“We will today be terminating our relationship”, were the blunt words proclaiming that the United States of America will end their partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO).
President Donald Trump, who had earlier this month threatened to pull funding, made the announcement Friday in response to what he called a “pattern of misconduct” in how the WHO addressed China’s actions and culpability for the worldwide pandemic. The Washington Post reported that Trump’s decision rested on his reiterated allegations that China covered up the initial outbreak and that the WHO’s response to China’s actions in trying to combat the ensuing pandemic demonstrated a “China-centric” influence. The U.S withdrawal from the WHO paves the way for a new period of uncertainty but, additionally, the escalating and shifting tensions between Washington-Beijing relations has posed a new test in effectiveness of international collaboration in times of crisis, putting the concept of global governance into question.
In the field of international relations, diplomacy and collaboration serve as an opportunity for gains but in a period of crisis, such as the coronavirus, it has proven more testing. This tension is felt greatly within nations because the perception of their governance takes precedence in where they stand globally. Arguably, global bodies designed to foster international partnership in endeavours related to development and resolution were more rooted in rhetoric instead of policy. This is evident in the persistent exchange of accusations and bureaucratic protocols that ultimately deflects attention, necessary, in combating the ever-changing nature of the pandemic and its impact.
As the U.S death toll exceeds 100,000, many observers view this move as causing a significant hindrance in acquiring and allocating resources to combat the fight against the coronavirus which had rested significantly on U.S contributions. United States was the organization’s largest donor with about $450 million being paid to membership dues and voluntary funding to specific programs. China, although being the second-largest economy in the world, was measuring annual contributions at $40 million. However, last week President Xi Jinping pledged $2 billion to the WHO over the next two years to enhance initiatives to combat the coronavirus – roughly the same amount as the organization’s annual budget from last year. In withdrawing from the WHO, President Trump also announced that U.S funding would be directed towards “other worldwide and deserving urgent global public health needs”. Critics to Trump’s rhetoric argue that his criticisms and blame toward China were a ploy to distract from his administration’s slow response to the pandemic.
Furthermore, with the immediate response of concern due to the U.S exit from the WHO, it demonstrates a hierarchy of reliance in that certain nations take precedence in their regional and economic influence that manifests into the direction and impact of various global events. Trump’s decision for the U.S to leave the WHO was a culmination of his impatience towards their, what he accused, inability to make reforms to the organization and allowing it to fall under Chinese influence. However, it was the persistently tense diplomatic climate between the U.S and China that lead to this outcome.
It has been reported that as far back as January-February 2020, Trump resisted calls from experts and advisors to take the prospect of a pandemic seriously before declaring it a national emergency in mid-March. It was also around this time that Trump started referring to the coronavirus as the “Chinese Virus” which was met with widespread condemnation across media outlets, WHO officials and the Chinese government. However, the persistent criticism towards Trump and his rhetoric as being “propagandist” in turn fuels his stance on the WHO and China’s position in and response to the pandemic.
China’s own response to the virus has been scrutinized particularly as new developments emerge that the Chinese government was concealing and influencing the proliferation of certain information. Meanwhile, the WHO’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom’s, has been accused of being biased and too trusting of China which has led to accusations of the organization’s Chinese influence. The Sydney Morning Herald reported back in April, Taiwanese officials said that the WHO ignored their disclosure of early warning signs of the virus because China, which claims Taiwan as its territory, refuses to allow them membership. Additionally, reports have emerged that two goodwill ambassadors to the WHO have close ties to the Politburo. They are James Chau, journalist with Chinese state media and Peng Liyuan, who is also Xi Jinping’s wife. This can be aligned with statements made by Japanese finance minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Taro Aso, who said that some people began referring to the World Health Organization as the “Chinese Health Organization”.
In expressing his criticisms of multilateralism, Trump has consistently re-directed U.S interests from a global scope to a domestic one as he stands by his “America-first” policy. His presidency has seen the United States be pulled from the U.N Human Rights Council, its cultural agency, the Paris Accords and the Iran Nuclear Deal. While the World Health organization reiterates its position that combatting the coronavirus is a global effort, it is an initiative that has been seen taking shape from a domestic scope as countries revert to a state of self-reliance. As certain borders remain shut and travel monitored the world has had to reconfigure its own global ties for the sake of individual national action. This moment exposes the volatility of global governance in its balance of international and domestic commitments that can lead to a new clash of civilizations. Whether or not it was just for Trump to make the decision he did becomes a separate debate for observers.
With an election looming, Trump will stand firm as being a representative of the people of America first, whether the world likes it or not. The nation has seen significant upheaval in recent weeks from those protesting state lockdown restrictions to the riots in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd. Global governance is proving less relevant when compared to domestic needs and it is the handling of those needs that will reflect initiative and practice on a global scale from nations who are able to effectively contribute. To reference his first address at the United Nations in 2017, Trump asserted “We meet at a time of both immense promise and great peril…Our success depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty, to promote security, prosperity and peace for themselves and for the World”. Even so, for the U.S to reclaim their place in global organizations, it will prove a difficult reconciliation whether it be President Trump or his successor.
