Trump’s political campaigns and Presidency have been riddled with brazen, bizarre and outrageous comments and threats. It is no surprise then that his most recent is a threat to halt voluntary payments to the World Health Organisation (WHO). The justification being its apparent China-favoured stance on the COVID-19 pandemic.
In comments made on the 14th of April, Trump announced America will “halt funding” while a “review is conducted” into WHO allegedly “covering up the spread of the coronavirus” in China. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has commended China on its handling of the outbreak including its health facilities and lockdown procedures. WHO, among many other international organisations such as the Red Cross, are walking the tightrope of providing care to the impoverished whilst trying to remain politically neutral.
This is no easy feat as providing care to those who need it without commenting on the environmental, political and social factors that created the problem can make an organisation seem compliant. For example in the early 2000s, the Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) was silent on the Myanmar human rights issues in order to be able to connect with the population. Whereas if an aid group were to be politically active and outspoken on the behaviours of groups or states, they may risk losing access to the people they need to care for. This paradox of aid vs advocacy and the attempt to integrate the two can lead to organisations like WHO being accused of not being a neutral player. Trump’s statements have exemplified the sheer difficulty of agencies to remain neutral, but does Trump want WHO to be completely neutral or does he expect some political assurance as compensation for America’s large donation to the organisation?
A chart sourced from WHO’s funding website reveals that the United States of America is the single biggest contributor (Assessed and Voluntary contributions) to WHO in the 2016-2017 period. The US is responsible for around 22% of the organization’s budget. Losing a large portion of that money, in a time where it is desperately needed could have astronomical repercussions on WHO and the 133 countries it is currently providing emergency support, materials and relief to.
It seems like Trump has conveniently served WHO with an ultimatum: stop ‘favouring’ China for their COVID-19 response or risk losing your biggest donor. It’s a dangerous and literally deadly game to play, considering the US is receiving a severe and probable long term battering from the disease.
So, why else would President Trump threaten to stop funding an Internationally crucial organisation? Election votes.
WHO is Trump’s scapegoat, someone to pass the baton of responsibility to when questions start to arise about his COVID-19 response; a sacrificial lamb in the name of politics.
Trump’s outlook on the upcoming election a few months ago was promising. The economy was experiencing growth and his campaign slogan “Keep America Great” reminded Americans of his accomplishments. However, COVID-19 may have disrupted all of what seemed assured. It’s possible that Americans will seek change with the job loss decreasing and Coronavirus cases increasing and although political parties and the President cannot be blamed for a disease, they can be held accountable for how they handle them.
Trump’s early response to the virus was that it was a hoax and the virus was flu-like, insinuating no urgency in preemptive measures. Although his travel ban to China was praised, Joe Biden, Trump’s 2020 election opponent, said that “45 nations had already moved” to apply a travel ban. Conflicting reports on the USA’s promptness of the travel ban have had discrepancies from Biden’s and Trump’s perspectives, both adding fuel for the upcoming election.
The 2020 Presidential election is scheduled for the 3rd of November and it is likely that those ‘on the fence’ voters will look to Trump’s handling of the pandemic to influence or even decide their vote. Coronavirus is in the forefront of everybody’s mind and is likely to affect Americans on and beyond election day.
Trumps every step from here on out will be assessed and scrutinised with eagle-eyed precision. In the 2016 election, he won the race using his sneaky targeted social media ads and blindsided the country. The power and importance of voting have been expressed across the United States in the last four years, in 2020 Trump will have to win by popularity, a variable that fluctuates.
America will survive even if they halt payments to the WHO. American funding to their own Disease Control and Prevention Centre (CDC) for 2020 was $6.594 billion dollars, a substantially larger budget than their donation to WHO. If the funding halt for WHO becomes indefinite, the USA will come out of this ordeal fairly unscathed. It’s hard to say the same for other countries who are not so fortunate.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has been experiencing a civil war, major conflicts including mass casualties and more recently Measles and Ebola outbreaks alongside Coronavirus. Syria is experiencing mass displacement and children are dying of curable diseases such as infections and the common flu. Nigeria is battling polio with less than sufficient health equipment. In Gaza refugee camps, people are required to stay ‘home’ and isolate. Polio is evident in Malaysia and the Philippines. HIV is still a threat worldwide and WHO along with other state and non-state actors are trying to combat all these problems at once whilst being severely underfunded.
It is these countries that rely on WHO the most that will be bonded to the repercussions of Trump’s actions, for decades to come.
