The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 5th February 2025 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

The U.S.’s exit from WHO, a chance to reshape global health

 Why in News?

•  On January 20, 2025, the United States government announced its decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO), raising concerns about the potential impact on WHO's functionality due to reduced funding. 
•  This situation prompts a reflection on crucial questions, such as why the exit of a single country from WHO is causing significant worry, how this withdrawal could be turned into an opportunity for strengthening WHO, and the increasing need for greater involvement of countries in Asia and Africa in global health matters. 

 Funding Intricacies 

WHO's Funding System

• Assessed Contributions (AC). This is a fixed annual fee that each WHO member state must pay, similar to a membership fee. The U.S. has criticized this fee as being disproportionately high, contributing to its decision to withdraw. 
• Role of AC in WHO Funding. AC funds provide assured funding necessary for WHO to pay salaries of regular staff and maintain day-to-day operations. This funding is crucial for the continuity of WHO's activities. 
• Voluntary Contributions (VC). These funds come from donor agencies and additional contributions from member states, earmarked for specific projects and time-bound activities. VC funds are used for hiring short-term staff and consultants. 
• Unpredictability of VC Funds. VC funds are unpredictable as they are voluntary, time-bound, and linked to specific activities. For instance, funds for polio elimination or antimicrobial resistance are examples of VC funds. 
• Impact of U.S. Withdrawal on VC Funds. The U.S. withdrawal could impact VC funds as U.S.-based or U.S.-aligned donors might reduce or stop their funding to WHO. The uncertainty surrounding USAID could further affect WHO's funding. 
• Overall Financial Impact on WHO. The financial impact on WHO is expected to be more significant than the direct share of U.S. government funds due to the potential reduction in VC funds. 

Criticism of WHO

•  Some critics argue that WHO is bureaucratic, slow in its actions, and in need of urgent reforms. While there is some truth to this, it is important to recognize that all global institutions, including WHO, require reforms. 

Importance of WHO

•  The world needs a stronger WHO now more than ever due to emerging and multi-sectoral challenges such as antimicrobial resistance, climate change, global warming, animal health, re-emergence of diseases, and the rise in lifestyle diseases. 

Why do Institutions Fail?

•  In their book, " Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty," Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson argue that the success of nations depends on the strength and functionality of their institutions. 
•  They emphasize that thriving nations are built on the foundation of robust and effective institutions. 

Global Institutions for Peace and Health

• Stronger Global Institutions: Just as nations need strong institutions, the world requires resilient global institutions to ensure peace and promote global health. 
• Recent Damage to Global Collaboration: Over the past few decades, global collaboration has been weakened. There is a growing trend of nationalism, with leaders in various countries adopting a "Nation first" approach to gain support. 
• Hyper-Nationalism: This rising hyper-nationalism, although a global phenomenon, is relatively new and appears to be more intense in high-income countries. It often undermines the effectiveness of global institutions. 

Impact of U.S. Policies on Global Health Institutions

• U.S. Withdrawal from WHO: The United States' exit from the World Health Organization (WHO) has diminished the likelihood of key international alliances like the G-7 and G-20 stepping in to support and fund WHO. 
• Moral Imperative to Protect Global Institutions: Despite the challenges, it is crucial for all countries to explore alternatives to protect and sustain global institutions like WHO, given their significant contributions over the past 75 years. 

Role of the Global South in Supporting Global Health

• Supporting WHO and the United Nations: Countries in the global south, such as India, Brazil, South Africa, Thailand, and Egypt, need to take the initiative to support WHO and the United Nations in their global health efforts. 

Gaps in Global Health Priorities and Funding

• Underfunding of Health Challenges: Health challenges in Asia and Africa are severely underfunded. For example, the disease mPox did not receive global attention until it began affecting high-income countries in 2022. 
• Unequal Distribution of mPox Vaccines and Drugs: Vaccines and treatments for mPox are scarce in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the disease is widespread. In contrast, these resources are readily available in the United States, which has only a few cases of mPox. 
• Influence of High-Income Countries on Global Health Policies: This situation highlights how high-income countries continue to shape global health policies and agendas, inadvertently exacerbating health inequities. 

Funding and Influence in Global Health

• "He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune": This adage reflects the reality in global health, where funding often dictates priorities and agendas. 
• Dependence on Experts from Select Countries: The recent decision to recall U.S. government personnel seconded to WHO raises concerns about the dependence of global health agencies on experts from a limited number of countries. 
• Diversifying Global Health Expertise: Global health efforts would benefit from a more diverse pool of subject experts from various countries, rather than relying heavily on experts from a few select nations.  

 The Global South Must Act 

 The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the weaknesses in global health governance, particularly the reliance on a few high-income countries for funding and expertise. This has raised questions about the sustainability and equity of the current system, especially in light of the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the increasing importance of the Global South in global health. 

• Global South’s Role in WHO Funding. Countries in the Global South, particularly in Asia and Africa, need to collaborate to fill the funding gap in the WHO left by the U.S. withdrawal. Platforms like BRICS could facilitate this. 
• Investment in Training Experts. Nations such as India, Ethiopia, and Ghana should focus on training experts in both public health and global health, as these fields, while related, have distinct focuses. For instance, India should prepare experts for health issues prevalent in Africa that are not common in India. 
• Pooled Technical Expertise. Moving forward, it’s essential to provide not just financial support but also pooled technical expertise in health. This collaborative approach will enhance the quality and effectiveness of health interventions. 
• Regional Institutions for Global Health. Countries in the Global South should establish premier institutions at national or regional levels, through collaborative efforts, to train experts in global health. This will ensure a steady supply of qualified professionals equipped to handle global health challenges. 
• Expertise from Low- and Middle-Income Countries. The expertise available in low- and middle-income countries will be instrumental in assisting each other and the WHO. Seconding experts from these regions will provide relevant and contextual knowledge at a lower cost compared to hiring experts from high-income countries. 
• Reforms in WHO. There have been ongoing discussions about reforming WHO. One urgent step could be to trim the staff and relocate the headquarters to one of the regional offices, such as Brazzaville, Cairo, Manila, or New Delhi. This would reduce operational costs and align the organization’s focus with the regions that need it most, like Africa and Asia. 

Conclusion

In the future, it is possible that a new U.S. President will lead the country to rejoin the WHO. However, until that happens, the withdrawal of the U.S. presents an opportunity for public health communities and political leaders in the Global South. They can take this time to start new initiatives at the country and regional levels, working together to change the global health agenda. Currently, this agenda is heavily influenced by high-income countries. Global health should not depend on funding or expertise from just a few wealthy nations. It needs to be a collaborative effort involving the whole world, with leadership from the Global South. 

India-Indonesia ties as a Beacon for Global Relations

Why in News?

Strengthening Ties for a Prosperous Future: Indonesia and India, by deepening their relationship, can pave the way for a more prosperous and sustainable future, not just for Asia but for the entire world.

Introduction

Historical Significance: The writer felt privileged to accompany President Prabowo Subianto of Indonesia at India’s 76th Republic Day celebrations. This event not only showcased India’s democratic strength but also highlighted the enduring relationship between India and Indonesia, which can serve as a model for international relations.

The evolution of ties

• 1950 Republic Day: Indonesia’s President Sukarno was the chief guest at India’s first Republic Day, symbolizing the start of a strong relationship.
• Strengthened Ties: Over the decades, India and Indonesia have built robust ties across various sectors, including economics, politics, and culture.
• Fourth visit of an Indonesian President: This year marked the fourth time an Indonesian President was the chief guest at India’s Republic Day.
• Prabowo’s visit: President Prabowo’s visit and his discussions with Prime Minister Modi emphasized the shared goals of enhancing collaboration in trade, maritime security, health, and technology.
• Economic potential: Both nations, being among the largest and fastest-growing economies, have the potential to be pillars of prosperity and security for the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
• Trade agreement 1966:. trade agreement signed in 1966 laid the groundwork, but there is significant potential to expand economic ties today.
• CEOs forum: As co-chair of the CEOs Forum, the writer identified five key sectors for mutual growth: energy, food and agriculture, healthcare, manufacturing, and technology.

Trade and security as pillars

• Bilateral trade potential: There is a significant opportunity to increase bilateral trade, currently just under $30 billion, with the potential to quadruple it in the next decade.
• Confidence in partnership: The ambitious growth targets reflect the mutual confidence in each other’s potential and the partnership.
• Economic growth forecasts: India and Indonesia are expected to grow at 6.5% and 5.1% respectively, surpassing the global average of 3.3%.
• Market expansion and workforce: The growth is driven by expanding markets, young populations, and increasing consumer demand.
• Investment potential: There is untapped potential for intelligent investments in sectors like clean energy, technology, and manufacturing, positioning both countries as leaders in energy transition.
• Current investment levels: Indonesian investment in India is $653.8 million, while India’s investment in Indonesia is $1.56 billion, indicating room for growth.
• Security as a pillar: Security is a crucial aspect of the partnership, with advancements in defensive ties leading to the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2018.
• Maritime security: The partnership has significantly enhanced maritime security in shared waters.
• Counterterrorism and cybersecurity: Both countries are committed to strengthening collaboration in counterterrorism and cybersecurity.
• Geopolitical importance: Cooperation is vital for addressing the complex geopolitical dynamics of the Indo-Pacific region and ensuring its stability and prosperity.

International relations

• Global context of the bilateral relationship: The relationship between India and Indonesia is also shaped by the global context, where both countries are navigating a constantly changing geopolitical environment.
• Indonesia in BRICS: Indonesia’s recent invitation to join the BRICS group of emerging economies, alongside India, highlights its growing global stature.
• Relationships with Western countries: Both countries maintain important relationships with the United States and other Western nations, despite the shifting geopolitical landscape.
• Trump administration and tariffs: The potential introduction of new tariffs by the U.S. under the Trump administration poses challenges for free trade and the global economy.
• Impediments to free trade: Tariffs and non-tariff barriers are significant impediments to free trade and can have adverse effects on the global economy.
• Indonesia’s resources: As a key supplier of natural resources like nickel, copper, tin, and bauxite, Indonesia aims to strengthen its export relationships with the U.S., India, and other markets.

Conclusion

Strengthening Bonds for a Sustainable Future: President Prabowo’s visit underscores the importance of the long-standing and growing partnership between Indonesia and India. As they continue to collaborate through trade, security, and geopolitical ties, both countries are not only strengthening their bilateral relationship but also laying the groundwork for a prosperous and sustainable future for the Indo-Pacific and the global community.