WHO at deflected crossroads of Politics

Contributing between $400 million to $500 million annually, to the Geneva-based international health forum since the recent years, apparently impetuous announcement of suspending funds by President Trump for 60 to 90 days has appalled the world. The greatest global public health challenge, due to indiscriminate and widespread pandemic of Covid 19, holds massive economic and social consequences the societies have seen in hundred years.The decision is certainly disdainful for any international collaboration to ensure WHO’s broad-based mandate which advocates universal healthcare, monitors public health risks, coordinates responses to health emergencies, and promotes human health and wellbeing. So far politically oblivious interdependence of the world community in the field of health, met through cooperative technical assistance required by the scientists and has aptly resided in the leadership resources of WHO.

Ever since its formation in July 1948, the agency hasset international health standards and guidelines, and collected data on global health issues through the World Health Survey despite limitations, both circumstantial and economic. If one reflects on WHO’s leading role in several public health successes in the eradication of smallpox, the near-eradication of polio, and the development of an Ebola vaccine, the work is encouragingly notable in all the strata of developed and developing countries. Similarly, the current emphasis on the communicable diseases, particularly HIV/AIDS, Ebola, malaria and tuberculosis andnon-communicable diseases such as, heart diseases and cancer, have all received an appropriate response by shared knowledge from all parts of the world.

What made President Trump take this decision when it could endanger the fast ending of the pandemic corona virus through collective efforts? Professor Peter Piot from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said, “We need the World Health Organization now more than ever (in the wake of pandemic Covid 19). Its technical expertise, guidance and leadership is supporting countries to implement optimum science-based strategies to prevent and control Covid-19, and will catalyse global action against future health emergencies.” What made Trump announce that WHO’s warnings about the coronavirus and China were insufficient? He has accused this international body of “severely mismanaging and covering up” the threat, even though it declared a public health emergency on January 30, 2020.

Trump’s decision has regrettably divided the world opinion. The publication of a communique by G20 health ministers that committed to strengthen WHO’s mandate in coordinating a response to the global coronavirus pandemic also got hindered by his policies.US erstwhile insistence on the G7, a smaller group of western countries, to agree on the position of declaring the virus as a China virus had already divided their foreign ministers to take a common position.

Mark Suzman, chief executive of the Gates Foundation, who is also the second largest funder of the WHO after the US, has not only strongly condemned Trump’s decision but has also increased $150m donation towards the hunt for a vaccine, for which the foundation plans to build factories and therapeutics.

Similarly, Boris Johnson’s spokesman expressed his disagreement while recognizing the collective role of the world to tackle this shared threat. UK decided to continue with its funding for the international body.

Already, the Covid 19 is subject to several controversies between the pro and anti-vaccine lobbies and the US power centers. Behavior of the virus at various regions of the world has also made it controversial while endangering the ethnic and racial harmony. The time for a united struggle against the common threat is more needed. The issue is not only confined to the eradication of the disease but also the division of institutions from bureaucracy to scientists and medical practitioners around the world, who would be circumstantially reluctant to enhance the culture of knowledge sharing if WHO’s leadership is also politicized.

“The WHO is a place where anxieties and concerns can be discussed without the sense that you are going to be somehow called out,” said David Nabarro, professor of global health at Imperial College London, who worked at the highest levels of WHO for many years.

The political priorities of the major powers had never been the concern of WHO ever since its inception even during the times of the communist expansionist theories, to Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction or use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Even the fear factor conspired in Islamophobia had not been able to influence the collective understanding of the international body for human welfare. WHO’s dedication to its core values do not even validly look over the shoulder in fear. Exchanging information, reviewing scientific evidence, and making evidence based consensus recommendations on disease prevention and control had been a hope for low and middle-income countries alike, while ignoring the twists and turns of the commercial world.

 Pakistan had been a major beneficiary. Since January 2020, WHO has supported over 20 COVID-19 reference hospitals across Pakistan with various preparedness and response activities. It includes the distribution of medical equipment, awareness-raising materials and technical support. It being the fifth most populous country in the world, spread over an area of 800 000 kilometers and an estimated population of 173.5 million in 2011, is the largest in the WHO assistance in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.

Pakistan has experienced several natural and man-made disasters, worst being the massive earthquake of 2005 and militancy in its northern belt creating several health centric issues. A consistently high population growth rate exceeding 2% annually has led Pakistan to being quite a young nation. Comparatively, despite low health budget, the country has been able to develop a multi-tiered health infrastructure. Nonetheless, its poor health indicators such as high maternal, infant and under-5 mortality and a high burden of communicable diseases such as tuberculosis and hepatitis B and C, in addition to a rising trend of non-communicable diseases need help. The United Nations system is already piloting the “Delivering as One” agenda with 14 UN agencies, funds and offices working for health and population with a strong and heavy agenda in Pakistan. Its intersectional support is particularly useful in view of the several social determinants of health such as income poverty, lack of basic education, lack of adequate safe water and sanitation facilities, particularly to the marginalized segments of the population, which once again is huge.

Hence, my worry is, what future does it see for itself or the like-situated disaster prone countries, in the absence of a well-coordinated, well-organised, internationally collaborated human and humane body, if WHO is also put on the cross roads of politics by the power centers of the world?