WHO Investigation: In Defence of the World Health Organization

The WHO was founded in 1948 by the United Nations and has 196 members. It plays an important recommendation, coordination and assistance role in preventing and managing global health issues. The organization is currently facing criticism for being slow to act to counter the spread of the Covid-19 coronavirus. Indeed, it was only on January 24th that the WHO recognized this new virus as being readily transmissible from person to person, even though it first appeared in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Following this initial observation, screening when exiting airports began in some countries. But the WHO did not declare an international public health emergency until January 31st.

At that time, the WHO’s reaction, considered to have been slow, was the result of the decisions it had made earlier, namely to echo the position of the Chinese authorities, which stated on January 14th that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission of the virus. At the same time, health officials in Taiwan were issuing warnings directly to the WHO about the urgency of the situation. To no avail. It took the WHO until March 11th to declare a pandemic.

However, the delay might have been avoided had the organization been able to conduct a thorough investigation into the true nature of the virus present in China. According to Michel Kazatchkine, former director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, "the WHO should have said 'no, you didn’t report the data early enough, as you were required to'.”

The WHO's actions, considered too conciliatory towards China, led to the suspension of the financial contribution of the United States - its largest donor at $400 million in 2019, or about 15% of the total - from its 2020-2021 programme budget.

For WHO, the bell tolls

The US President's decision caused an outcry within the halls of the organization. The WHO "regrets this decision", and its director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said it would study the impact of the US decision in order to compensate for it. China then came into play. A week after the United States withdrew, it announced that it would pay an additional $30 million, or €28 million, to help improve health systems in developing countries, as stated by Geng Shuang, a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry. For their part, Germany denounced Washington's decision, Moscow described it as "a very selfish approach" and France "hopes for a return to normality."

But the United States may never reinstate its contribution to the WHO. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the coronavirus outbreak underscores the need for a review of the World Health Organization, warning that Washington could even decide to develop an alternative. Donald Trump last week asked his administration to stop funding the WHO, accusing it of "failing in its essential duties" in fighting the coronavirus pandemic.

Déjà vu all over again

In 2014, the UN institution, then headed by Margaret Chan, was strongly criticized for its tardiness in issuing an alert about the spread of the Ebola virus then ravaging the three West African countries of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. An epidemic was declared on March 22nd 2014 by the Guinean ministry of health, with Médecins Sans Frontières issuing an alert on March 31st. Yet it took until August for the WHO to announce a global public health emergency.

Criticized for its slow reaction, experts mandated by the UN drafted a report a year after the crisis assessing its working methods. And the assessment was not flattering, pointing to "serious shortcomings in contacts with local communities during the first months of the epidemic," and going as far as concluding: "There is a strong consensus that the WHO does not have a strong enough capacity and culture to lead emergency operations." Scathing.

In response, Margaret Chan launched a three-pronged improvement plan: strengthening the WHO's resources in emergency situations, improving the health systems in emerging countries and, finally, organizing the development of new medicines. The budget for this programme was estimated at $100 million, with funds to come from member states.

Proud of the initiative, the then WHO director-general said: "The unpredictable world of microbes will always surprise us. [...] [and we] must never again be taken by surprise because of lack of preparation." Five years later, however, the WHO yet again finds itself faced with its health-crisis management again being criticized.

People try to put us down 

During a virtual press conference in Geneva on April 20th, the director-general of the World Health Organization said he had not concealed anything from the US government about Covid-19. "There are no secrets at the WHO. Because if information is kept secret or confidential it is dangerous," said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, calling for "national unity" and "global solidarity" to stem the epidemic.

It was also an opportunity for the WHO to publicly deny having received information from Taiwanese experts, "Taiwan did not notify any human-to-human transmission, they simply asked for clarification just like other entities".

As early as January, the WHO issued recommendations on how to tackle the virus, how to protect against it and how to avoid future infections. According to Anne Sénéquier, doctor, researcher and co-director of the Iris’ Global Health Think Tank, "the WHO was very quick to communicate in countries in the region that there was this atypical pneumonia risk."

Furthermore, the organization has opted for transparency by publishing a daily epidemiological report on its website with information and figures in real time about the number of countries affected and the number of deaths. At the same time, the WHO has piloted new initiatives, such as the launch of a clinical trial, with the aim of finding an effective treatment for Covid-19. The organization also set up a virtual concert in partnership with singer Lady Gaga and the Global Citizen association aimed at supporting healthcare workers worldwide.

A pure product of the UN, the WHO depends on the goodwill of its 194 member states and on workable geopolitical relations existing between them. But with health interests on the one hand and political concerns on the other, the balancing act is a complex, not to say perilous, one. As the WHO's budget is limited ($5.8 billion), Anne Sénéquier believes that the organization "has done only what it could have with the tools it has been given."