The coronavirus has been captured a vast majority of people with its tremendous acceleration of dissemination. It also killed a ratio of people around the world. This ratio of people would be less than the current amounts, but the failure of international organizations such as WHO, G20, UN Security Council has role behind such unprecedented number of death.The system that has been evolved to furnish a global response (WHO, G20, UNSC, G7) to pandemic has languished miserably.
At first, the World Health Organization role in disease surveillance and response coordination has flunked. The organization insisted that they have not been brought sufficient data from affected countries at the beginning of the coronavirus. One of the biggest challenges we face is that too many affected countries are still not sharing data with the WHO. The Lack of funding has formulated another hardship to the WHO. While the international crew expects $675 million to finance its programs to fight against the coronavirus pandemic, member states had promised less than half of that moneyto WHO. Lack of data and shortage of money is the posterior of WHO’s a downfallto admitimmediatelythe pandemic. Then, the inadequacy of WHO’s independence. It doesn’t layout to be independent rather, it’s subordinate to the nations that endow it and nominateits leader. China, USA prefers to elect its official from respective nations. Another case of WHO’s lack of liberation is that the WHO has no powers to compel information-sharing or enforce pandemic preparedness.
The WHO has been complicit in this deception. Instead of attempting independently to verify Chinese claims, it took them at face value and communicated them to the world. In mid-January, the WHO tweeted that inquiries by Chinese administrations had set upwith no clear clue of human-to-human transmission of the virus. Taiwan’s 31 December notifying that mighty transmission was likely happening in Wuhan was disobeyed by the WHO. Even after China’s most famous pulmonologist, Zhong Nanshan, ascertained human-to-human transmission of the virus on 20 January, the WHO proceeded with undermining effective responses by downplaying the risks of asymptomatic transmission and discouraging universal testing. As late as January 14, that preliminary investigation conducted by the China human to human transmission doesn’t existWHO’scontended they found no clear evidence on a human to the human transmission that insistence was erroneous. Taiwan also upholds this statement. Thailand women case that travelled Wuhan to Thailand she had never been in the seafood market attributedto the outbreak, that verifies that spreads of the virus within Wuhan. After that, Taiwan and Hong Kong didn’t follow the WHO. The result is that they are proficient to successfully poison the disease with densely community. The incredibleaspect is that they are an intimate link to China. WHO’soversightdisappointment also demonstrated by this prosperousexhibition.
At the same time, Tedros extolled Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ‘very rare leadership’ and China’s ‘transparency’. The inclination has been so noticeable that Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Also recently noted that, for many, the WHO is glaring more like the ‘Chinese Health Organization’.These events curtail the WHO’s straightforwardposture as well s their autonomouscapability. That’s why countries around the world alleged that WHO’s troublesomestance that diverts the globe, it’sgone wrong to play a translucent role rather themnear to China’s authorized position which formulates the local outbreak that we could restrict.
WHO’s anotherstance on not wearinga mask, whether the masks are integral to saturating this pandemic? They also unaware about travel restricting, they told that travel declinationencompasses the economy of a country. Most of the analysts today argue that the month of February was the most momentousterm for the spread of the coronavirus. This month saw one of the most dubioustestimonies from the WHO when Terros repeated his call to all countries not to impose travel limitations. According to him, it was unnecessary and would intervene with international travel and trade. He said, “Such restrictions can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma with a little public health benefit.” South Korea, Italy and Iran have the highest number of cases in this period. At the onslaught of Coronavirus, Tedros Adhanom and the WHO were more apprehensive about the “fear and stigma” it would create among the people. For that justification WHO takes time to declare openly the pandemic.At the early stage, WHO doesn’t obey the previous pandemic SARS, Only a few observant people who had, followed the SARS crisis more than a decade ago brought up the potential threats of this outbreak.
The WHO should not have let February and nearly half of March passes before finally declaring a pandemic. By that point, a massive 114 countries had already documented cases, and more than 4,000 known deaths had risen. By then, the declaration did not consequence in the same way atimelier one would have.Pandemics are exponential occasions. In January and even in early February, the world had a belligerent chance. The initial case recognized to occur in Seattle was as late as February 21. We know this with relatively high enthusiasm because Seattle has an impressive flu-tracking program, which conveyed it a time machine: the proficiency to go back and test earlier flu samples for COVID-19. Many countries may not have had their first imported case until late January or early February. Researchers project that working even a week or two early might have curtailed cases by 50 to 80 percent. With proper global leadership, we may have had a very unusual trajectory. Another reason of the World Health Organization negligence is devoted against China. Because sounding off against China might have expired the international political career of Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who was elected to his post with the authorization of China and its coalition. But that is the cost of putting mission first.
World Health Organisation ceased to function for belated announcing the pandemic and incoherent and incompatible recommendation to the countries of the world. Such as wearing masks, suggesting medicines, asymptomatic someone doesn’t scatter the virus.Etc.
On April 14, President Donald Trump’s administration has discontinued the WHO’s US funding, which accounts for about 9% of its fund. President Trump cut off the relation with WHO for the fourrationales. These rationales compriseWHO lagged to deliver information timely and transparently (WHO dismissed the plausibleallegation of virusflattening in Wuhan in early December). WHO’s resisted No human to human transmission. Lack of liberation from WHO (the organization is too Close to China) and the organizations impeded travel limitations. The USA claimed that all of these statements are behind their leaving the funding of WHO inthe vestibule of April. Other organizations such as G7, G20, UNSC had not satisfactory performance in response the coronavirus crisis. The G20, G7 were unable to reach even basic decisions on the Global economic recovery, this position asserted their disappointment on covid-19 matter.
Yet, there was no mention of overturning export bans of medical material, subsidizing a vaccine, or dealing with the economic crisis brewing in the developing world. While the recent meeting of G20 finance ministers produced more tangible outcomes – namely a suspension of bilateral debt repayments for low-income countries – there were no new actions on health crisis, and no response to the International Monetary Fund please to bolster its resources. As former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers put it afterwards: “I had modest expectations, which were significantly disappointed.” One reason might be that G20 is more focus on financial issue rather than the health issue.
At the beginning of the outbreak in January and February, US President Donald Trump publicly praised China’s actions and the WHO’s response. But after COVID-19 hit the United States hard in March, Trump’s narrative changed to blaming China for covering up the outbreak in Wuhan in the early stages, significantly affecting the responses of other countries. This is one reason behind the failure of the G7. The dispute between China and the US has world effect the activities of the G7.
The United States could have veered around to the G20 to assistinterpret a global response, but they didn’t. China-US controversy swerved the workouts of the G20. It turned inward instead. The Trump authority chose to want these activities, of global response as them versus us. China was a terrible position so that they were not eligible to lead the pandemic from the front. Saudi Arabia, which chairs the G20 this year, they haven’t the leadership capacity to deal with an issue of this magnitude. On the other hand, the UN Security Council failed to hold a virtual summit on coordinating the virus response. One possible reason is that the pandemic is not a traditional security threat that the UNSC is accustomed to dealing with. But the radio silence of the UNSC might also reflect the deep divide inside the institution itself. The failure of the world body has various consequences for countries.
Firstly, more precisely, it has an obligation for developing world. At a time when the WHO is desperately trying to raise a US$2 billion (£1.6 billion) global humanitarian response fund to assist the world’s poorest countries, it spells disaster. Developing countries depend on WHO for confronting the global disaster. Now this defending terminated the developing country’s war againstthe COVID-19. Developing nations are not competent to oversee the medical equipment and supplies without the assistance of WHO.
Secondly, the delinquency of the G20 has cost economically, the developing world powerless to handle the economic crisis without the comfort of a group of G20. All the developing nations desperately desired the remedy for the economic recover.
It now needs to be re-organized, and they desperately desired to make that it’s led by health specialists who have bestowed the liberty to be autonomous so that next pandemic should face with strong management facilities. It is the work of government that straighten up this vital institution in decree to handle with prospective pandemics, epidemics and outbreaks more efficiently.
The author is a under graduate student at the University of Dhaka.