Last Updated:
Public health experts believe that shortfall in funding due to United States’ decision to exit the World Health Organization is likely to be compensated by China, European Union and BRICS nations, and the real impact would be visible only after one-two years
The move was expected in 2020 as US President Donald Trump had already initiated steps to withdraw from WHO, citing the health agency’s biases towards China. (AP)
India’s advanced health systems may cushion the impact of the United States’ decision to exit the World Health Organization (WHO), but it may derail crucial initiatives in vulnerable regions, multiple public health experts told News18.
The move was expected in 2020 as US President Donald Trump had already initiated steps to withdraw from WHO, citing the health agency’s biases towards China. However, it was subsequently reversed by new President Joe Biden in January 2021.
According to Dr K Srinath Reddy, the US withdrawal is extremely “unfortunate”.
“In an era where multilateral cooperation is essential for collectively addressing major global health challenges that arise from pandemic threats, climate change catalysed assaults on human health and antimicrobial resistance, USA’s withdrawal from WHO is extremely unfortunate,” he said.
Reddy believes that in an interconnected and interdependent world, it will have adverse consequences not only for other countries but also for the US.
Another public health expert, Rajib Dasgupta, professor and chairperson, Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health, Jawaharlal Nehru University, believes that health agenda-setting is now global, as interconnectedness through travel, trade, and technology spreads health challenges across borders.
He calls for the need for international collaboration to address shared health issues effectively. “Agenda setting in health has increasingly become global and the connectedness of people across politico-administrative boundaries cannot be overemphasised.”
However, the move may not impact India harshly.
Dr Anurag Agrawal, dean, biosciences and health research, Ashoka University, told News18 that the move does not mean much for India since “we are past the point where WHO support was essential for our health systems, but it may be a challenge elsewhere in the world where there is dependence on international support via WHO”.
Possibility Of U-Turn?
Trump has authorised a withdrawal from the WHO as well as a cessation of negotiations over a pandemic treaty.
These events were anticipated by the global health community and there is a one-year transition time. “It is possible that the current administration could be persuaded to reconsider and instead cut their contributions to the WHO,” Lakshmy Ramakrishnan, associate fellow at think tank Observer Research Foundation said.
Right now, Ramakrishnan believes the rest of the global community needs to understand how to navigate the path ahead and ask some “hard questions”.
“For instance: What will be the impact on activities like global infectious disease surveillance networks? And is it time to go back to the drawing board over the negotiations of the pandemic treaty,” she said.
Ramakrishnan believes that the decision has serious implications for global health security, but the Covid-19 pandemic showed us that transparency and responsible science communication are also essential.
Bad News For Weaker Countries
The US exit may not impact India majorly, but it will definitely impact smaller and underdeveloped nations.
The US contributes about 18-19 per cent of the funding to WHO. Therefore, its decision to pull out can lead to a financial crunch, which could adversely affect various health-related programmes.
Reading the scenario, Dr Agrawal — who is also ex-director of CSIR Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology — believes that “unless the Trump administration creates a viable alternate path to support global health, this is effectively a decision that undercuts support for valuable programs in low income nations, at a time when we should have learnt that one cannot hide from global pandemic threats”.
Meanwhile, as WHO will lose its top funder, other countries will need to step up their contributions and increase the level of scientific collaboration amongst themselves.
“Both international cooperation and self-reliance will now acquire new purpose and fresh forms of functioning,” Dr Reddy pointed out.
These could include measures to control/treat HIV-AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases. Lack of funding could also result in halting some research projects.
“The US pulling out of WHO may not be much of a negative to the US itself, however, it could have a major impact on African and Asian nations. WHO still has one year left to sort out the funding and streamline its various ongoing projects” said neurologist Dr Sudhir Kumar from Apollo Hospitals in Hyderabad.
“Shortfall in funding is likely to be compensated by China, European Union, and BRICS nations. The real impact would be visible only after one to two years from now.”
Health expert Dr Rajeev Jayadevan added that the fund cut could open the possibility of seeking funds from wealthy private donors and increased financial contributions from countries such as China, Germany, and France. The US exit would also reduce its influence on global health policies. How this shift might impact global health remains uncertain.
