lemonde.fr
Argentina Withdraws from World Health Organization
Argentine President Javier Milei announced Argentina's withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 5th, citing disagreements over pandemic management and political influence, mirroring a similar decision by the United States under President Trump, and potentially impacting Argentina's access to global health resources and initiatives.
- What are the immediate consequences of Argentina's withdrawal from the World Health Organization?
- Argentine President Javier Milei announced on February 5th that Argentina will withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO), citing disagreements over pandemic management and political influence. This follows a similar move by the US under President Trump, with Milei expressing admiration for Trump's policies.", "The Argentine government claims the WHO's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, including lengthy lockdowns, was flawed and lacked independence from political pressure. They also assert the withdrawal will allow Argentina more flexibility in its health policies and free up resources.", "This decision could significantly impact Argentina's access to global health initiatives and information, potentially hindering its ability to respond to future health crises. Furthermore, it aligns with Milei's broader anti-globalist stance and might signal further withdrawals from international agreements.
- How does Argentina's decision to leave the WHO relate to President Milei's broader political agenda?
- Milei's decision mirrors Trump's, indicating a growing trend of nationalistic approaches to global health governance. Argentina's annual contribution to the WHO was approximately \$4.4 million. The stated reasons for withdrawal focus on sovereignty and accusations of ineffective and politically influenced WHO pandemic response.", "The withdrawal from the WHO is part of a broader political strategy by Milei to consolidate his power base by aligning himself with anti-globalist sentiments, appealing to a portion of the population critical of international institutions. His administration's approach challenges established norms of international cooperation and global health governance.", "The Argentine government's decision also reflects a broader shift towards nationalistic sentiment and questioning of global health organizations. This aligns with similar trends in other countries which shows a retreat from multilateralism and a focus on national interests.
- What are the potential long-term implications of Argentina's withdrawal from the WHO for global health governance?
- The long-term consequences of Argentina's withdrawal from the WHO remain uncertain, but it could impact its ability to access essential health resources and collaborate on global health initiatives. The decision may inspire similar actions in other countries, potentially weakening the WHO's effectiveness.", "The move could isolate Argentina in the international community, impacting international cooperation on health issues. Its potential effect on Argentina's participation in other global initiatives, including climate change, is also uncertain. This demonstrates a significant shift in Argentina's approach to global governance.", "This could lead to a broader reassessment of international cooperation in global health. It's particularly noteworthy given that it mirrors actions taken by the United States administration, signifying a larger trend challenging global health governance structures.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and initial paragraphs frame the story as a decisive and unilateral action by President Milei, mirroring his own rhetoric. The framing emphasizes the president's strong stance against the WHO and aligns it with his admiration for Donald Trump's similar decision. This framing potentially leads readers to perceive the decision as more justified and inevitable than a complex policy choice with potential drawbacks.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language, such as describing the WHO's response to the pandemic as "quarantines éternelles sans fondement scientifique" (eternal quarantines without scientific basis) and Milei's view of gender ideology as a "virus" or "cancer." These terms are emotionally charged and present a negative and dismissive view of the opposing perspectives, biasing the reader's perception. More neutral alternatives such as "criticized quarantine measures" or "disputes over gender ideology" would be less biased.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the Argentine government's perspective and actions, giving less weight to counterarguments or perspectives from the WHO or other international health organizations. While the WHO's response to the pandemic is criticized, there's limited inclusion of the WHO's defense or alternative viewpoints on the criticisms. The economic consequences of the pandemic are mentioned, but a detailed analysis of their extent and the role of the WHO in them is absent. Omissions regarding the potential benefits of WHO membership for Argentina are also noticeable.
False Dichotomy
The narrative presents a false dichotomy between national sovereignty and international cooperation on health issues. The implication is that adherence to WHO guidelines automatically infringes on Argentina's sovereignty, ignoring the possibility of collaboration and negotiation within the framework of international organizations.
Gender Bias
The article mentions the government's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, framing it through the government's perspective. While concerns about potential harm are presented, the perspective of transgender individuals and their families is largely absent, creating an imbalance in representation and potentially perpetuating negative stereotypes. The article mentions pushback from LGBT+ organizations, but this is presented as a brief counterpoint rather than a substantial part of the narrative.
Sustainable Development Goals
The Argentine government's decision to withdraw from the WHO and its subsequent actions, such as banning gender-affirming care for minors, negatively impact the SDG target of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages. The WHO plays a crucial role in global health initiatives and its absence leaves Argentina vulnerable to health crises. Furthermore, the ban on gender-affirming care restricts access to healthcare for transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, impacting their physical and mental well-being.