Trump walks out on WHO(m)?

Trump walks out on WHO(m)?

Right smack in the middle of the biggest global health crisis in 100 years, US President Donald Trump has announced that the United States is cutting ties to the World Health Organization, the 194-member UN-affiliate that coordinates public health policy among its members.

The move isn't entirely a surprise. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has issued several threats to walk out of the WHO, over what the White House sees as the organization's undue deference to China during the coronavirus crisis.

Why does the US move matter?

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. Losing that funding will severely complicate the W.H.O's ability to operate -- not only on coronavirus, but on the myriad other public health and disease-eradication programs it oversees around the world.

Why is Trump doing it?


First, there are important and legitimate questions about whether the WHO was too credulous of China's early claims, and whether it moved too slowly to declare a global pandemic. The WHO, for its part, says it has limited leverage over individual nation-states anyway, and that it has always acted in line with the available data. We recently weighed the pros and cons of Trump's bare-knuckled approach to the WHO here.

Second, there's a US-China angle.The Trump administration, with significant bipartisan support, sees China as a global rival these days. One big beef is China's growing clout at UN-affiliated international organizations. By cutting off the WHO, even for two or three months, Washington is sending Beijing a message that it's willing to play hardball with organizations that seem to cut China slack.

But this can backfire too: when the US pulls back from these organizations, China gets a bigger vacuum to fill. And walking out on the WHO right in the middle of a pandemic seems... questionable. After all, on the same day that Trump recently threatened to cut funding for the WHO, Chinese president Xi Jinping pledged $2bn to support coronavirus-containment efforts in developing countries.

Third, there's a domestic political angle. Trump knows that the coronavirus pandemic has hurt his chances of re-election -- his critics say that's because he's bungled the public health response, while he's mainly worried about the economic effects of the lockdowns. Trump knows that hitting out at China is good politics, not only with his base but with a broadening swath of Americans who view China with suspicion. Trump's move here comes right as Senate GOP bigwigs are advancing their own investigations into the WHO and China.

Fourth, perhaps most importantly, it's worth remembering that the virus itself doesn't care what Trump thinks of the WHO. For Trump to really make political hay out of this, he has to be reasonably confident that the US is moving past the "peak" of coronavirus deaths. If the public health crisis takes another turn for the worse, that will overshadow any political benefit to him and his re-election campaign.

Next up: China's response. Stay tuned...


EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece was updated on May 29 2020 to lead with President Trump's declaration about leaving the World Health Organization.

We pay little attention to the waves of the sea, yet they are the greatest unused source of renewable energy in the world. Meet ISWEC and Power Buoy, two interesting new technologies used to harness this energy. Learn more about the extraordinary power of waves in this episode of Eni's Energy Shot series, where we investigate interesting facts and trends about energy.

Ukraine is once again in a tough spot.

More Show less

2.8 billion: Chinese regulators fined e-commerce giant Alibaba a record $2.8 billion — about four percent of its 2019 revenue — for abusing its dominant market position and forcing merchants to operate exclusively on its platform. Alibaba founder Jack Ma has fallen out with Beijing in recent months after the billionaire publicly criticized China's regulators for stifling innovation in technology.

More Show less

Vaccine nationalism, where countries prioritize their own citizens before the rest of the world, has been effective for rich nations like the United States and Israel. But leaving behind so much of the global population isn't just a humanitarian issue. It could prolong the pandemic, according to the World Health Organization's Chief Scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, who argues that what the global vaccination effort most urgently lacks are doses, not dollars. In a wide-ranging interview with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World, she calls for a large increase in the global vaccine supply in order to prevent the rise of more dangerous and vaccine-evading super-variants. She also weighs in on a controversial new WHO report investigating the origins of COVID-19 and suggests we may be seeing alternative vaccine forms, like nasal sprays, sooner than we think.

Listen: Soumya Swaminathan calls for a massive increase in the global vaccine supply in order to prevent the rise of more dangerous and vaccine-evading super-variants, in a wide-ranging interview with Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World podcast. Dr. Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization, argues that vaccine nationalism, where countries prioritize their own citizens ahead of the rest of the world, will only prolong the pandemic because a virus does not stop at any national border. She also weighs in on a controversial new WHO report investigating the origins of COVID-19 and discusses when she thinks the world's children should get vaccinated. In addition, she suggests we may see alternative vaccine forms, like nasal sprays, sooner than we think.

Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.

India, the world's third largest emitter of carbon dioxide, is one of the countries worst affected by climate change. But it takes issue with those now asking it to clean up its act. Why, the Indians ask, should we give up our right to get rich by burning fossil fuels like you developed economies have done for generations?

That's precisely the message that India's energy minister had for the US and other wealthy nations at a recent Zoom summit after they pressured Delhi to set a future deadline for net zero emissions. For India, he explained, such targets are "pie in the sky" aspirations that do little to address the climate crisis the country faces right now.

More Show less

The Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics are nearly a year away, but discussion of a potential boycott is already stoking tensions on both sides of the US-China relationship. Officials in Washington and other Western capitals are coming under mounting pressure from activists to respond to human rights abuses in China. An increasingly assertive Beijing, meanwhile, vigorously rejects any foreign criticism of what it regards as internal issues.

The last time the US boycotted an Olympics was in 1980, when it withdrew from the Summer Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Four years later, the Soviet Union repaid in kind by skipping the Games in Los Angeles. Would the US and its allies do something like that again? And how might China respond? Eurasia Group analysts Neil Thomas and Allison Sherlock explain the drivers of the boycott movement and its possible fallout.

More Show less

In two weeks, US President Joe Biden will be hosting an online "climate summit" to mark Earth Day. He'll ask China and India to sign up to America's ambitious new plan to slow down climate change. Will they go for it? China is the world's largest polluter, but Beijing is rolling out solar and wind power as fast as it's burning coal. India, meanwhile, is loathe to pick up the slack for rich countries that polluted their way to wealth and now want everyone else to agree to emissions cuts. No matter what happens, any successful plan to reduce global emissions will require buy-in from these three nations which, along with the European Union, account for almost 60 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions nowadays. Here's a look at emissions by the world's top polluters compared to everyone else over the last two decades.

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

The GZERO World Podcast with Ian Bremmer. Listen now.

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal