Is corruption penetrated the World Health Organization?

"The World Health Organization has already spoiled the matter, for some reason, and although it is funded by the United States, it focuses on China. We'll look at it ... I can't believe the WHO chief talks about politics when you look at the relationship that binds them to China. China Spends 42 million dollars, and we spent 450 million dollars (for the organization) and everything seems to be on the side of China ... This is not true, it is not fair to us and frankly it is not justice to the world. [1]

With these words, US President Donald Trump attacked the World Health Organization, accusing it of being a "politicized" organization that does not consider the interests of the United States in exchange for maximizing the interests of China. As a result of this bias, Trump decided on 14 April 2020 to cut funding to the organization completely and prohibit the organization. Of the US funds, its largest source of funding is in its announced budget.

Away from the trap of alignment with Trump's attack on the organization, that is, as a politicized attack in itself, and at the heart of it includes an argument that assumes that the organization should be biased, or at least taken into account, American policies, and far from analyzing this matter; Trump's crisis with the organization posed a number of questions, the most important of which: What does it mean to take into account the interests of China or the United States in the public health issue? For is public health not supposed to be a humanitarian issue that favors no one over anyone? And most importantly: Has the organization fall into the clutches of political and economic exploitation of its programs, financing, and recommendations?

WHO: sunken boat

In fact, Trump's accusation was not the first of its kind that linked the organization's decisions with economic and political interests at the expense of caring for the health of the peoples of the world. In the year 2000 AD, the French journalist, Professor Bernard Defoe and professor of economics, Bernard Limence, published a book entitled "WHO: the sunken boat of health The public: deviations and failures of the United Nations "[2], and presented in their book several corruption cases that prove the involvement of the World Health Organization in aligning economic and political interests that conflict with the public health interest.

And in a more detailed look, since the outbreak of the bird flu crisis in 2004 AD, critical voices of the organization began to appear publicly and through multiple media platforms, then with the advent of swine flu in 2009 AD critical voices turned into public calls for urgent reforms, trials against officials and investigations in European parliaments, and finally with an outbreak Corona's new epidemic (Covid-19) in 2020 AD The attack came out of the US President himself to announce the suspension of financial support to the organization entirely.

Trump was not singing alone in this regard, as we pointed out, as calls to withdraw confidence from the organization increased steadily, especially with the addition of Germany, Britain and Australia to the list of countries that demand China compensation in exchange for damage caused by mismanagement of the virus [3], Which raises suspicion in the real role of the organization and its relationship with China. Can we really trust the World Health Organization to manage the emerging Corona crisis? And the extent to which economic interests and political influence control them? What are the most prominent corruption cases in which the organization was accused in its history?

Public health: an economic issue or a humanitarian necessity ?!

"Public health is an economic issue that lies between ideal ideas and the reality of the market."

(Bertenard Defoe, Professor of French Economics [4])

In his book, Bernard Defoe states that the World Health Organization is a nascent post-World War II organization in a Western world dominated by the United States of America, and it was independent of external influences at the beginning of its founding in 1948 AD, but over time it began to lose its independence and subject to the wishes of its financiers and the directions of groups The pressure and capital firms that are influencing their decisions significantly [4].

In order to infer the validity of his theory, Defoe raises a number of corruption cases in which the World Health Organization was involved because of its loss of independence, including the issue of healthy harmful baby milk products produced by "Nestlé" company specifically for the markets of poor countries, where health oversight is absent, and health controls are also rising. Birth rates in the context of poverty, government corruption, illiteracy, ignorance, maternal malnutrition, and anemia, which made the markets of those countries a golden treasure for the company "nestle", and through the strategies of marketing, promotion and persuasion in all lawful and unlawful ways to replace breast milk with artificial milk. The rates of using breast milk to feed children in African countries decreased from 100% in 1870 to 14% in 1970 [5].

The waves of doubting the company’s marketing strategies started with frequent research on the harm these fake artificial milk to the health of newborn babies, then in 1979 the World Health Organization conducted a vote in favor of controlling the marketing process in these poor countries so as not to tamper with the health of citizens. The result of the vote was 118 in favor of legalizing the situation, and only one vote against legalization: the United States of America, given its close relationship with Nestle, which controlled a third of the breast milk substitute market, which was then $ 3 billion annually [6] .

The organization bowed to the opinion of the United States, preferring to keep its financing coming from America rather than protecting the people of those poor countries from the greed of American companies. A Nestle movement has emerged that holds that the company violates children's health in the developing world and calls for a boycott of its products to coincide with that immoral scandal in which the World Health Organization occurred [7].

Decades of politicization

"Drug companies control WHO."

Halfdan Miller, President of the World Health Organization 1973-1988 AD [8]

The organization’s bias in favor of Nestle’s interests was just an example of the control of funding organizations in the organization’s decisions, negatively and / or positively, and if it came at the expense of the lives of the poor and children, and Defoe mentions a number of “improper” practices that raise doubts about the credibility of the organization’s goals, "What is the benefit of the organization launching a car seat belt campaign in Mozambique while the ravages of civil war are tearing the body parts of people out there?" Defoe asked. The authors of the book noted this unjust and inappropriate distribution of relief programs, so they conducted a survey about 161 countries, in which they studied the national product and the average age of citizens in these countries, and it was expected that the poorest countries with high death rates and diseases would have the largest share of aid and relief programs.

However, the authors were surprised that the opposite was the case. A country like Mozambique with an average per capita income of $ 80 annually and an average person’s lifetime of only 47 years was the organization’s share in the United States, Canada, or Iceland. Likewise, aid earmarked for Singapore and the Seychelles, two high-income and middle-income countries, was greater than that in Brazil or Gabon and was the poorest and least-privileged country in terms of growth and wealth [9].

The differences between the funds were not only the problem observed by the researchers, but the variation of aid, which represents a strange paradox. At the time when the annual budget of the Health Organization devoted to the health situation in the state of India is $ 7.5 million, the UNICEF budget for the health situation in the same country $ 100 million, although it is not concerned with health in the first place, which was commented by Indian doctor Indira Nath, saying that "it was unimaginable a few years ago, but it happened because the health organization is subject to the effects of politics, companies and financing destinations" [9].

According to the authors, the president of the organization was not isolated from these political games. For example, the Kingdom of Tonga - a group of islands in the Pacific that possesses huge fish wealth from which Japan benefits - offered its voice in the organization for sale at the highest price. At one meeting, Japan offered the kingdom to build research laboratories in fish diseases in exchange for a vote in favor of Japan's candidate Hiroshi Nakajima [10].

Indeed, the agreement was reached and the order was implemented, and Nakajima became the head of the organization between 1988 and 1998, thanks to the decisive voice of the Kingdom of Tonga in the voting process [10]. Can the head of the organization yet be a party to the corruption system already within the organization? Or is there a difference between 1990 and 2020 that made the head of the organization immune to the involvement of political, economic and health interests?

The head of the organization has an unclean record

“Tidros, the WHO’s president, seems to have turned a blind eye to what happened in Wuhan and the rest of China, and after his meeting with Xi Jinping in January, he helped China reduce the risk and spread of the Coronavirus and narrow its spread.” [11]

(Bradley Thayer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas)

Since the beginning of the new Corona virus crisis, the finger of blame has been directed at China for its feeble handling of the disease and its cover-up on its real danger. .

The accusations began spreading from China to the organization's head himself, the Ethiopian Tedros Gebrius, which raised doubts about Tidros' collusion with the Chinese government in concealing the true effects of the virus from the general public and the governments of the world. In fact, these doubts were not anomalous or isolated from their interconnections, as China was the most prominent supporter of Tedros to win the position in 2017, through its relations, lobbies, and financing. In it [12]. Which raises the question needs to be expanded report on the extent of China's influence on the decisions of the head of the organization.

What added to Tedros' embarrassment in front of the accusation against him covering up the crisis of the emerging Corona Virus 2020 CE is that his history was full of similar incidents. For example, the New York Times reported a report accusing Tedros of covering up the cholera epidemic in his home country, Ethiopia, three times in years. 2006 CE, 2009 CE and 2011 CE, when he was Minister of Health in a repressive dictatorship [13].

These reports placed Tidros in embarrassment in front of his attackers, and the observers barely forgotten the accusations until Tidros found himself receiving a new blow when the accusations extended to include what journalists and observers called a "black point in its history." After Tedros became president of the World Health Organization, he tried to appoint the then-Zimbabwean dictator, Robert Mugabe, as the Goodwill Ambassador for the World Health Organization, and his attempt was a subject of sharp criticism given Mugabe's record of repression and injustice [14]. The result: Tidros was surrounded by accusations from every side, and this raised the ire of many, but on the other side: Isn't the organization an institutional body that we cannot reduce to the person of its president?

Lack of transparency and oversight

"We know our credibility is at stake."

(Dr. Tiki Bang, Director of Research Policy, WHO [15])

Despite the availability of tens and hundreds of papers on the organization's website that explains its constitution, decision-making mechanisms and work strategies, all these papers remain within the general guidelines, and there is still a state of mystery in the statements and directions of the organization, which made Lillian Bashkir, the Swiss politician, say: "I always I find the World Health Organization is a large black box that is difficult to understand when outside it, and I think this is intentional. ”[16]

And this ambiguity is precisely what prompted the Norwegian researcher Andrew Oxman to question the credibility of the organization, especially with the darkening of the course of its recommendations and councils, saying: "It is difficult to evaluate our confidence in the recommendations presented by the World Health Organization without knowing how these recommendations were prepared in the beginning." [16].

If we try to decipher this ambiguity, we may find something that changes our view of the organization. Canadian researcher Alison Katz, who spent 17 years at the World Health Organization, sent an open letter in January 2007 to the then head of the organization, Chinese Margaret Chan, accusing the organization of corruption Favoritism, violation of laws and the ineffectiveness of its internal control system.

Katz's strong-worded message contained harsh criticism of the organization's performance, and she lost all hope of reform from within, saying: "The World Health Organization has fallen victim to neoliberal globalization, and has commoditized science through its strong ties to drug and drug companies, so it seems that the private sector has become the financier The only one for the organization. ”[18]

The scandal of the organization in Yemen

“The goal of the World Health Organization is to have the largest number of people at the highest possible level of health by the year 2000 AD” [19]

(The constitution of the organization at the beginning of its establishment before it is changed)

In October 2018, United Nations investigators gathered at Sanaa airport in preparation to leave Yemen, possessing compelling evidence that some WHO officials were involved in Yemen in cases of unlawful profit, influence, favoritism, and "sexual exploitation". [20]

But before they left the airport, the Houthi militia attacked them inside the airport and seized the evidence they had. After successive investigations, it became clear later that this militia moved at the request of the WHO itself after it paid them money in exchange for the seizure of evidence. The militias vandalized the evidence, and the crew returned to Geneva without evidence to prove the officials' involvement, and the WHO escaped condemnation [20].

The Italian doctor, Nivio Zagaria, held the position of head of the WHO health office in Sanaa from 2016G until September 2018. The organization's investigation into the behavior of its staff came out in a 37-page paper from the 2018 annual report of the internal auditor for activities around the world. Although the report did not specifically mention Zagaria, it found that the financial and administrative controls in the Yemen office were “unsatisfactory” - which is the lowest classification according to the protocols of the organization - and pointed to irregularities in employment and contracts concluded without competition, with a lack of control over purchases .

The Associated Press interviewed four current and former employees, all of whom agreed that the WHO office in Yemen - under the leadership of Zagaria - is rife with corruption and cronyism, and that work and project protocols "are filled with gaps that facilitate corruption" [21]. The agency also stated that "two of these employees held two prestigious positions, but their only role was to focus on caring for the Zagaria dog." "Unqualified, highly-paid employees undermine the quality of work and project monitoring, and create many loopholes for corruption," said a former relief official.

The list of results of the organization's investigation published by the agency includes: taking a bribe in exchange for the provision of health services, the loss of funds allocated to the relief budget without supervision, and the purchase of staff for goods and personal services in the midst of the crisis from the organization's budget. These investigations represented a scandal for the entire Yemeni office, [21] and the most important questions began to appear on the surface: Is the problem of conflicts of interests and cronyism confined to the Yemen crisis in 2016, or is it just a microcosm of the entire organization's platform?

Avian influenza: a chapter in conflict of interest

"For a period of time the gap between the needs of peoples and the response of organizations has worsened, this difference is political in the first place. Despite the organization's knowledge of people's diseases, it does not care or design programs to treat these diseases. We are not prepared for the epidemic in any way, and fortunately the AIDS epidemic has affected Western countries Which caused the organization to pay attention to it, but who thinks about the epidemics that affect the rest of the world? [22]

(Jonathan Mann, former director of the World Health Organization's AIDS program)

If we go back in time a little, specifically from the Yemen crisis in 2016 towards the bird flu crisis in the year 2004 AD, we find a team made up of three scientists who submitted a report to the World Health Organization at which time they urge the organization to distribute the drug "Tamiflu" to the countries of the world, considering that this drug It is the only one that treats the bird flu pandemic announced by the World Health Organization in a global epidemic in mid-2004.

The World Health Organization has already responded to the recommendations in the report, and has directed all countries in the world to stockpile huge quantities of "Tamiflu" to preserve the lives of citizens from the expected epidemic, and countries immediately raced to buy the property from the Swiss company "Roche". The story seems to be reasonable and incomplete, but the scandal appeared after some NGOs examined the scientific team that submitted the report to the WHO, and the surprise was that the team was associated with the company "Roche" producing "Tamilfu" who recommended the WHO team By selling and distributing it all over the world [23].

The relationship of this team to the company reached such that one of this team, specifically Professor Friedrich Hayden, was responsible for publishing a study of the company - which the organization relied on - confirming the most important marketing point of the drug: reducing 60% of flu infections in hospitals, which means that there is a strong accusation Hayden worked for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies. As for the other two worlds, Carl Nicholson and Arnold Monto, the former received financial funding from the company, and the latter worked as a consultant in it [23].

This funding and backlinks raised huge doubts about the credibility of what was stated in the recommendations of this team. In the end, the epidemic passed safely and Tamiflu drugs were stored in warehouses and hospitals without success until they expired in 2011, and the only beneficiary of this waste was Roche The same where I won from behind this global marathon to buy the property is equivalent to 7 billion dollars [23].

British politician Paul Flynn commented on this dangerous event, saying: "The role of the World Health Organization is very dangerous, and for this it is an independent organization. They are the ones who determine when the disease is an epidemic, and all the countries of the world listen to them and follow their advice, if their advice is contaminated with commercial interests, It is worthless advice. "

Swine flu: false alarm or delusional pandemic?

"Swine flu is one of the biggest medical scandals in the twenty-first century."

(Wolfgang Fudarge, Chair of the Health Council of the Council of Europe [24])

Besides Frederick Monto, the list of those accused of corruption included Arnold Monto, Henry Neiman, Karl Nicholson, and others. Among the most famous of the accused was a Dutch doctor, Professor Albert Utserhaus, who claimed to be the first to discover the ability of avian influenza to transmit to humans in 2003 CE [24].

Because of his well-known reputation and work during the bird flu epidemic, Osterhaus was the most famous doctor during the swine flu pandemic that emerged in 2009 until his title then became "swine flu papa" as one of the main leaders of the World Health Organization and adviser to the British and Dutch government alike. Oesterhouse was a familiar face of the media worldwide, which gave him high credibility with governments and organizations. 

But in the October 2009 issue of the prestigious Science magazine made a clear accusation of Ostrahus saying: “During the past six months it has been difficult for one to open a satellite channel without seeing the familiar face of Dr. Albert Usterhouse, but in Last week, his reputation began to collapse after he was accused of spreading a pandemic of fear to strengthen his own economic interests in making vaccines. The Dutch parliament has opened an investigation into the matter. [25]

Oesterhouse was at the head of the horrific people of the swine flu epidemic and shouts of warning in all directions, and after his shouts the world felt very terrified, and when the vaccine was approved by the World Health Organization, people raced to get the medicine, and according to the bank "JP Morgan" has won the major drug companies About $ 9 billion as a result of the World Health Organization declared swine flu a global epidemic [26].

But the truth is that the epidemic was not that big that Oysterhouse and his peers photographed in the organization, which was not borne by Doctor German Velasky when he saw so many commercial interests within the organization, so he decided to go out in the Swiss media to accuse the organization, after working for twenty years, of submission Political blackmail, vote buying, and submission to major capitalist firms [27].

The organization, then, appears to be involved in a number of issues that question its credibility before observers and followers. From accusations of corruption, cronyism and abuse of power to its bias towards economic, political and health interests, through the ambiguity of decision-making mechanisms and the absence of oversight and transparency and the weakness of the means of review and investigation, all this makes the future of the organization a question in light of A world hungry for the reality of managing the organization in the face of facing global epidemics.