President Trump has been a busy bee that last few days, causing heads to explode all over. Most controversial of all was his freezing WHO funds. There should be little doubt that U.S. funding for the World Health Organization—it currently pays for about 15% of WHO’s budget—should be examined and possibly reconsidered. The U.S. doesn’t (or shouldn’t) need WHO: this is one of many examples of U.S. largess for the benefit of poorer nations. However, especially after the economic carnage and our government’s expenditures of non-existent funds to respond to the pandemic here, there are legitimate reasons to ask whether the U.S. is in any position to be altruistic.
Also, as with most international organizations, WHO does not share the values and ethics alarms of the United States and its culture, making our wholehearted support both unwise and unpalatable to those of us who do not embrace the “one world” ideology of Barack Obama, Bill Gates, and others. For example, WHO wants governments to ban alchoholic beverages during the pandemic:
Drinking alcohol can increase the risk of catching Covid-19 and make it worse if you do get it, the World Health Organization said, recommending that government leaders around the world limit access to alcohol during coronavirus lockdowns. “Alcohol compromises the body’s immune system and increases the risk of adverse health outcomes,” the WHO’s regional office for Europe said on its site late Tuesday, citing heavy alcohol use throughout the continent.
Don’t tell the Governor of Michigan about this. You know, drinking alcoholic beverages to excess “increases the risk of adverse health outcomes’ with or without a pandemic. If you want riots over the lockdown in the U.S., this is the way to get the, and fast. Yes, the world organizations we fund and belong to don’t understand our democracy or the importance of personal liberty, as indeed don’t many of our political leaders.
The immediate reason for the freeze, however, is the World Health Organization’s “severely mismanaging and covering up the coronavirus.” This it undoubtedly did, as well as making it clear, if it wasn’t already, that the WHO is in Communist China’s metaphorical pocket. Yesterday Dr. Birx asked an obvious question: How exactly did China and WHO not know that the virus spread between humans, and not, as both originally claimed, between animals and humans? The answer is also obvious: it was a cover-up, and WHO was complicit, claiming there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.” Then WHO allowed the situation to worsen and spread (“WHO advises against the application of any restrictions of international traffic“) while continuing to praise China. (“China deserves gratitude and respect“).
However, it is hard to argue against the criticism that a full evaluation of WHO’s conduct in this episode (and others) should wait until the pandemic is under control.
Freezing the funds now looks bad, and is bad. It’s irresponsible—not the act itself, but the timing.