China News Service, June 2 Question: Why does the US "retreat from the WHO" cause dissatisfaction among all parties?

　　Author: Lu Baixi

　　After going through many twists and turns, the big play of "retreating from the World Health Organization" in the United States has finally settled. On May 29, Trump announced at the White House that because the WHO "refuses to implement the reforms requested by the United States," the United States will terminate its relationship with WHO.

　　This is another "retreat" after the United States withdrew from international agreements such as UNESCO, the United Nations Human Rights Council and other international organizations, as well as climate change, the "Paris Agreement", the "Comprehensive Agreement on the Iranian Nuclear Issue," "Guidance Treaty," and "Open Sky Treaty." "move.

　　What is different from the past is that this move has not only been widely criticized in the United States, but also some international allies of the United States are no longer reserved, straightforwardly expressing dissatisfaction and doubt. Among them, the most representative is the joint statement issued by the European Commission President Von Delaine and the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy Borelli on May 30. The statement reaffirmed the EU’s support for WHO’s leadership of the international community in fighting the epidemic, and urged the United States to reconsider its decision to terminate its relationship with WHO.

　　The primary reason for the dissatisfaction of all parties is that the timing chosen by the United States is too sensitive. According to statistics, since the outbreak of the New Crown Outbreak, the cumulative number of confirmed cases worldwide has exceeded 6.19 million, and the number of deaths has exceeded 370,000. At this critical moment when it is imperative to put aside differences and fight the epidemic together, the United States has chosen to respond to major global concerns in the most "deflated" way. Not only has the United States not become the adhesive for global anti-epidemics, but it has become a disgraceful demolisher. This is really not what a responsible big country should be.

　　Second, the US accusation of poor work at WHO is completely inconsistent with the actual situation. Since the outbreak of the epidemic, WHO has done its utmost to guide and coordinate the global anti-epidemic process, due diligence, and at every critical time point, it has provided scientific advice in a timely manner with a scientific attitude. At the 73rd World Health Assembly held recently, WHO's work received unanimous support from the participating countries. The parties are not excluding the reform of WHO, but are opposed to making changes based on the will of a country.

　　Third, all parties are increasingly seeing what the real purpose of this "retreat" drama in the United States is to shirk their responsibilities by dumping their pots. After Trump began to look for "scapegoats", China first "stroke", followed by WHO. The British "Guardian" pointed out that the US "retreat" seems to confirm the suspicion of many people that Trump never planned to reform the WHO or initiate a dialogue with it, but withdrew from the organization for political reasons. He tried to blame the World Health Organization for the severe new crown epidemic in the United States.

　　Fourth, Trump has obvious cognitive deviations about the US position in WHO. WHO is an international institution composed of 194 sovereign states, and there is no so-called "largest shareholder" and "one-vote veto power." The general consensus among member states is that WHO is responsible to all member states and will not be too close to a country alone, nor will it be centered on a country. Therefore, Trump's remarks about WHO's "partiality to China" are totally untenable.

　　It can be seen from this that the United States' "out-of-group" encounters all parties including allies questioned that it was purely "injustice". The actions of the United States to suppress and blackmail WHO step by step push itself to the opposite of the international community. To rashly withdraw from the framework of an important international public health system and regard international responsibility as nothing, such a willful move will undoubtedly hurt the national credibility of the United States again.

　　After Trump announced his decision to "retire," Dr. Patrice Harris, president of the American Medical Association, said that the severance of relations between the United States and WHO has made it more challenging to escape the public health crisis. Richard Houghton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet of the British Medical Journal, said that the United States decided to withdraw from the WHO at this time "both crazy and frightening." Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zaharova pointed out that the US "retreat" is an international law foundation that tramples on world health cooperation. The tragic scene of the US medical system during the epidemic is sufficient to show that the United States is not qualified to seek leadership in this field.

　　I wonder if these criticisms and doubts in the United States and abroad will have moral pressure on Trump and introspective motivation. As the leader of the only superpower in the world, even if Trump does not intend to allow the United States to perform its special international responsibilities, it should at least allow the United States to perform its basic responsibilities as an ordinary member of the international community. For example, to make up for the arrears of about 200 million US dollars in dues. This requirement is not too high. (Finish)