The intention of the White House to withhold US funding for the World Health Organization over its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic should be seen for what it is — an act of arrogant folly.

The WHO is not perfect. What international body is? But what other body, or country for that matter, could fill the void if the WHO should suddenly disappear overnight?

Since its inception in 1948, the WHO has played a pivotal role in public health issues such as tackling AIDS and formulating public health policy.

It has provided leadership on matters critical to health and participated in partnerships where joint action has been needed.

It has helped to determine research agendas, and stimulate the generation, translation and dissemination of valuable knowledge globally on health issues. It has articulated ethical and evidence-based policy issues, provided much-needed technical support, built sustainable institutional capacity and monitored health issues and assessed trends.

This move by Washington will solve nothing and is counterproductive to an organization that needs to be strengthened rather than weakened.

The United States has always had a problem with the United Nations and its various agencies. Last year, the US withdrew from UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. It was not the first time it has left the world’s leading scientific and cultural organization. Unhappy with certain policies, especially when it came to the third world countries, the US first withdrew in 1984.

Much of the US’ criticism of the UN and its various agencies are political. Sometimes it behaves like the bully on the playground, and the WHO is just the latest victim. 

Criticism of the WHO ignores the good it has done globally over the last 70 years.

In 1958, for example, it led a smallpox eradication program largely sponsored by the then Soviet Union. By 1980, the disease which killed millions had been eradicated.

In the 1960s, the WHO promoted mass campaigns against yaws (a tropical infection of the skin), endemic syphilis, leprosy, and trachoma, and helped control a major cholera pandemic in Asia and the Western Pacific and the epidemic of yellow fever in Africa.

In 1974, there was the WHO-backed childhood immunization program to vaccinate children worldwide against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, poliomyelitis and tuberculosis. Eradicating these diseases from children has yet to be realized.

Sure, there have been some programs that have not met expectations. Programs such as making primary healthcare the central function and focus of a country’s health system. This has not been realized.

Nor has the safe motherhood program to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality by 50 percent by the year 2000. Despite not meeting the target, maternal health continues to be a major focus of the WHO’s work.

Polio eradication was another big program which has not met expectations despite massive global efforts.

Seventeen years ago, the WHO found itself in the middle of another global health scare — severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS.

First recognized as a global threat in mid-March 2003, SARS was successfully contained in less than four months.

It is not the WHO’s responsibility to be the world’s health policeman. Individual countries do need to take responsibility for their actions and how they respond to disease outbreaks and epidemics such as COVID-19.

In its defense, the WHO was quick to react to the current outbreak. And let us not forget the fact the WHO cannot simply walk into a sovereign nation and take the lead role. There are protocols that need to be observed.

For WHO and China as well, the hardest part was trying to determine what it was dealing with in the first place in the face of novel threats.

Much of what WHO had learned during SARS outbreak in 2003 came into play. That included keeping information flowing to the global community and helping countries prepare for the rapid detection and response to cases, clusters and community transmission. On top of that, it needed to source and send medical supplies, and provide technical expertise and training where needed.

The WHO does not have it easy. Just ask those working on vaccinating kids against diseases such as whooping cough or measles and the opposition it meets from the powerful anti-vaccination lobby, especially in wealthy, developed economies.

The point is, if you take the WHO out of the world health picture, then what is left? Who will fill the void?

Who will coordinate the current global fight against COVID-19 and other global campaigns on such vital issues as obesity and tobacco?

The WHO performs a vital role in global health, particularly at the critical time today. It needs to be quarantined from the vagaries of politics, allowing it to focus on the role it was originally intended for — the health of all people.

Part of the WHO’s charter reads: “The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent upon the fullest cooperation of individuals and States … Unequal development in different countries in the promotion of health and control of disease, especially communicable disease, is a common danger.”

Good health is a fundamental right of every man, woman and child inhabiting this planet. Politics does have a place, but not in health.

The writer is a China Daily correspondent based in Sydney.