Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on Bridging Healthcare Gaps (2015), and WHO Initiatives (2020).

The US is the largest contributor to WHO, providing about 18% of its funding. The withdrawal is expected to jeopardize critical health programs, particularly those addressing tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and other health emergencies.

Today’s editorial emphasizes the need for member states to collaborate more effectively in light of reduced US involvement, ensuring that global health priorities remain addressed despite funding challenges. This content can be used to present the significance of multilateral collaboration and its impact on international policy and governance with respect to Health.

_

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

After the USA’s withdrawal from WHO, it is time for the countries in the global south to support WHO and initiate collaborative actions to reshape the global health agenda.

What are the Potential Impacts of the US Withdrawal from WHO?

• Disruption of Funding and Programs: The US contributes nearly 18% of WHO’s budget (~$1 billion annually), supporting critical health programs like immunization, tuberculosis control, and pandemic preparedness.
  • The withdrawal will likely disrupt ongoing projects aimed at combating health challenges such as HIV/AIDS and polio eradication.
• Weakened Global Health Response: WHO’s ability to coordinate responses to health crises will be significantly impaired without US support. This includes reduced resources for disease surveillance and emergency operations in regions facing outbreaks or health threats.
• Impact on Global Health Leadership and Collaboration: The absence of the US may create a leadership vacuum within WHO, allowing other nations (e.g., China) to increase their influence.
  • This shift could alter international collaboration dynamics and lead to fragmented approaches to public health challenges.
• Repercussions for Low-Income Countries: Marginalized communities in low-income countries may face disproportionate impacts due to reduced funding from WHO. These communities rely heavily on WHO for access to essential health services, and the withdrawal signals a deprioritization of global health initiatives, exacerbating existing inequalities.
  • The overall effectiveness of global health initiatives may decline as WHO struggles with funding constraints and could slow long-term progress toward key health goals, such as disease eradication and comprehensive vaccination programs, ultimately affecting global health security.

How might the withdrawal reshape international health diplomacy?

• Shift in Global Health Leadership: The absence of the US may create a leadership vacuum within WHO, potentially allowing countries like China to increase their influence in global health governance.
  • This shift could alter the dynamics of international collaboration, with other nations stepping up to fill the void left by the US.
• Increased Geopolitical Tensions: The withdrawal could intensify competition between the US and China for influence in global health matters.
  • China’s initiatives, such as the Health Silk Road, may gain traction as it seeks to position itself as a leader in global health, thereby reshaping alliances and partnerships among countries.
• Impact on Multilateral Cooperation: The US’s exit may weaken multilateral cooperation on critical health issues, leading to fragmented responses to global health challenges.
  • Countries may become less willing to collaborate on shared health threats without US leadership, which could hinder effective pandemic preparedness and response efforts.
• Loss of Diplomatic Leverage: By withdrawing, the US relinquishes its role as a key influencer in shaping global health policies and initiatives.
  • This could diminish its ability to advocate for public health programs that align with its interests and values, allowing other nations to take a more prominent role in setting global health agendas.
• Disproportionate Effects: The low-income countries that rely heavily on WHO for support may face greater challenges without US involvement.

What reforms or changes might be necessary within WHO in light of this withdrawal?

• Diversification of Funding Sources: WHO should encourage member states to increase their assessed contributions, which currently cover less than 20% of its budget. This could help reduce reliance on any single donor, particularly the US.
  • WHO can seek to expand its voluntary contributions from other countries and private organizations to fill the financial gap left by the US withdrawal.
• Strengthening Governance and Accountability: Implementing more transparent financial management practices can help restore trust among member states and ensure that funds are allocated effectively.
  • Establishing an independent oversight body to review WHO’s operations and decision-making processes may help address concerns about political influence and enhance accountability.

Way Forward: India can not only mitigate the impacts of the US withdrawal but also can significantly contribute to shaping a more equitable global health landscape.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now