Among the stupendous changes US President Donald Trump has made so far in his second term in office are his moves to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organisation (WHO). These he effected with two executive orders signed on January 20, his first day back in the White House. They are not stupendous in the sense that he followed through on the threats (or promises) he made on the campaign trail, but because of the life-altering effects they will have on millions of people, including Americans.
Lest we forget, Mr Trump had previously terminated the US’s association with both the Paris Agreement and the WHO during his first term. On November 4, 2019, he had laid out the required formal one-year notice of the US intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The withdrawal took effect in November 2020. However, it was short-lived as Mr Trump lost the 2020 election and President Joseph Biden quickly ensured the US’s return in February 2021.
As regards the WHO, Mr Trump had also given the formal one-year notice of withdrawal in July 2020. However, that notice was retracted in January 2021 following Mr Biden’s inauguration.
In reality, neither of the two current withdrawals will take full effect until January 20, 2026. Political pundits have also noted that Mr Trump needs the approval of the US Congress to pull America out of the WHO, which is hardly a hurdle considering the current configuration of that overarching body. The Republican party controls the Senate as well as has a slight majority in the House of Representatives and it would be a miracle if they went against their president. Then there is the contention that the US has not yet made its US$6.8 billion contribution to the WHO for 2024-2025. It would be a wonder if that pledge was upheld.
As a result, the ink had hardly dried on the signature appended to the order when reactions began to reverberate around the world. Germany and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation said immediately that they were ready to make a case to Mr Trump as to why withdrawing the US from the WHO was a mistake. Of course, a huge overlooked consideration is whether he would entertain a hearing from either. Unlikely. And if he did, would he backtrack? Again, unlikely.
As a case in point, Bill Gates revealed last month that he had visited Mr Trump at Mar-a-Lago shortly after Christmas. During what he referred to as a “long and intriguing dinner”, Mr Gates said, he discussed the work his foundation is doing in HIV and polio and urged President Trump to continue US government funding in those areas. The speed with which Mr Trump moved to not only extract the US from the WHO, but also gut the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), showed exactly how much store he placed on Mr Gates’s urgings. (The USAID funded a tremendous amount of HIV-AIDS work, among other global health issues.)
Nevertheless, there has been a push in some circles for WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to attempt to set up meetings with Mr Trump as well as US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. What this would achieve is hardly worthy of a guess as neither of the two has ever shown any predilection for negotiation or compromise regardless of the position presented. Should Mr Ghebreyesus follow the procession of millionaires seen taking a knee to Mr Trump’s outrageous demands, he might very well find himself in an untenable situation. For example, being asked to agree to changes at WHO that he does not have the mandate to decide on. The current US administration’s views on issues such as gender, women’s bodily autonomy, and diversity, equity and inclusion do not resonate with the rest of the global community.
Meanwhile, even as the world reels from these impending changes and begins to absorb the effects, there is need for action. There is no point in waiting until next January for the withdrawals to take effect. Countries have to pivot now and decide how they are going to move forward. It was always known that donor funding would not last forever and nations had long been asked to plan to start taking over their various foreign-funded health and social programmes. The time to put those plans into action is now. Other states and philanthropic individuals (read billionaires and millionaires) will need to step up to keep some WHO programmes going. China is being mooted by pundits as one country that might chip in to fill the gap, although that east Asian powerhouse has not made any such pronouncement.
Countries like ours, which created budgets around grant aid from US-funded programmes for health and human services, need to pay heed to the ‘America first’ chorus that is pulsating from Washington. This may mean axing or delaying infrastructure projects in order to ensure that health needs are served. The last thing this or any country needs is a resurgence in the spread of HIV or other communicable diseases. A lot is riding on how we all respond to this situation and its impending repercussions.
