Britain should follow Trump and withdraw from WHO - the health body is on a dark path - Renee Hoenderkamp
Nigel Farages takes a STAND by joining international campaign to reform the …
GB News
Donald Trump has made headlines once again by announcing that the United States will withdraw its funding from the World Health Organisation (WHO). This bold move is not just political theatre; it signals a growing sentiment that the WHO may be fundamentally flawed—beyond the point of repair. But the pressing question is: should the UK follow in these contentious footsteps?
While it's undeniable that numerous countries, particularly those grappling with poverty, rely heavily on the WHO for vital medical aid and resources, one must ponder whether that dependency is justification enough to continue financing an organisation perceived to be corrupt and heavily influenced by powers like China and, to some extent, Russia. More troubling is the WHO's alarming shift away from its original mission of health advocacy.
In the wake of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic, the organisation's failures in judgment and response have left many disillusioned. Their notorious attempts to micromanage our lives, even dictating aspects of sexual education for children, only add to the confusion and concern, prompting many to scratch their heads in disbelief.
WHO has proven sluggish and its neutrality has been called into question, writes Renee Hoenderkamp
Getty Images
It’s also crucial to recognise that the WHO operates under the influence of its financial supporters; its structure simply does not allow for true independence. The organisation is beholden to the nations and corporations that fund it, which directly influences its direction and leadership.
Take, for example, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO's Director-General—a figure whose past affiliation with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, a politically contentious party in Ethiopia, has led to accusations of partisanship.
He has been branded a criminal by Ethiopia's own military chief and has faced scepticism regarding his leadership. Nonetheless, Tedros is widely regarded as "China's man", having navigated significant political waters to secure his position, partly through the backing of 55 African countries that seek to maintain favourable relations with Beijing. His leadership during the pandemic drew intense scrutiny for seeming to prioritise China’s interests, notably downplaying evidence linking the virus to the Wuhan lab while lauding the nation for its so-called exemplary outbreak response, even as its authorities stifled free speech and silenced dissent regarding the pandemic.
Without digging too deeply into the tangled Covid narrative—which remains a hot-button issue—these episodes highlight the WHO's apparent lack of neutrality in a mission that should fundamentally prioritise impartiality.
The organisation's shift away from the inclusive and community-oriented health philosophy enshrined in the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1978 marks a departure from its roots. Instead of championing broad public engagement, the WHO seems to have morphed into a top-down authority, fumbling during what many consider the defining health crisis of our era.
The alarming reality is that the WHO has proven sluggish in responding to emerging health threats, unable to contain infectious disease outbreaks efficiently. With a budget nearing $7billion, of which US, UK, and EU taxpayers contribute over half, concerns about fiscal accountability and oversight loom large. In addition to public funds, the WHO has accepted hundreds of millions from non-state actors, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—this diversity of funding sources not only breeds conflict but also raises essential questions regarding the integrity of its decision-making processes.
The ideal of international cooperation to enhance global health is undoubtedly commendable. However, when an organisation's approach devolves into authoritarianism, heavily moulded by influential entities like big pharmaceutical corporations, the essential wisdom of local knowledge and community-tailored solutions is often lost in the shuffle.
As we debate the future of the WHO, we must consider whether its evolving role serves the best interests of global health, or if it is leading us down a much darker path. My gut feeling is that we definitely should withdraw and spend our time and money improving the health of the nation so that they are better placed to cope with another pandemic.
You may like
