Easy to Replace: The US Contribution to the WHO


Jan Oberg | The Transnational – TRANSCEND Media Service

Easy to replace: The US contribution to the WHO

16 Apr 2020 – President Trump has taken one more step toward self-isolation of the US from the world community. This BBC post tells who the main contributors to the WHO were in 2018-2019 and – yes – you’ll see that the US was the largest contributor.

But at least three things are striking.

1) The US contribution seems to be only US$ 400; that is the same sum Trump recently gave in military support to Ukraine. The price of just one Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft ranges between US$ 90 and 115 million.

In the larger scheme of things, the WHO is a cheap organisation and the real priorities of the US are crystal clear:

We can’t afford millions on something so useless as the WHO. We have more useful things to spend our money on!

2) China contributes US$ 86 million to the WHO and doesn’t rank among the ten largest contributors. So, if China is influencing the WHO as much as Mr. Trump argues, it is at least not through money.

He is also critical that the WHO should have praised China’s handling of the Coronavirus too much. Well, if you read these three factual and reliable articles, there are quite good reasons to praise China – and learn from it – not the least if you fight Corona in the Western world:

How China broke the chain of infection

Insights into China’s victory over the Coronavirus

How the Coronavirus changed our lives

3) It ought to be peanuts for the world’s countries and private donors to contribute more and thereby do two important good things:

  • show their commitment to this world-important UN organisation by compensating the loss of the US contribution at least 100% in this situation, and
  • thereby reduce or abolish US bullying and money-based attempt to dominate.



TFF Director Prof. Jan Oberg is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment.



Go to Original – transnational.live

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this article:

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

3 Responses to “Easy to Replace: The US Contribution to the WHO”

  1. rosemerry says:

    Jan, your article did not mention the, to many, terrible influence of Bill Gates on WHO as well as other UN bodies, as his agenda is certainly not public health for all at a price countries can afford (he prefers the Big Pharma approach). The USA has already been criticised for its interfering in WHO,so its absence may help (not that its absence stopped the interference with the ICC!)

  2. Jan Oberg says:

    Thanks, dear Rosemerry
    This short (read the intro under the picture!) commentary deals with the fact that it ought to be no catastrophe to anyone that the US pulls out of the WHO since we are talking about comparatively small sums. It also mentions China because there is a huge Sinophobic campaign going on now (on top of the one that is always there in Western media) about China’s handling of the Corona.
    I am of the opinion that there cannot be all kinds of point in an article if you shall also argue well and pedagogically. To also include Bill Gates in this one would be: a) irrelevant for the argument/point I am trying to make and b) require a lot of research on my part and Bill Gates and the Gates’ foundation is not within my research capacity and all the other subjects I happen to know something about and am writing on these very days – I hope you have seen my series on why the Coronavirus is about a totally failed security politics.
    So, let me put it this way: Don’t criticize a zebra for not being an elephant – or see the merits of what there is rather than all the other things there could also have been – the cheese and not its holes :-)

  3. […] 20 Apr 2020 | Jan Oberg | The Transnational – TRANSCEND Media ServiceTitolo originale: Easy to Replace: The US Contribution to the WHOTraduzione di Miki Lanza per il Centro Studi Sereno […]