Anthony Banbury, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the UN Mission for Ebola Emergency Response (UNMEER), visits a safe burial site for Ebola victims in Freetown, Sierra Leone. (Photo: UN Photo/Ari Gaitanis)
Mar 20, 2015
The World Health Organization, which is tasked by the United Nations with directing international responses to epidemics, has been widely criticized for its slow response to the ongoing Ebola crisis in West Africa that has already killed over 10,000 people.
Now, internal documents obtained by the Associated Press reveal that the WHO held off on declaring the outbreak a public health emergency for months, despite warnings from its own employees.
Some experts, including a WHO doctor interviewed by the AP, argue that an earlier alarm could have galvanized a more robust global response and potentially saved lives.
By mid-April, the agency was receiving urgent correspondence from staffers in impacted countries warning that the epidemic was rapidly spreading, but senior officials declined to sound a global alarm. When the WHO held discussions in early June about whether to declare an emergency, a director referred to this option as a "last resort."
AP reporters Maria Cheng and Raphael Satter say the agency cited "worries that declaring such an emergency--akin to an international SOS--could anger the African countries involved, hurt their economies or interfere with the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca."
Furthermore, in public statements, the WHO repeatedly understated the threat posed by Ebola, directly contradicting mounting warnings from aid groups that said the crisis was growing.
The WHO finally declared a public health emergency on August 8, but by that time Ebola had killed at least 932 people, making it the worst outbreak ever recorded.
The problems did not stop there, and the WHO was not alone in its lagging response.
Just weeks after the emergency declaration, Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) warned that the overall global response--especially from wealthy nations--was falling disgracefully short.
"Self-protection is occupying the entire focus of states that have the expertise and resources to make a dramatic difference in the affected countries," declared Brice de le Vingne, MSF director of operations, on August 27. "They can do more, so why don't they?"
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
The World Health Organization, which is tasked by the United Nations with directing international responses to epidemics, has been widely criticized for its slow response to the ongoing Ebola crisis in West Africa that has already killed over 10,000 people.
Now, internal documents obtained by the Associated Press reveal that the WHO held off on declaring the outbreak a public health emergency for months, despite warnings from its own employees.
Some experts, including a WHO doctor interviewed by the AP, argue that an earlier alarm could have galvanized a more robust global response and potentially saved lives.
By mid-April, the agency was receiving urgent correspondence from staffers in impacted countries warning that the epidemic was rapidly spreading, but senior officials declined to sound a global alarm. When the WHO held discussions in early June about whether to declare an emergency, a director referred to this option as a "last resort."
AP reporters Maria Cheng and Raphael Satter say the agency cited "worries that declaring such an emergency--akin to an international SOS--could anger the African countries involved, hurt their economies or interfere with the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca."
Furthermore, in public statements, the WHO repeatedly understated the threat posed by Ebola, directly contradicting mounting warnings from aid groups that said the crisis was growing.
The WHO finally declared a public health emergency on August 8, but by that time Ebola had killed at least 932 people, making it the worst outbreak ever recorded.
The problems did not stop there, and the WHO was not alone in its lagging response.
Just weeks after the emergency declaration, Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) warned that the overall global response--especially from wealthy nations--was falling disgracefully short.
"Self-protection is occupying the entire focus of states that have the expertise and resources to make a dramatic difference in the affected countries," declared Brice de le Vingne, MSF director of operations, on August 27. "They can do more, so why don't they?"
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
The World Health Organization, which is tasked by the United Nations with directing international responses to epidemics, has been widely criticized for its slow response to the ongoing Ebola crisis in West Africa that has already killed over 10,000 people.
Now, internal documents obtained by the Associated Press reveal that the WHO held off on declaring the outbreak a public health emergency for months, despite warnings from its own employees.
Some experts, including a WHO doctor interviewed by the AP, argue that an earlier alarm could have galvanized a more robust global response and potentially saved lives.
By mid-April, the agency was receiving urgent correspondence from staffers in impacted countries warning that the epidemic was rapidly spreading, but senior officials declined to sound a global alarm. When the WHO held discussions in early June about whether to declare an emergency, a director referred to this option as a "last resort."
AP reporters Maria Cheng and Raphael Satter say the agency cited "worries that declaring such an emergency--akin to an international SOS--could anger the African countries involved, hurt their economies or interfere with the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca."
Furthermore, in public statements, the WHO repeatedly understated the threat posed by Ebola, directly contradicting mounting warnings from aid groups that said the crisis was growing.
The WHO finally declared a public health emergency on August 8, but by that time Ebola had killed at least 932 people, making it the worst outbreak ever recorded.
The problems did not stop there, and the WHO was not alone in its lagging response.
Just weeks after the emergency declaration, Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) warned that the overall global response--especially from wealthy nations--was falling disgracefully short.
"Self-protection is occupying the entire focus of states that have the expertise and resources to make a dramatic difference in the affected countries," declared Brice de le Vingne, MSF director of operations, on August 27. "They can do more, so why don't they?"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.