fr.euronews.com
US Withdrawal Creates €920.9 Million Funding Gap for WHO
Following Donald Trump's decision, the US withdrew from the WHO in 2024, leaving a €920.9 million funding gap—its largest contributor. A WHO employee launched a "1 dollar, 1 world" campaign to partially offset this loss, raising €67,252.50 to date.
- What are the main alternative funding sources for the WHO, and how do their contributions compare to the former US funding?
- The US's €920.9 million contribution in 2024 represented a substantial portion of the WHO's budget. While the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (€662.5 million) and the European Commission (€396.4 million) are significant contributors, the loss of US funding necessitates adjustments to WHO programs and priorities. Germany, the largest EU contributor (€312 million), cannot fully offset this shortfall.
- What is the immediate financial impact of the US withdrawal from the WHO, and how does this affect the organization's operational capacity?
- Following Donald Trump's withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), concerns arose regarding its future funding. In 2024, the US was the WHO's largest financial contributor, providing €920.9 million. This withdrawal significantly impacts the WHO's projects, especially those focused on disease prevention and public health campaigns.
- How might the WHO's funding model need to evolve to reduce its dependence on individual large contributors and enhance its long-term financial stability?
- The WHO's reliance on voluntary contributions makes it vulnerable to political shifts. While the "1 dollar, 1 world" campaign aims to mitigate the funding gap, its current fundraising (€67,252.50) is far from sufficient to replace the US contribution. The WHO's ability to adapt and maintain its operations hinges on securing substantial alternative funding sources and diversifying its financial base.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the financial crisis faced by the WHO due to the US withdrawal, potentially downplaying other important aspects. The headline (if there was one) would likely highlight the funding gap, making this the central focus. This emphasis could create a narrative of crisis and instability, potentially overshadowing other crucial factors like the ongoing work of the WHO or the potential for alternative funding sources.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, but phrases like "considerable blow" and "crisis" could be considered slightly loaded. These terms could be replaced with less emotionally charged alternatives, such as "significant impact" and "challenge." The overall tone, however, remains largely objective.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the financial implications of the US withdrawal from the WHO, but omits discussion of other potential consequences, such as the impact on global health initiatives and collaborations. It also doesn't explore potential shifts in global health leadership or the political ramifications of the US withdrawal beyond the immediate financial concerns. This omission limits the reader's understanding of the broader implications of this event.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by focusing primarily on the financial challenges faced by the WHO after the US withdrawal. While financial stability is crucial, the narrative overshadows other important factors such as the loss of US expertise and political influence within the organization. The implication is that financial recovery is the sole or primary measure of the WHO's success post-withdrawal, neglecting the complex interplay of factors involved.
Gender Bias
The article mentions Tania Cernuschi's fundraising campaign, highlighting her personal involvement. While not inherently biased, it could benefit from mentioning other individuals or groups involved in securing funding. This would offer a more balanced representation of efforts to address the funding gap.
Sustainable Development Goals
The withdrawal of US funding from the WHO significantly impacts the organization's ability to fund crucial health initiatives, such as the eradication of polio and the provision of essential health services. This directly undermines progress towards SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.