WHO's vulnerability exposed: Reminder that even giants can be dispensable

The World Health Organisation (WHO) today expressed regret over the announcement that the United States of America intends to withdraw from the organisation. In its statement, WHO conveyed hope that the U.S. would reconsider its decision and emphasised its eagerness to engage in constructive dialogue to sustain their partnership for the benefit of global health and well-being.

The tone of the statement struck me as surprisingly desperate, almost uncharacteristically so for an institution of the WHO’s stature. To be honest, I was taken aback to see such a display from the WHO, an organisation that, alongside the broader United Nations (UN) system, has often projected an air of authority and invincibility, particularly when operating in smaller or less privileged nations.

It is worth noting that the UN and its agencies often conduct themselves with a palpable sense of superiority in many developing countries. Admittedly, this attitude is not universal among all their employees, but it is widespread enough to have become a troubling pattern.

In many cases, UN officials act as if they are beyond reproach, dictating terms and decisions in a manner that borders on arrogance. They frequently sideline local voices, disregarding cultural and contextual nuances, and often impose a “my way or the highway” approach.

This behaviour has fostered the perception that UN agencies are not merely partners to countries but are somehow above them, operating as if their mandates supersede national sovereignty. Many individuals have come to erroneously believe that the UN and its institutions are more powerful than the nations they are meant to serve.

Yet, the reaction of the WHO to the United States’ announcement reveals an entirely different dynamic. In the Western world, these institutions are far less domineering. They exist on precarious footing, subject to the decisions of powerful nations that can withdraw financial support or question their relevance at any moment.

The contrast is glaring: while they operate as near-autonomous powers in Africa and other developing regions, in the global North, they must tread carefully, mindful of their dependence on the goodwill of wealthier states.

This dichotomy forces an uncomfortable question: does the confidence UN agencies display in the developing world stem from the power imbalance they experience when dealing with Western nations? Are they merely projecting onto African and other underdeveloped nations the subservience they endure in global political hierarchies?

This power imbalance is mirrored and perpetuated in the way they interact with local governments and NGOs in these regions.

But slowly, our eyes are opening. We are beginning to see the cracks in this facade of invincibility. The desperation in the WHO’s statement is a reminder that, despite their global influence, these institutions are not untouchable.

They rely on the support of member states and their citizens, and without it, their power is diminished. Their influence is not innate but conferred, and it can be withdrawn.

This realisation should prompt a deeper introspection among UN agencies about how they engage with the developing world. True partnerships require humility, respect, and a recognition of the agency and sovereignty of the nations they serve.

As more eyes are opened to these dynamics, the hope is that the arrogance and dominance often displayed in less powerful regions will be replaced with genuine collaboration. After all, the health and well-being of the world depend on solidarity, not on dominance cloaked in benevolence.