US withdrawal from WHO: Anti-global or anti- establishment?

We get used to associating President Trump´s policies to anti-globalization, although without taking into account the notorious failure from global institutions and the need to reshape them, is precisely a negative status quo the one that needs to be changed and it is boost by a complex establishment that rules the world. After all, it is about results, not intentions, of actions, not institutions, of citizen´s well being not leaders’ idea of what should be. Particularly now, within the COVID19 crisis is it of especial importance to be certain on immediate results rather than a more abstract and somehow, the idealistic shape of the planet. Making of each concept: “globalization” “establishment” “institutions” “SDG´s” “nationalisms” a deep analysis that leads us to accuracy beyond Media and political marketing.

Is not just about transparency but also to get a true and deep sense of each, sometimes, confusing political move. During COVID19 it is exposed that they are many agendas overlapped, in and out the political arena that must be addressed carefully and apply the correct solutions for each country and their situation.

As you all know my blog is focused on reshaping the current global model, which seems easy to understand, however, it demands to be more precise: I believe in the philosophical principles of globalization not that so of the current structure and weird manipulation of global institutions. Global is basically about fluid communications and freedom of movements and services, not bureaucratic institutions that do not deliver. This conclusion leads us directly to the fact that they are anti-global supporters because of the institutional crisis and they are global supporters –like me- that we would like to continue towards reforms and the change of the continuity of a model that is proven not to be working on economic-financial stability and security frameworks. Finally, they are global supporters that do not see the need to change much and trust in the continuity of the current model.

Since Pres. Donald Trump enters into the political arena repeatedly stress the fact that he is an anti-establishment supporter although all their messages especially on migration lead us to think that he is also anti-global. After all this time we conclude that their policies are nationalists, however, the global chaos gets to a point that being a global or anti-global supporter supposes the need to change the establishment.

 We have wrongly relied on the entire world stability to global institutions, not necessary to global policies or actions, therefore within global results. It is a true failure on accountability and even more, on transparency. It is for this reason that there is not a deep analysis of US policies after the Cold War and their real impact on the rest of the world, within a powerful role among United Nations.

Leaders as Trump comes to highlight these contradictions unfortunately from a nationalist message but with a true basis: global institutions are part of a negative establishment and several decades of military intervention-for example in the Middle East-that has not delivered peace to the region by the contrary it has fueled more violence –directly linked to funding small groups and then paradoxically, fighting against them.

Until Trump´s arrival, there was a steady action, unilateral and through NATO that has been increasing on violence and number over the last decades. Making of the different Democrats and Republicans Administrations a status quo irremovable. Is it here when radical policies of Trump create a positive change by changing the establishment, although within more confrontation.

The question is: are global institutions enough reliable to trust on them for solutions? Or at just big structures out of accountability and financial transparency? Have we made a true auditory of their actions in the last decades?.

We always associated global institutions with the” power of Nations”, a way for Nations to be united, although it was not the case for Israel-Palestine conflict or for the rest of the multiple crises that remain the same despite the pass of time.

 Why the ambitious goal of a world “made by SDGs” it is becoming a challenge when there is supposed to be a strong political will on its side?. Because there is not such strong political will and is at risk to become obsolete if there is not a different and innovative action from global institutions or/and pressure from Governments. Nationalisms are correct on reject global institutions if there are not effective responses but are it also a fact that they are not in the hands of Nations but mostly in private interests. That is the establishment that must be erased without canceling the structures but to make deep reforms on it and re-focused them to their real purposes.

Recently we have heard about the accusations against Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation concerning COVID19 and their biased humanitarian actions in Africa and India in particularly related to vaccination human experiments. We also see that their Foundation is on top of World Health Organization donors, which raises questions about their real goals and their levels of accountability.

Once again accountability mechanisms are the key for which the whole system collapses and boosts renewed feelings of nationalism and selfish private interests.

Nowadays within COVID19, nationalisms must be seen through new perspectives and reactions to crises that are demanding better international coordination rather than global responses, particularly now that there is no enough capacity or available resources to do so.

Is not wrong to break current establishment, what is wrong is this isolated action from the US of “laissez-faire” towards global institutions without any kind of initiatives to change it or to encourage other countries to demand a different management.

Let us move forward towards enlightening global institutions in the hands of Nations within transparency and accountability, not just shadows of what they should be in the hands of private funds that prevent them to truly enter into a sustainable path of international coordination and global goals. 

*United Nations: a big elephant playing with a weakened planet (2016) Mar Introini

*Global institutions: chaotic & unfocused (2015) , Mar Introini

*United Nations: the gap on global governance.(2015), Mar Introini

One thought on “US withdrawal from WHO: Anti-global or anti- establishment?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s