Global pandemics are, science tells us, unfortunately inevitable. You’d think then that barely five years on from a pandemic, leaders across the world would be urging close collaboration to improve resilience and synthesizing lessons learned into an effective plan that can be efficiently implemented to avoid meaningless suffering in the future. Regardless of who’s in charge.
Today the world is in a very different place to 2020, when fear and confusion gripped as COVID-19 spread unabated. In truth, fear and confusion still hold firm but instead of doubling down on much needed commitments, funding for global health initiatives has been largely shown the door.
That’s left most global organizations skirting perilously close to the red. Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order on the day of his inauguration which unilaterally withdrew the US from the World Health Organisation (WHO). In an instant, $1.7 billion was evaporated from WHO’s expected funds and the organization was sent scrambling. While some of that funding has come back online in the form of an ‘America-First’ health strategy, a reeling WHO has been plagued by internal rifts caused by the uncertainty.
This week, an anonymous op-ed sent to Health Policy Watch revealed that WHO’s Staff Association had called for an Extraordinary General Assembly (EGA) to discuss its growing concerns. On the agenda was the lack of transparency from top brass over the restructuring process. Crucially, the op-ed notes a lack of accountability that leaves staff exposed to the whims of its Director General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom, without commensurate methods and checks and balances for reviewing his decision-making.
For years, WHO has operated without a formal procedure for investigating allegations of misconduct made against the Director General. Despite several high-profile controversies over possible major health coverups and a formal complaint, Dr. Adhanom has faced no formal ethics inquiries. The recently formalized procedure has been roundly criticised as toothless given that, in the event of any investigation, it would be overseen by political appointees and members of the Director General’s leadership team. Clearly not a fair and balanced process.
As the anonymous op-ed made clear, staff at WHO are also unimpressed with that sort of patronage protection racket and have begun to demand a truly independent mechanism to review the decision-making of the Director General.
In an ongoing test of this, WHO seems poised to force out its South East-Asia Regional Director without so much as a hearing. After accusations of misconduct were filed against the Regional Director in Bangladesh, WHO has quietly sidelined her and failed to establish an independent inquiry into her case. Little consideration seems to be given to the fact that those accusations come at a time of extreme political upheaval in Bangladesh where the country is being led by an interim government widely viewed to be pursuing a retribution campaign. Given that this temporary government is expected to be out of power in early 2026, WHO’s decisions here set a dangerous precedent which could derail global health developments should she be shown the door.
This is so important because the world is rapidly approaching a point where political pressure is increasingly exerted against perceived adversaries, regardless of their location or the justification for such targeting. So when operating in this environment, WHO’s professed independence will be tested and much is at risk if the organization cannot successfully navigate intensifying political pressures.
Perhaps most vulnerable are these regional staff operating at the organization’s periphery, away from its Geneva headquarters. It’s these professionals who require the strongest protection because they play crucial roles in WHO’s effectiveness, bringing specialized local knowledge of cultural and political nuances essential for implementing change within and alongside communities.
If WHO continues to bow to political pressure without the appropriate accountability mechanisms to justify its decision-making, its authority and influence may finally start to crack and the lack of US funding will be just one of many problems. And of course, those most in need of its services will ultimately pay the price.
