by Henry I. Miller and Jeff Stier The Bridge
April 17, 2020
President Trump announced
at the White House coronavirus press briefing on Tuesday that the
United States will immediately halt all funding for the World Health
Organization, because it had caused "so much death" by "severely
mismanaging and covering up" the coronavirus' spread, putting "political
correctness over lifesaving measures."
Other government officials, health experts, and analysts also have raised concerns about the WHO's bungled response to the pandemic, accusing it of being too trusting of the Chinese government, which initially tried to conceal
the outbreak in Wuhan. Rather than taking Beijing to task for its
initial attempts at a cover-up, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom
Ghebreyesus praised
Chinese President Xi Jinping for his "very rare leadership" in showing
"transparency" in the government's response to the virus.
Taro Aso, Japan's deputy prime minister and finance minister, went so far as to deride WHO as the "Chinese Health Organization"
because of what he described as its overly close ties to Beijing. There
is no question that the organization and its leader were strangely slow
in declaring a global health emergency and, thereafter, a pandemic.
The United States should have reexamined WHO funding years ago. But
given the timing of President Trump's remarks in the midst of the
coronavirus pandemic, we are already hearing condemnation of the
administration's plan to scrutinize WHO funding.
Such condemnations are wrong-headed. Although having a global public
health body is in line with US interests, the WHO, which has been
largely underwritten by the US government, has repeatedly failed us. The
current pandemic must be a final wake-up call that something needs to
change.
American taxpayers are the largest contributors
to WHO's approximately $2 billion budget. Like other UN organizations,
the WHO is plagued by persistent wasteful spending, an utter disregard
for transparency, pervasive incompetence, and a failure to adhere to
even basic democratic standards. Its Western hemisphere subsidiary, the
Pan American Health Organization, supports antidemocratic regimes and actually weakens public health rather than strengthens it, according to an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Why are incompetence and profligacy rife within the sprawling
organization? In several respects, it's in the United Nations' DNA.
First, the UN is essentially a monopoly. Inefficiency and
incompetence cannot be punished by "consumers" of their products or
services spurning the UN and patronizing a competitor. On the contrary,
it is not uncommon in these kinds of bureaucracies for failure to be
rewarded with additional resources. Unlike in the private sector, where
failed projects are shut down, if a program at the UN isn't working, the
bureaucrats clamor to expand it.
Second, UN officials are rewarded for making the bureaucratic
machinery run—for producing reports, guidelines, white papers and
agreements, and for holding meetings—whether or not they are of high
quality or make sense. Often, they don't: the bureaucrats often
sacrifice quality and veracity for consensus.
Third, there's neither accountability nor transparency at the UN.
There's no US Government Accountability Office, House of Lords Select
Committee, or parliamentary oversight, and no electorate to kick the UN
officials out when they are dishonest or act contrary to the public
interest.
Finally, the organization is no meritocracy: the country or region of
origin of a leadership candidate seems to be more important than his or
her credentials and qualifications.
Under WHO's polio eradication policy in Syria, healthcare workers
were allowed to work only with the brutal, corrupt regime of Syrian
President Bashar Assad, but not in rebel-held areas. Thus, although WHO
was effective in containing polio within government territory, the disease was able to spread throughout rebel areas. In addition, the organization has been widely condemned for failing to raise the alarm about the dangers of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.
The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
routinely puts out alarmist reports that are contradicted by regulators
worldwide. When a US congressional committee attempted to investigate
charges of corruption and conflicts of interest, the IARC rebuffed the effort.
Calls for Dr. Tedros to resign are insufficient. He isn't the
problem; he's only the latest symptom of an irreversibly corrupt
institution.
The United States' hugely disproportionate funding of UN
activities—our mandatory assessment and voluntary contributions total
some $8 billion of the organization's roughly $50 billion in annual expenditures—might soon be coming to an end. And not a moment too soon.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a senior
fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He was the founding director
of the Office of Biotechnology at the US Food and Drug Administration.
Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
No comments:
Post a Comment