While many in B.C. joined critics around the world in condemning U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to halt funding to the World Health Organization over its handling of COVID-19, some also agreed that some reform to the WHO will likely be necessary after the pandemic is over.
In addition, observers added that this may be a “call-to-arms” moment for Canadians to either take a more active role in global institutions (in order to maintain a strong, unbiased world system in areas like health and trade) or - in extreme cases like another outbreak - to act more proactively and independently of global institutions that may have been compromised.
Trump announced on Tuesday the U.S. - the WHO’s biggest donor at about US$400 million last year, or 15% of the organization’s budget - will temporarily halt funding to the group after the White House accused the WHO of failing “its basic duty” in responding to COVID-19. Trump also accused the WHO of favouring China in its initial coverup of the outbreak in January (although Trump himself tweeted on Jan. 24 praising the Chinese effort on COVID-19).
UBC Institute of Asian Research’s director emeritus, Yves Tiberghien, said the announcement was not surprising, given Trump’s sharp tone towards both Beijing and the WHO since the pandemic hit a fever pitch in the United States in the last month, with 27,808 deaths reported south of the border as of today.
Tiberghien added that Washington has had a pattern of going after global agencies and bodies like the United Nations and others for domestic reasons since as far back as the administration of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, and the pendulum between globalization supporters and skeptics in the U.S. have continued to swing for decades.
“Both of those strands existed in the United States for a long time,” he said. “So in the big picture, this is a pendulum swing, and Trump has been going after every single international institution. So this was coming; but this is not the solution. It will not help to resolve the crisis in the U.S. or globally. The U.S., along with its partners and other channels, could have worked to reform what it didn’t like in the WHO. Because in the end, we cannot do without a global institution on health.”
Officials ranging from United Nations secretary-general Antonio Guterres to EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, as well as American Medical Association president Patrice Harris and billionaire WHO advocate Bill Gates have criticized Trump’s decision.
Among the voices critical of WHO’s recent handling of the COVID-19 crisis has been Taiwan, the self-ruled island that China views as a renegade province and has blocked from WHO membership. Taiwanese officials said it sent notifications of COVID-19 as early as December to the WHO but was ignored, then took proactive steps before WHO recommendations came down to track and limit the spread of the virus.
Today, Taiwan has been hailed by many as a model case for managing the outbreak - with only 395 confirmed cases and 6 deaths among a population similar in size to Australia at 24 million. Australia, for comparison, has reported 6,447 cases and 63 deaths.
Charlie Wu, managing director of the Asian-Canadian Special Events Association (which puts on TaiwanFest annually in Vancouver and Toronto), said while he also disagrees with Trump about halting the funding to the WHO, the issue of the organization’s operations is one serious enough to warrant a much closer look on the part of Canadians.
“I think a lot of Canadians probably don’t understand the politicization of the WHO for the past while, especially on the issue of China and Taiwan,” Wu said. “Most Canadians probably still view the WHO as independent and having its own agenda to put the health of the people of the world first, but that’s not the case from the Taiwanese perspective. And if we learn anything from Taiwan this time, maybe it’s that not following the guidelines of the WHO is probably a blessing; not trusting China is a blessing.”
Still, Wu said WHO has been doing better on COVID-19 since declaring a pandemic in March, and while he agrees with Trump’s more recent Beijing-skeptic views, the move to halt funding at this point is “not helping.” As such, he said the lesson for Canadians may be the need to get more informed and in touch with global issues and institutions - so they can decide for themselves what reforms can be done with the WHO while not undermining the spirit of working with other countries.
“People are still depending on the WHO,” he said. “Is it doing its job right now? I certainly think they are doing better now… The root of the problem goes beyond the WHO. For Canadians, we need to pay more attention to global politics and how that’s affecting our government’s decision-making. If we are not informed, we have no recourse than to trust the governmental bodies that made these wrong decisions.”
Tiberghien agreed that China played hardball with the WHO on the Taiwan issue, and “there are clearly issues there.” But he added that WHO - made up of doctors, scientists and researchers - may have been naturally inclined to move more slowly on new developments in COVID-19, which may have hurt the effort when looked upon retroactively.
He also noted that WHO is ultimately an agent that will do what its members will it to do, similar to a company being beholden to decisions made by its board. As such, the most useful thing for Canada to do may be to be more involved with other “middle powers” in preserving the global order - since it is clear that neither Washington nor Beijing should be shepherding this effort.
“If we blame the WHO, we should blame the design of the WHO,” Tiberghien said, adding that Ottawa has had success in the past in helping bring some reforms to another group, the World Trade Organization, in creating interim dispute-settlement guidelines. “… The key question to everybody non-U.S. and non-China - so especially Canada, the EU, Japan and others - is how to stand together for the common good? We do need common information, mustering and resources, and the rest of the world has to stand up and lead. Eventually, the U.S. will come back, but the rest of the world has to be able to do this without the U.S. right now.”
