GZERO Media logo

Has the World Health Organization bungled the coronavirus response?

Has the World Health Organization bungled the coronavirus response?

In recent weeks, the World Health Organization (WHO) has come under fire for its handling of the coronavirus pandemic. US President Donald Trump in particular has blasted the organization for being too lenient with China over Beijing's opaque mismanagement of the initial outbreak, prompting his decision this week to freeze funding to the organization for 60-days. But what actually is the World Health Organization and why does any of this matter? We break it down here.


How does WHO operate? The World Health Organization is the arm of the United Nations that's responsible for international public health and is charged with leading responses to global health emergencies by delivering essential medical resources to countries with weak infrastructure, monitoring data on unfolding crises, and helping to find vaccines to prevent deadly outbreaks of disease. (It acts as a global hub for information on the dozens of COVID-19 vaccines currently in development.)

All UN member states can become members of the global health organization by paying yearly dues — which are called "assessed contributions" – that are calculated based on the size of each country's population and economy. On top of this, countries and NGOs also support the WHO with voluntary contributions, which make up about three quarters of the organization's funding. The US is by far the largest single funder of the 194-member World Health Organization, contributing as much as $500 million every two years in dues and voluntary contributions. That's why Trump's decision to cut funds is such a huge blow to WHO.

Who's criticizing WHO? Recent criticism of the organization has centered on two main themes:

"The organization waffled in its messaging on COVID-19, and was too slow to declare a public health emergency." Even as late as mid-January, when the number of coronavirus cases outside China was already rising, WHO said there was no proof of human-to-human transmission of the disease, rebuffing warnings, including an emphatic appeal from Taiwanese officials in late December, that the novel coronavirus was spreading rapidly. It wasn't until mid-March, after the number of COVID-19 cases outside China increased 13-fold in just 14 days, that WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. In dragging its feet in addressing the contagion, critics argue, WHO failed to encourage states to take the virus seriously.

For its part, WHO says that it relies on the willingness of member states to cooperate, and does not have the mandate to enter any country "uninvited." WHO officials were only granted access to ground zero of the coronavirus — in a joint mission led by both WHO and Chinese officials — in mid-February.

"The organization has been differential to China, exacerbating the virus' spread." The agency's detractors say that despite growing evidence that the Chinese government knew about the seriousness of the coronavirus in December, and that it had strong-armed Wuhan's scientists into suppressing the data, WHO continued to praise Beijing's response to the crisis – and made little effort to independently verify Chinese government data. As late as mid-January, WHO officials still took at face value Beijing's assertions that the virus was "preventable and controllable" even as new cases appeared outside of China.

But the agency's defenders say, again, that the organization's powers over individual governments are limited, meaning WHO relies on the veracity of member states' information to coordinate an effective response. True, but back in 2003 — when SARS spread in a China that was much less powerful than it is today — WHO was freer in its criticism of Beijing's efforts to suppress data.

Visit Microsoft on The Issues for a front-row seat to see how Microsoft is thinking about the future of sustainability, accessibility, cybersecurity and more. Check back regularly to watch videos, and read blogs and feature stories to see how Microsoft is approaching the issues that matter most. Subscribe for the latest at Microsoft on the Issues.

It's been four days since Iran's top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, died in a hail of bullets on a highway near Tehran. Iran has plausibly blamed Israel for the killing, but more than that, not much is known credibly or in detail.

This is hardly the first time that an Iranian nuclear scientist has been assassinated in an operation that has a whiff of Mossad about it. But Fakhrizadeh's prominence — he is widely regarded as the father of the Iranian nuclear program — as well as the timing of the killing, just six weeks from the inauguration of a new American president, make it a particularly big deal. Not least because an operation this sensitive would almost certainly have required a US sign-off.

More Show less

Joe Biden has had one of the longest political careers in American history, but his most important act is yet to come. Can decades of experience in Washington prepare him to lead the most divided America since the end of the Civil War?

Watch the GZERO World episode: What you still may not know about Joe


Ethiopia on the brink: After ethnic tensions between Ethiopia's federal government and separatist forces in the northern Tigray region erupted into a full-blown armed conflict in recent weeks, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed announced his forces had taken control of Tigray's capital on Saturday and declared victory. But the fugitive Tigray leader Debretsion Gebremichael quickly called Abiy's bluff, saying the fighting is raging on, and demanded Abiy withdraw his forces. Gebremichael accused Abiy of launching "a genocidal campaign" that has displaced 1 million people, with thousands fleeing to neighboring Sudan, creating a humanitarian catastrophe. The Tigray, who make up about five percent of Ethiopia's population, are fighting for self-determination, but Abiy's government has repeatedly rejected invitations to discuss the issue, accusing the coalition led by Gebremichael's Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) of "instigating clashes along ethnic and religious lines." As the two sides dig in their heels, Ethiopia faces the risk of a civil war that could threaten the stability of the entire Horn of Africa.

More Show less

110: At least 110 people were killed in Nigeria's conflict-ridden Borno state on Saturday, when armed men attacked agricultural workers as they tended their fields. No one has yet claimed responsibility for the brutal attack, but analysts say the assault was likely the work of Boko Haram or Islamic State-linked groups that have gained a foothold in the Sahel region in recent years.

More Show less
Reasons for Hope: COVID and the Coming Year. Watch on Friday. Dec 4 2020 12 noon - 1 pm ET

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's Newsletter: Signal

Your move, Iran