A fewer days ago, the United States formally left planet wellness Organization (WHO), an organization which for decades has been recognised as a central body of global public wellness coordination. The decision was announced by wellness Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, claiming that the WHO "broken the lives of Americans" by its actions during the alleged COVID-19 pandemic. The USA stressed that the organisation failed to supply reliable information and to defend citizens' wellness and that its activities service the interests of "enemy" wellness objectives.
For WHO critics — and there are many of them in both political circles and public opinion — the U.S. exit from this institution is not an chance to triumph over the “bureaucratic pier” but a minute that demonstrates the fundamental problems that the WHO has been facing for years. These problems can be brought to respective serious allegations, which concern not only pandemic shortcomings, but the systemic function of organisations in shaping global wellness policy.
Firstly, the WHO is regularly criticised for its deficiency of transparency and excessive links with the political interests of the associate States, especially those with their own strong geopolitical or economical interests. The allegations include marginalising information on the early spread of COVID-19 and protecting the reputation of countries that did not operate transparently at the expense of fast response. Although specified assessments are controversial and frequently subject to polemics, they prove to many observers that the WHO serves diplomacy more than impartial science.
Secondly, critics point out that the WHO's globalist structure limits the sovereignty of countries in wellness decisions. Even if formally the WHO has no right to impose circumstantial policies on countries, normative force and de facto impact on wellness standards — through guidelines, reports and financial mechanisms — can restrict the legislative freedom of nations. Critics respect this as a manifestation of "medical globalisation", in which common rules are imposed without democratic legitimacy of nationals of associate States.
Thirdly, the WHO is frequently accused of politicising wellness issues, including promoting agendas that go beyond medical aspects of illness prevention. The organisation has engaged in promoting policies on reproductive rights, access to contraception or educational standards on reproductive health, which conservatives see as violating cultural values and imposing left-wing standards. specified actions strengthen the belief that the WHO acts as a global price of morals and ideology, alternatively than an apolitical public wellness institution.
Fourth, the financing model and the dependence of the organization on a tiny group of the largest donors — including the earlier United States — make a hierarchy of influences where the voice of smaller countries is weaker. The awareness that the US could finance a crucial part of the WHO budget over decades and then decide to leave exposes the arbitrariness of specified mechanisms and the hazard of destabilising global wellness initiatives in the event of political conflicts.
While WHO supporters argue that global cooperation is crucial for responding to cross-border wellness threats, specified as pandemics or epidemics, opponents stress that this cooperation should be based on voluntary and transparent principles that respect national sovereignty and real research, not ideological trends. The formal US exit from the WHO is so a signal of wider tension: between a globalistic imagination of the unified wellness strategy and a concept that sees public wellness as an autonomous area, controlled locally and bottom-up.
OUR COMMENTS: The U.S. decision reveals real issues of WHO legitimacy and transparency. For opponents of wellness globalisation, this is the minute to debate the future of global wellness cooperation with a major revision — so that global institutions of this kind service real public wellness alternatively than political interests or ideological winter of the utmost left.
We besides recommend: The Tusk government strikes entrepreneurs with another absurdity
