SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
President Donald Trump announced in a tweet on April 14 that he was "halting funding" for the World Health Organization.
Donald Trump isn't the first president to threaten to cut funding from the World Health Organization (WHO), but he's the first to actually do it. And, in the middle of a global pandemic, when this agency is saving lives, it couldn't come at a worse time.
I worked at the WHO in Geneva four decades ago in the wake of Ronald Reagan's election. The WHO had been one of the lead agencies at that time in placing checks on deceptive marketing practices of infant formula companies that were proselytizing women to shift from breast milk to baby formula. In this work, the WHO was placing health before corporate profits.
After infant formula, the WHO turned its attention to tobacco and alcohol, and I was hired to research the massive advertising budgets of the global drinks companies. However, the Reagan administration opposed any interference by global agencies in what they euphemistically called "the free market." In reality, they were simply protecting the bottom line of their corporate benefactors.
Reagan officials told the higher ups at the WHO and several other U.N. agencies that the U.S. would appreciate it if they stopped interfering in the market. The WHO, heavily dependent on U.S. contributions, eliminated this work and continued to receive the U.S. payments.
The study on the alcoholic beverages that I had been writing with a colleague was pulled back from Oxford University Press, where the WHO had planned to publish it.
Ever since the early Reagan years, the right wing in this country has waged war on U.N. agencies such as the WHO. They've called these agencies ineffective, but the truth is they're more worried about the bottom line for a small number of multinational corporations.
Now, Trump is trying to further that mission for even more venal reasons: shifting blame for his own catastrophic failure on containing the coronavirus pandemic, even as he and his far-right business allies -- like the DeVos family, who sponsored anti-quarantine protests in Michigan and elsewhere, often by heavily armed protesters -- lobby to set it ablaze again by reopening the economy.
Trump announced in a tweet on April 14 that he was "halting funding" for the global health organization.
He charged the WHO with colluding with the Chinese and failing to "share information in a timely and transparent fashion." This despite the fact that top Trump officials, including the National Institute of Health's Anthony Fauci, had been consulting with the WHO on a regular basis throughout the crisis.
As is the case with all large organizations, the WHO is far from perfect. Yet it is playing a key role in poorer countries, and its importance will only grow as the pandemic spreads in these nations.
Most have health systems ill-equipped to blunt the virus' deadly effect, and many are water scarce at precisely the moment when water -- always vital to survival -- is especially important for handwashing to slow the virus' spread. Michel Merson, the former director of Duke University's Global Health Institute, has written that the "World Health Organization is the main lifeline for these countries to avoid millions of cases and deaths."
The editor of the Lancet medical journal called Trump's funding cut "a crime against humanity." He tweeted that "every scientist, every health worker, every citizen must resist and rebel against this appalling betrayal of global solidarity."
The story line from Reagan to Trump is the same: undermining global public health to serve narrow interests. For Reagan, it was to help a few well-connected corporate backers. For Trump, it may be to help a single billionaire in particular -- himself.
Only now, we're in the middle of a pandemic that's only just begun to devastate the vulnerable regions that need the WHO the most. The United States shouldn't be cutting support now.
We should be increasing it.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Donald Trump isn't the first president to threaten to cut funding from the World Health Organization (WHO), but he's the first to actually do it. And, in the middle of a global pandemic, when this agency is saving lives, it couldn't come at a worse time.
I worked at the WHO in Geneva four decades ago in the wake of Ronald Reagan's election. The WHO had been one of the lead agencies at that time in placing checks on deceptive marketing practices of infant formula companies that were proselytizing women to shift from breast milk to baby formula. In this work, the WHO was placing health before corporate profits.
After infant formula, the WHO turned its attention to tobacco and alcohol, and I was hired to research the massive advertising budgets of the global drinks companies. However, the Reagan administration opposed any interference by global agencies in what they euphemistically called "the free market." In reality, they were simply protecting the bottom line of their corporate benefactors.
Reagan officials told the higher ups at the WHO and several other U.N. agencies that the U.S. would appreciate it if they stopped interfering in the market. The WHO, heavily dependent on U.S. contributions, eliminated this work and continued to receive the U.S. payments.
The study on the alcoholic beverages that I had been writing with a colleague was pulled back from Oxford University Press, where the WHO had planned to publish it.
Ever since the early Reagan years, the right wing in this country has waged war on U.N. agencies such as the WHO. They've called these agencies ineffective, but the truth is they're more worried about the bottom line for a small number of multinational corporations.
Now, Trump is trying to further that mission for even more venal reasons: shifting blame for his own catastrophic failure on containing the coronavirus pandemic, even as he and his far-right business allies -- like the DeVos family, who sponsored anti-quarantine protests in Michigan and elsewhere, often by heavily armed protesters -- lobby to set it ablaze again by reopening the economy.
Trump announced in a tweet on April 14 that he was "halting funding" for the global health organization.
He charged the WHO with colluding with the Chinese and failing to "share information in a timely and transparent fashion." This despite the fact that top Trump officials, including the National Institute of Health's Anthony Fauci, had been consulting with the WHO on a regular basis throughout the crisis.
As is the case with all large organizations, the WHO is far from perfect. Yet it is playing a key role in poorer countries, and its importance will only grow as the pandemic spreads in these nations.
Most have health systems ill-equipped to blunt the virus' deadly effect, and many are water scarce at precisely the moment when water -- always vital to survival -- is especially important for handwashing to slow the virus' spread. Michel Merson, the former director of Duke University's Global Health Institute, has written that the "World Health Organization is the main lifeline for these countries to avoid millions of cases and deaths."
The editor of the Lancet medical journal called Trump's funding cut "a crime against humanity." He tweeted that "every scientist, every health worker, every citizen must resist and rebel against this appalling betrayal of global solidarity."
The story line from Reagan to Trump is the same: undermining global public health to serve narrow interests. For Reagan, it was to help a few well-connected corporate backers. For Trump, it may be to help a single billionaire in particular -- himself.
Only now, we're in the middle of a pandemic that's only just begun to devastate the vulnerable regions that need the WHO the most. The United States shouldn't be cutting support now.
We should be increasing it.
Donald Trump isn't the first president to threaten to cut funding from the World Health Organization (WHO), but he's the first to actually do it. And, in the middle of a global pandemic, when this agency is saving lives, it couldn't come at a worse time.
I worked at the WHO in Geneva four decades ago in the wake of Ronald Reagan's election. The WHO had been one of the lead agencies at that time in placing checks on deceptive marketing practices of infant formula companies that were proselytizing women to shift from breast milk to baby formula. In this work, the WHO was placing health before corporate profits.
After infant formula, the WHO turned its attention to tobacco and alcohol, and I was hired to research the massive advertising budgets of the global drinks companies. However, the Reagan administration opposed any interference by global agencies in what they euphemistically called "the free market." In reality, they were simply protecting the bottom line of their corporate benefactors.
Reagan officials told the higher ups at the WHO and several other U.N. agencies that the U.S. would appreciate it if they stopped interfering in the market. The WHO, heavily dependent on U.S. contributions, eliminated this work and continued to receive the U.S. payments.
The study on the alcoholic beverages that I had been writing with a colleague was pulled back from Oxford University Press, where the WHO had planned to publish it.
Ever since the early Reagan years, the right wing in this country has waged war on U.N. agencies such as the WHO. They've called these agencies ineffective, but the truth is they're more worried about the bottom line for a small number of multinational corporations.
Now, Trump is trying to further that mission for even more venal reasons: shifting blame for his own catastrophic failure on containing the coronavirus pandemic, even as he and his far-right business allies -- like the DeVos family, who sponsored anti-quarantine protests in Michigan and elsewhere, often by heavily armed protesters -- lobby to set it ablaze again by reopening the economy.
Trump announced in a tweet on April 14 that he was "halting funding" for the global health organization.
He charged the WHO with colluding with the Chinese and failing to "share information in a timely and transparent fashion." This despite the fact that top Trump officials, including the National Institute of Health's Anthony Fauci, had been consulting with the WHO on a regular basis throughout the crisis.
As is the case with all large organizations, the WHO is far from perfect. Yet it is playing a key role in poorer countries, and its importance will only grow as the pandemic spreads in these nations.
Most have health systems ill-equipped to blunt the virus' deadly effect, and many are water scarce at precisely the moment when water -- always vital to survival -- is especially important for handwashing to slow the virus' spread. Michel Merson, the former director of Duke University's Global Health Institute, has written that the "World Health Organization is the main lifeline for these countries to avoid millions of cases and deaths."
The editor of the Lancet medical journal called Trump's funding cut "a crime against humanity." He tweeted that "every scientist, every health worker, every citizen must resist and rebel against this appalling betrayal of global solidarity."
The story line from Reagan to Trump is the same: undermining global public health to serve narrow interests. For Reagan, it was to help a few well-connected corporate backers. For Trump, it may be to help a single billionaire in particular -- himself.
Only now, we're in the middle of a pandemic that's only just begun to devastate the vulnerable regions that need the WHO the most. The United States shouldn't be cutting support now.
We should be increasing it.