As Trump prepares to withdraw the United States from the WHO, China seizes an opportunity to bolster its global influence.
When President Donald Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), it was déjà vu. This marked the second time in five years he attempted to sever ties with the Geneva-based health body, accusing it of mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic, failing to reform and being unduly influenced by China. The move was red meat for his domestic audience but a diplomatic gift to Beijing, which swiftly rallied to the WHO’s defence.
China’s Foreign Ministry wasted no time declaring its “firm support” for the WHO. With America vacating its long-standing role as the WHO’s top financier, China sees an opportunity to burnish its credentials as a global health leader while rewriting the rules of the game.
Trump’s disdain for the WHO is hardly new. He has accused the organization of kowtowing to Beijing, citing its early praise of China’s handling of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan—a pandemic Trump frequently alleged stemmed from a Chinese laboratory. In 2020, Trump had announced plans to withdraw from the WHO, citing its alleged failures and a lack of accountability. His successor, Joe Biden, had reversed that decision.
But Trump’s latest move to pull the plug on the WHO once again plunges the organization into uncertainty. The U.S. contributed nearly $1 billion annually (close to 20 percent of the agency’s budget). This financial lifeline supported critical programs, from polio eradication to emergency responses in war-torn regions. Without it, the WHO faces a gaping fiscal hole that its remaining donors, including Germany, the UK and philanthropic organizations like the Gates Foundation, will struggle to fill.
Enter China. Although its contributions to the WHO are a fraction of America’s—just over $200 million—it now has a chance to reshape the organization to better align with its geopolitical interests. Beijing’s rhetoric of “building a global community of health for all” is a strategic veneer, masking its intent to steer the global health agenda while deflecting scrutiny of its own actions.
For years, China has invested in expanding its influence in international organizations, often by leveraging its economic clout and strategic alliances in the Global South. Its support for the WHO comes with strings attached. Beijing has resisted calls for transparency over the origins of COVID-19, countering international pressure with a well-oiled propaganda machine. By presenting itself as a stalwart defender of multilateralism, China seeks to fill the vacuum left by America’s retreat while shifting attention away from its own shortcomings.
Critics argue that this step undermines U.S. soft power at a time when global health crises demand international cooperation. By abandoning its role as the WHO’s largest donor, America risks eroding its credibility as a leader in global health. This retreat also weakens Washington’s leverage to push for much-needed reforms within the organization, including greater transparency and accountability.
While Beijing may relish America’s absence, it faces its own challenges. The WHO’s credibility has been tarnished, and its reliance on donor funding leaves it vulnerable to the whims of its largest contributors. Should China step in to fill the financial void, it risks overextending itself and inviting further criticism of its growing influence in global governance.
Beijing’s track record on global health is far from spotless. From the early obfuscation of the COVID-19 outbreak to its heavy-handed diplomacy during the pandemic, China’s actions have often sparked mistrust. Its ability to lead the WHO without alienating other member states remains uncertain.
As the WHO grapples with a funding shortfall and a credibility crisis, its future hangs in the balance. For better or worse, the world may soon find out whether the WHO under China’s shadow can truly live up to its mission or whether it becomes another pawn in the great game of global power politics.
Comments