Leaving World Health Organization marks major foreign policy blunder
rump has announced that the United States will withdraw from the World Health Organization. Founded in 1948, it has become one of the most capable international institutions in existence, proving critical in the fight to prevent and contain deadly diseases such as polio, ebola, cholera, yellow fever, and most recently, the coronavirus. While some international institutions have exhibited various forms of overstretch in policy, the World Health Organization has remained true to its mission. This decision for the United States to withdraw has three major consequences.
First, it undermines the global effort to respond to the coronavirus when it is most crucial to get it right. This is not time to pursue ideological vendettas against the World Health Organization. Many mistakenly believe its assistance in the fight against the coronavirus is limited to tracking the disease and disseminating information about its transmission and treatment. But the World Health Organization employs more than 7,000 staffers spread across 150 country offices. These workers are multilingual, connected to local governments and private organizations, and trained to work in host nations.
No United States agency can match such capabilities. By preventing a resurgence of the coronavirus in developing nations, the World Health Organization will save lives and decrease the chances that an epidemic will rebound back to the United States. The World Health Organization is more important today than it has been since the ebola outbreak in Africa. This is not the time to withdraw American support.
Second, it steps back from our commitment to provide global public goods that benefit all countries, particularly the United States. This has been a fixture in American foreign policy since 1945. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization is just the latest in a series of pullbacks from international commitments that confirm the appearance that the United States no longer cares to maintain or support the very system it helped create out of the wreckage of World War Two.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/leaving-world-health-organization-marks-major-foreign-policy-blunder/ar-BB16Ed4D?li=BBnbfcQ&ocid=DELLDHP
Heckuva job Trumpy.
Beartracks
(12,761 posts)Karadeniz
(22,270 posts)So who needs t?!?
applegrove
(118,017 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 13, 2020, 02:48 PM - Edit history (2)
That way fewer people will mean less carbon. Which is one way of reducing carbon. An alternative way would be to leave oil in the ground and have a few multi millionaires less multi. Bill Gates and WHO want to immunize kids so they don't die in childhood so their mom's have fewer children (and access to birth control). Education is a part of that option. Bet plutocrats don't like that. They hate educated people because they understand power. It is a specific choice. I don't know if Trump is aware of the reason why he is defunding it. Probably.