The Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed cutting its budget by a fifth. This comes after its largest contributor, the US, decided to withdraw. The organisation must now reduce its tasks and staff, it said.
The Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed cutting its budget by a fifth. This comes after its largest contributor, the US, decided to withdraw. The organisation must now reduce its tasks and staff, it said.
… Except what a country does or does not do directly impacts the WHOs functions and financial support, so… Kind of important.
There are many contributors, some substantially more than others, and any of them leaving will have an impact on the efficacy of the WHO.
For a program that has such a profound impact, that seems like such a small budget. It’s a shame that the US cuts $116M to save precious money, while maintaining $16 billion in, for example, petroleum subsidies.
Exactly. $116M is absolutely inconsequential to the budget and by extension the American people. What the WHO produces has a huge impact on all people, including, yup American people. So the American people are only losing here.
Everyone loses. That’s the painful part.
It is.
Its a shockingly stupid decision. Not surprising considering the administration, but incredibly stupid.
These contributions are so small. I wouldn’t mind if my own country increased their contributions to WHO by 20% to make up for this shortfall.
The biggest problem is that the WHO is a worldwide health organization. Without cooperation from the States, there could be huge health impacts elsewhere that could have been otherwise averted. Will other countries also pull out?
As per the map you uploaded, USA created a problem: can we do anything about it as non-Americans? No we can’t. Let’s then assess the situation, inform better the public about the WHOs function, and sit with as many of all the other countries to work to a joint solution.
Giving me news about US “actions” and internal discourse, for everyone outside of the US, is inaction-causing noise at best, propaganda at its worst. What should be communicated is the existence of a void and its possible consequences.
What about China filling the void being a possible consequence for example? Is it a possibility? Is it good or bad? Should we talk to China about it or not?
If I keep thinking about Trump and his henchmen I won’t ask myself those questions.
Which other countries can also create if contributions are altered.
Being aware of the how and why of national politics impacting international politics is a good thing. Suggesting otherwise is just putting blinders on.
Wait, those numbers are freaking tiny as fuck…
Yeah I’m kind of surprised and in a way reassured.
Whatever the US contribution of $100m was doing it wasn’t fending off the next pandemic.
I live in a very small city in nowhere Australia and we just spent $100m on a highway upgrade.
I wonder how the amount that should be paid is divvied out. Or if it is all just voluntary. I was thinking Europe was quite outsized, so it could be by wealth, but also Japan seems quite large and Russia fairly tiny.
They explain on their site here.
There is membership/assessed, which goes by each member country’s wealth. There are also voluntary contributions, which comes in a few forms - core, which have no specific requirement on use, strategic donations which have general goals and can be applied to anything in that field/theme, and specified, which go to specific projects or efforts.
There is also a budget portal which details how money is spent.