering the administration, but incredibly stupid.
Exactly. $116M is absolutely inconsequential to the budget and by extension the American people. What the WHO produces has a huge impact on all people, including, yup American people. So the American people are only losing here.
That’s what I was thinking except I was thinking about the military. Why are the numbers for health so much lower than for war. It’s not a little lower it’s multiple zeroes lower and that’s not just the US. The UK is paying $22m to the WHO but has a military budget more than 3,000 times larger!
As per the map you uploaded, USA created a problem: can we do anything about it as non-Americans? No we can’t. Let’s then assess the situation, inform better the public about the WHOs function, and sit with as many of all the other countries to work to a joint solution.
Giving me news about US “actions” and internal discourse, for everyone outside of the US, is inaction-causing noise at best, propaganda at its worst. What should be communicated is the existence of a void and its possible consequences.
What about China filling the void being a possible consequence for example? Is it a possibility? Is it good or bad? Should we talk to China about it or not?
If I keep thinking about Trump and his henchmen I won’t ask myself those questions.
You do realize that OPs article is about a US “action”? You’ve now been informed and might be able to take action like voting accordingly, writing to your representatives etc.
Or, as per my initial comment, you could’ve ignored US news and would be none the wiser.
Which other countries can also create if contributions are altered.
Being aware of the how and why of national politics impacting international politics is a good thing. Suggesting otherwise is just putting blinders on.
I am suggesting being aware of the problems, of the functions of the institutions and to do something. Other countries could also work to make WHO even better despite the absence of the USA (or thanks to it).
The WHO also has a lot of its budget tied to Melinda and Bill, two American billionaires, 390$B in 2022, so much more than the US as a whole and that is a much bigger problem, if you ask me.
Do we really want global health functioning on this basis, or should we use the shock to rediscuss the assumptions?
I wonder how the amount that should be paid is divvied out. Or if it is all just voluntary. I was thinking Europe was quite outsized, so it could be by wealth, but also Japan seems quite large and Russia fairly tiny.
They explain on their site here.
There is membership/assessed, which goes by each member country’s wealth. There are also voluntary contributions, which comes in a few forms - core, which have no specific requirement on use, strategic donations which have general goals and can be applied to anything in that field/theme, and specified, which go to specific projects or efforts.
There is also a budget portal which details how money is spent.
Where did I say we should focus on another country? Why does everything have to be black and white?
There are shades in between ignoring and focusing on you know?