Read on Twitter
The US government halts financing the @WHO:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/14/politics/donald-trump-world-health-organization-funding-coronavirus/index.html
Let me explain what this means since I have studied the US defunding of @UNESCO and of @UNRWA. /1
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/14/politics/donald-trump-world-health-organization-funding-coronavirus/index.html
Let me explain what this means since I have studied the US defunding of @UNESCO and of @UNRWA. /1
US financing total financing in the period 2018-19 of @WHO was 14.67%
http://open.who.int/2018-19/contributors/contributor
This included both assessed contributions (membership fees) of US$237 mln and, much higher, voluntary contributions of US$656 mln:
http://open.who.int/2018-19/contributors/overview/vcs
/2
http://open.who.int/2018-19/contributors/contributor
This included both assessed contributions (membership fees) of US$237 mln and, much higher, voluntary contributions of US$656 mln:
http://open.who.int/2018-19/contributors/overview/vcs
/2
The first consequence of the US defunding @WHO would be that, if the income structure of @WHO remained similar to the 2018-19 biennium, the @gatesfoundation would become the largest funder of the organization.
/3
/3
But, in the past, I have studied with my colleagues @s_eckhard und Sylvia Schmidt what the withholding of US contributions meant for @UNESCO from 2011. The research is published in @jepp_journal:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2018.1539116
Such a massive cut, if sustained, requires reactions. /4
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2018.1539116
Such a massive cut, if sustained, requires reactions. /4
The @WHO administration around @DrTedros will feel the shock pretty fast because this is money that's planned in.
Even voluntary contributions that may be cut with the current move may already have been agreed for projects around the world.
Other @WHO member have to step in. /5
Even voluntary contributions that may be cut with the current move may already have been agreed for projects around the world.
Other @WHO member have to step in. /5
But the other member states are (a) dealing with Corona at the moment and (b) may want to wait for the US to return.
(b) is the more problematic part, because in the case of both @UNESCO (under Obama) and @UNRWA (under Trump) that initial hope never materialized. /6
(b) is the more problematic part, because in the case of both @UNESCO (under Obama) and @UNRWA (under Trump) that initial hope never materialized. /6
In reality, if the US sustains its massive cuts to @WHO, looking at @UNRWA's reaction to Trump's cuts in 2018.
Filling gaps required massive fundraising efforts of the organization over the course of a year, especially at the top. So @DrTedros now turns to fundraising mode. /7
Filling gaps required massive fundraising efforts of the organization over the course of a year, especially at the top. So @DrTedros now turns to fundraising mode. /7
In the case of @UNESCO, the organization adapted over several years to a reduced funding base. Other donors would not pay the full share of the US losses.
In @UNRWA, a few Western donors (the EU, Germany etc.) and Arab donor (esp. Saudia Arabia) stepped in. /8
In @UNRWA, a few Western donors (the EU, Germany etc.) and Arab donor (esp. Saudia Arabia) stepped in. /8
What can we expect for @WHO? If Trump's cuts aren't just a mood (and I don't think they are in an election year), I expect a few governments to jump in, but it won't cover the ~15% US funding. /9
Who could that be? China might well take over some of the US funding to @WHO that went to Africa. Germany and the EU might take on some of the funding that goes to Eastern Mediterranean as they are invested there. UK, Japan and few others might step in, too /10
The fundraising strategy for @WHO will be explaining how these cuts have concrete negative consequences on major other donors in various areas.
@UNESCO couldn't sell that very effectively after 2011, while @UNRWA could in 2018. @WHO will probably be somewhere in the middle. /11
@UNESCO couldn't sell that very effectively after 2011, while @UNRWA could in 2018. @WHO will probably be somewhere in the middle. /11
Whatever others will finance, this will take time to materialize.
It will bind political & administrative energy in @WHO in 2020-21. It will make @WHO staff afraid of layoffs in a times when so much is focused on dealing with a global pandemic.
So @WHO will be in crisis. /12
It will bind political & administrative energy in @WHO in 2020-21. It will make @WHO staff afraid of layoffs in a times when so much is focused on dealing with a global pandemic.
So @WHO will be in crisis. /12
And again, experience with @UNESCO & @UNRWA shows that other countries or donors playing on time, hoping US money would come back soon, might not work.
In the case of @WHO, it might mean waiting until after the US elections. And that's still a gap of multiple US$100 mln. /end
In the case of @WHO, it might mean waiting until after the US elections. And that's still a gap of multiple US$100 mln. /end
