This article is part of the series—Raisina Edit 2021
The first COVID-19 case was detected on 8 December 2019 in Wuhan. As of 20 March 2021, over 123 million people have been affected worldwide and over 2.7 million have died. As the world grapples with the issues of accountability and responsibility, the gigantic scale of the global tragedy has brought to the fore the issue of politicization of international institutions due to concerns about increasing Chinese influence in the World Health Organization (WHO).
The contagion spread globally primarily due to timely information and transparency being withheld and when available not being acted upon with urgency. China did not report the case to the WHO until 31 December 2019, the emergency committee of the WHO did not meet until 22 January, waited another week to declare an international emergency and notified a pandemic only on 11 March 2020. By then tens of thousands had travelled from China to all parts of the world, carrying the infection.
For decades, the UN specialised agencies have functioned on the unstated principle of the largest donors having the greatest say. The United States is responsible for a significant portion of many UN agencies’ budgets: For example, 25 percent of WHO, 36.6 percent of UNHCR and a massive US $ 2.5 billion to the World Food Programme is contributed by the US. The US has leveraged such contributions for political actions. Under President Trump, the US withdrew from 10 multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Trans Pacific Partnership, United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), Global Compact For Migration, Iran Nuclear Deal etc. In many instances, the US cited anti-Israel bias of the UN agencies to suspend its contributions or seek withdrawal. For instance, in 2011, President Obama suspended financial contribution to UNESCO when it granted full membership to Palestine as a state. The WTO has also been subjected to politicisation, more recently during the US-China Trade war. While US did not quit the WTO, President Trump weakened the trade regulator by blocking the appointment of judges.
While the US, especially under President Trump, was stepping away from the institutions it supported in founding, China has been increasing its participation. As seen in the recent case of the WHO, China has been able to make a huge impact due its growing global influence in international institutions and stepping in where the US has withdrawn, despite a much smaller financial contribution (approximately 8 percent in 2019). Furthermore, out of the U.N.’s 17 specialised agencies and groups, Chinese representatives lead four - the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). It is the only nation to run more than one UN agency. As the Wall Street Journal reported: ‘Gaining influence at the U.N. permits China to stifle international scrutiny of its behavior at home and abroad’. It also allows it ‘to shape international norms and standards’. This was also exemplified in 2016, when China dismissed the ruling of the International Court of Justice regarding its sovereignty claim in the South China Sea and has continued to militarise the islands. Moreover, over a hundred countries have signed on to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and they tend to support China in international institutions due to the trade and investment relationship. This enables China to leverage its bilateral relations for multilateral support towards its policy objectives.
The world was not prepared to deal with COVID-19 unitedly and the WHO failed to provide the early warnings it should have. This makes it necessary to put in place systems that prevent the political capture of international institutions that have adverse consequences for the international community. Reforming institutions, devising new rules and norms and adopting a democratic multilateral system have to be the way forward.
India has stressed upon the politicisation of the UN Security Council and its specialised agencies. For instance, with respect to the Syrian conflict, India highlighted the politicisation of the conflict and emphasised de-linking humanitarian efforts from progress on the political track. India has been strongly advocating reform and restructuring of the UN, including of the Security Council, to make it better equipped to deal with the needs of developing countries. In September 2020, PM Modi declared reform of the UN as the ‘need of the hour.’
More specifically, in December 2020 India suggested reform in WHO that included improvements in governance by reviewing the functioning of the critical technical committees under the WHO as also enabling the WHO Director-General to declare a global public health emergency based on broad agreement rather than an overarching consensus in the Emergency Committee.
The COVID-19 crisis has red-flagged that no country should be allowed to head more than one UN body to ensure that it does not exercise undue influence in the specialized agencies. This would also lead to greater democratization of the UN system.
Finally, transparency and global data sharing on a range of global issues, coordinated by the relevant specialized agency would be critical for the future. Equally critical would be war-gaming and strategizing multi-dimensional responses at an international level to future threats.
In an increasingly interconnected world, tackling future multinational threats would require a global approach. No country, however powerful, can hope to do it alone. The world has a greater chance of success if countries underplay their selfish ambitions to manipulate international organizations and try to assert global leadership taking advantage of calamities. To ‘help’ them, the global community will have come together to devise systems to prevent the political capture of international institutions.
Views are personal
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
