Should there be limits on private funding to global bodies like the WHO?
UN bodies like the World Health Organization have become more and more reliant on private funding, raising some concerns.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is now the second biggest donor to the WHO, while several UN bodies have received significant corporate donations from the likes of Coca-Cola and L’Oréal. Some say this not only fills a funding gap but also brings more dynamism and innovation. Others worry that big private donors have too much influence over UN policies and are not accountable enough.
What do you think? Should private donors’ roles be limited in some way, or are they a welcome necessity? What do you see as the pros and cons of private funding, compared with funding only from member states? Let us know what you think by joining the conversation below.
Did you know that the current NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg headed Gavi Alliance, the Bill Gates-funded foundation that works to promote the spread of vaccines globally?
Did you know that Bill Gates made huge profits by speculating on Covid 19 vaccines?
Sapevate che l'attuale Segretario Generale della NATO, Stoltenberg, ha diretto Gavi Alliance, la fondazione finanziata da Bill Gates che opera per promuovere la diffusione dei vaccini a livello globale?
Sapevate che Bill Gates ha tratto enormi profitti speculando sui vaccini Covid 19?
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/bill-gates-apres-avoir-realise-denormes-benefices-en-vendant-des-actions-de-biontech-denonce-lefficacite-des-vaccins-contre-la-covid/?lang=fr
Bill Gates funds two specific WHO programs: one on vaccines and one on "synthetic" (artificial meat) and "innovative" (insect meal) foods. Bill Gates has invested in several companies and research laboratories (similar to the one in Wuhan) dealing with synthetic and innovative vaccines and foods. WHO, conditioned by these donations, wants to make its decisions binding on all member states. Do you still wonder what Bill Gates gets out of donating money to WHO?
Bill Gates finanzia due programmi specifici dell'OMS: quello sui vaccini e quello riguardante gli alimenti "sintetici" (carne artificiale) e "innovativi" (farine di insetti). Bill Gates ha investito in diverse aziende e laboratori di ricerca (simili a quello di Wuhan) che si occupano di vaccini ed alimenti sintetici e innovativi. L'OMS, condizionata da queste donazioni, vuole rendere vincolanti per tutti gli Stati membri le proprie decisioni. Vi chiedete ancora cosa ci guadagni Bill Gates a donare soldi all'OMS?
I've been researching all day, the whole organization, learning it's structure, it's defined function, and trying to figure out who actually is in control. No ONE person or entity should have any influence in the policies they implement other than helping to fund more research and humanitarian aid. What I am trying to figure out now is what do the Gates' and other private sector donors stand to gain from it exactly?
Unfortunately, as long as the privatization of health care is allowed to continue, private individuals will continue to get their hands on even the decisions of governments, 'trampling on even their basic constitutionally bound rights!!!!!!!!!
Purtroppo fino a quando si permetterà di continuare sulla strada della privatizzazione della sanità, i privati continueranno a mettere mani anche sulle decisioni dei governi, 'calpestandone anche i diritti di base legati alla costituzione!!!!!!!!!
Has anyone broken any international laws on how these organizations are working? The answer is NO. So, they are operating in perfect order.
More non-sense propaganda.
How about we make companies own Swiss political parties. They decisions seem to be a bit strange. I'd love to see a UK bank buy up a whole party and fire everyone because they are perceived as not making decising for the common good.
The consideration should be whether the help of donations or the harm of private influence is greater, which can be avoided by the system
考慮的應該是捐贈的幫助大還是私人影響的危害大, 可以用制度來避免危害
I don't think so. As Adam Smith said, nothing good comes of businessmen and the state together.
If there is one thing that Liberals and Socialists agree on, it is to point out what is wrong with businessmen who enrich themselves through state favoritism.
Moreover, they give access to power to people who were not elected. Because let's be honest, those who make large contributions, surely acquire a high degree of power and favoritism among lovers of statism and the power of statism over individuals.
No lo creo. Como decia Adam Smith, nada bueno se traen empresarios y el Estado juntos.
Si hay algo en lo que coinciden Liberales y Socialistas es en marcar lo malo de los empresarios que se enriquecen por favoritismos estatales.
Ademas, se les da acceso al poder a personas que no fueron elegidas. Porque seamos sinceros, quienes hacen grandes aportes, de seguro adquieren un alto grado de poder y favoritismos entre los amantes del Estatismo y el poder del.mismo sobre los individuos
On the one hand, this will enhance the independence of United Nations organizations from Governments, thereby enhancing their credibility. On the other hand, this may lead to their falling under the influence of companies, especially in the field of health, so it is an insecure step. At the same time, the funding of countries such as the United States and China should not be relied on because of its negative impact on the performance of the United Nations and its organizations. In fact, all countries of the world should contribute fairly to funding.
من جهة سيعزز ذلك استقلالية منظمات الأمم المتحدة عن الحكومات مما يعزز مصداقيتها ومن جهة أخرى قد يؤدي ذلك الى وقوعها تحت نفوذ الشركات خاصة في مجال الصحة لذلك فهي خطوة غير امنة. في نفس الوقت لا يجب الاعتماد على تمويل دول كالولايات المتحدة و الصين لما له من تاثيبر سلبي على اداء الامم المتحدة و منظماتها في الواقع يجب ان تساهم جميع دول العالم بشكل عادل في التمويل.
Indeed, countries of the world contribute as soon as possible to funding the WHO budget, but these resources remain far from sufficient. Hence, the use of donations and donations granted by individuals and private companies that do not hesitate to impose certain conditions and set some priorities. Here is the problem!
فعلا، تُساهم دول العالم بشكل أقرب ما يكون للعدالة في تمويل ميزانية منظمة الصحة العالمية لكن هذه الموارد تظل غير كافية بالمرة. من هنا جاءت الاستعانة بالتبرعات والهبات الممنوحة من طرف الأفراد والشركات الخاصة التي لا تتردد في فرض بعض الشروط وتحديد بعض الألأولويات. هنا تكمُن الإشكالية!
UN resolutions are only gaining their dimension after the approval of the big five who never agree, that is, they are ink on paper that does not help and does not remove the sores. The World Health Organization (WHO) has proven to be insane and biased to those who pay the most, and the Chinese Koruna could have been avoided globally if China had not paid a large sum to hide the truth. Whoever believes that one politician is hurt by another's condition is not eligible to be a intellectual person.
قرارات الامم المتحدة لا تكتسب بُعدها إلا بعد موافقة الخمسة الكبار الذين لا يتفقون أبدا، أي أنها حبر على ورق لا تفيد ولا تزيل وجعا. أما منظمة الصحة العالمية فقد ثبت أنها غير عابئة بالانسان ومنحازة لمن يدفع اكثر، وكورونا الصينية كان بالامكان تفاديها عالميا لو لم تدفع الصين مبلغا كبيرا لإخفاء الحقيقة. من يعتقد أن سياسيا واحدا يُؤلمه حال مُزر لآخر غير مؤهل ليكون إنسانا مفكرا .
Thanks for sharing. You look pretty harsh in your judgments. Throughout history, the balance of power has been governed by the progress of things. There is no doubt that the use of the veto power within the UN Security Council prevents the implementation of many important UN resolutions, but some of them find a way to implement when balances and conditions on the ground change. As for the World Health Organization, there is no evidence that China has “paid a large sum to hide” what it called “truth.” Again, let me ask you the question: Do you think that private funding for international organizations and UN agencies should be limited or not?
شكرا على المشاركة. تبدو قاسيا جدا في أحكامك. في كل حقب التاريخ، تحكمت موازين القوى بسير الأمور. لا شك أن استخدام القوى الكبرى لحق النقض داخل مجلس الأمن الدولي يحول دون تنفيذ العديد من القرارات الأممية المهمة ولكن البعض منها يجد طريقة إلى التنفيذ عندما تتغيّر التوازنات والأوضاع فوق الميدان. أما بالنسبة لمنظمة الصحة العالمية، فليس هناك أي دليل على أن الصين "دفعت مبلغا كبيرا لإخفاء" ما وصفتَهُ بـ "الحقيقة". مرة أخرى، اسمح لي بأن أطرح عليك السؤال: هل ترى أنه يجب الحد من التمويلات الخاصة للمنظمات الدولية والوكالات ألأممية أم لا؟
No. Because most of them are politicized to governments that pay more, it is their duty to seek more neutral sources of funding.
لا . لكون أغلبها مسيّس للحكومات التي تدفع أكثر، لذلك فمن واجبها البحث عن مصادر تمويل أكثر حيادية.
Thank you.
شكرا لك.
There should be no limits except controlling the ulterior motives of donors. For example, do those who fund politicians do it out of the goodness of their hearts, or so they can influence politicians to support them? 10% of the people control 90% of the wealth. So, if they want to redistribute their money to those less fortunate than themselves then why stand in their way and stop them. Not enough money is raised via taxes to publicly fund e.g. WHO as the rich do not pay enough. So, let them pay another way, via funding.
I guess the real question is if this should be an NGO where everyone can donate and be involved or if it should be a government organization like the UN or NATO.
It does not really mater if Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos or Oprah donate. Simply decide if it is open to everyone or if it is a government organization. That will clarify once and for all.
Make it part of the UN. All good for everyone. I agree !
Then they can start fighting over which country decides.
I just read the new 2 paragraph post today on your website about WHO which only raises question but have no info what's so ever, so useless
Hello, are you referring to this post? [url]https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/international-geneva_covid-19--who-really-calls-the-shots-/46588960[/url]
If so, you may have overlooked the video at the top, which is an 11-minute explanation of the WHO. The paragraphs below are meant to give a brief summary of what’s in the video.
Yes indeed, my mistake., i just never watch videos here.
You should re-frame your headline. the WHO might be global but who cares! it is already private so why does it matter if it gets more private funding
@Charleszimmermann - Please can you qualify the statement with reference to WHO “it is already private”?
I would say no. This does not mean that we have to accept the views of the donors blindly. Of course the responsible officers of the relevant organisation will have to judge how the funds are used as they are responsible.
Some statistics would be nice on which goals WHO achieved or made progress and by how much in past 10 years compared to WHO projects which Bill Gates is interested in, from that we could see different perspective rather than saying that WHO is influenced.
Thank you for your comment. You might find some more statistics on the Gates and WHO websites. As pointed out in the article, many of their priorities do overlap (e.g. polio eradication and vaccination in general) but not necessarily improving health systems in developing countries (which the WHO perhaps needs to do more of).
These economic giants are welcome to cofinance the WHO, which needs substantial financial resources in order to be able to act efficiently. Why on earth raise useless bogeymen just because they are too powerful? What evil interests could these groups have, who partly deduct from their taxes what they pay for humanitarian purposes? The WHO is not a limited company where shareholders hold the power! These bogeymen, as usual, are stirred up by the international left that is suspicious of any aid coming from the hated capitalist world.
What if it were China that was partly financing the WHO? No criticism, because it is a nation that would be on the side of the people, while its state-capitalist regime is not at all better, nor less arrogant than the western one.
Benvengano questi colossi della economia a cofinanziare l'OMS, che necessita di cospicui mezzi finanziari per poter agire con efficienza. Perché mai agitare spauracchi inutili e solo perché sono troppo potenti? Che interesse malvagi potrebbero mai avere questi gruppi, che in parte detraggono dalle loro imposte ciò che versano a scopi umanitari? L'OMS mica è una società anonima ove degli azionisti detengono il potere! Questi spauracchi, come il solito, vengono agitati dalla sinistra internazionale che vede male, o sospetta di ogni aiuto proveniente dall'odiato mondo capitalista.
E se a finanziare in parte l'OMS fosse la Cina? Nessuna critica, perché è una nazione che starebbe dalla parte del popolo, mentre il suo regime capitalistico di Stato, non è affatto migliore, né meno arrogante di quello occidentale.
Yes.
NO strings attached...
There is certainly a troubling trend of corporations seeking to control the narrative around issues relevant to their brand. For example, the World Economic Forum (WEF) recently announced the formation of something called the European Carbon+ Farming Coalition. This is a body that includes blends credible institutions with some of the worst abusers in agriculture, like BASF, Bayer (arguably the most evil company on the planet), COPA-COGECA, CropIn, European Conservation Agriculture Federation (ECAF), European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT) Food, HERO, Planet Labs, Rabobank, Swiss Re, University of Glasgow, Yara, Zurich and the World Economic Forum.
Another such initiative, is the CEO Water Mandate, a UN Global Compact Initiative, apparently to mobilize business to action on clean water, that has been signed by a rogue's gallery of abusive firms, like Nestle, most of the brewing companies, etc. https://ceowatermandate.org/about/endorsing-companies/
These companies are clearly part of the problem and it is very hard to believe, judging by their past behaviour, they have any intention of delivering on their promise to be better. It seems clear that they are using greenwashing strategies to allow them to continue despoiling the planet and the net result will be harmful.
Their involvement looks and feels a lot like Japan's role in the World Whaling Council, an opportunity to suborn the conversation rather than deliver change.
There is a solution: governments have to hold their feet to the fire. These memberships are an acknowledgement that there is a problem even as these business try to wriggle out of taking responsibility for there role in it. Media, too, can play its part by calling out this kind of nonsense and shaming companies when they pull this kind of stunt.
Thanks, Ian, for this comment and related environmental concerns.
Surely the question is should Bill Gates have any influence at all in the WHO? While he is undeniably an important benefactor, the WHO should not be beholden to any individual's whims (whether good or capricious) and that is why we leave it to disinterested state actors instead. Very dangerous to be giving individuals so much power without proper oversight and supervision be it to Gates, Zuckerberg, Dorsey or Musk..
Thanks for your contribution. One of my interviewees also makes the point that states need to step up their funding to the WHO, particularly untied contributions which would give it more flexibility to set its priorities.
It states that Gates is the second biggest donor, however the Gates foundation is also the GAVI Alliance's biggest donor. The GAVI Alliance is the fourth biggest WHO donor. So if Gates influences Gavi, and Gavi and Gates influence WHO, then Gates has the biggest donation/influence over WHO.
Join the conversation!