Take it from a guy who has been there - this is total nonsense.
The US already doesn't fund via WHO for things it could fund in other ways. We fund WHO for the things only WHO can do.
So if US cuts off WHO, we're defunding activities that can't be transferred to others.
The US already doesn't fund via WHO for things it could fund in other ways. We fund WHO for the things only WHO can do.
So if US cuts off WHO, we're defunding activities that can't be transferred to others.
This is different from how US funds UNICEF, UNHCR, or WFP. Much of the funding to those orgs is for things the US could choose to fund directly (and sometimes does). If we want to fund a food program, we can fund World Vision instead of WFP. Or IRC instead of HCR for refugee aid.
But the US doesn't rely on WHO in the same way. In the Congo Ebola outbreak, for example, the US funded NGO programs directly rather than routing money to them thru WHO. US Ebola funding to WHO was more targeted at WHO-specific functions.
So if Barsa/Richardson were making this argument about a different agency, it might be plausible. Not about WHO. We fund them for functions like technical leadership, operational coordination, epi information management, government advice. NGOs can't pick those things up.
The point they're trying to obscure here is that funding cuts to WHO absolutely *will* undermine the global response to the pandemic. There's no viable substitute for what WHO is doing, but they're counting on their audience not to understand that.
