$500m pledge makes China top WHO donor after US withdrawal
China has pledged $500 million over five years to the World Health Organization, stepping in as the largest state donor after the United States' withdrawal from the United Nations health agency.
Chinese Vice Premier Liu Guozhong made the commitment during the 78th World Health Assembly in Geneva. The pledge comes as the WHO grapples with its deepest financial crisis in decades, caused by President Donald Trump's decision in January to withdraw from the agency and stop funding. The U.S., previously the largest contributor, left a $600 million shortfall in the organization's 2025 budget.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SoraNews24
2 hours ago
- SoraNews24
'Matcha crisis' emerges as the world falls in love with powdered green tea
A matcha crisis isn't fun and games like Time Crisis. It's hard and grueling like Dino Crisis . Once the hidden gem of Japanese tea ceremonies and confectionery, the carefully ground green tea known as 'matcha' has taken the world by storm with its vibrant green color, complex taste that seems to complement sweetness perfectly, and health benefits. But now, those in the industry are starting to wonder if the ingredient can handle getting this big. ▼ I'm just going to keep telling myself this is healthy because it has matcha in it. In order to achieve the best color and flavor in matcha, the plants' exposure to sunlight needs to be carefully regulated. This means the very best matcha you're likely to find is grown on a small scale with a high degree of personal attention. Even with attempts to modernize and industrialize production, there are still limitations because certain processes like growing the plants and grinding the leaves need to be done very slowly in order to be done properly. Since production can't be sped up, it would have to be expanded in order to produce more, and seeing the potential for matcha exports, the government began subsidizing green tea production a couple years ago in the hopes of focusing Japan's shrinking agricultural labor force on the coveted ingredient. Meanwhile, China stepped into the game too a while back and is currently the leading producer of matcha in the world. However, much of that is sold in their own gigantic domestic market and since they focus more on efficiency in production, it could be said that the quality is lower. ▼ These green tea plants in Saitama Prefecture are being grown in full sunlight, which means they cannot be used for matcha. The recent trade chaos caused by U.S. President Donald Trump may give Japan a competitive edge against China as Japan is expected to get a more lenient deal in the very sizable American market. Unfortunately, that probably won't make a difference, because even despite Japan's efforts at more than doubling matcha production in the past 10 years, that still won't be enough to meet the increasingly ravenous worldwide demand for the stuff. According to a tea buyer in the U.K., sales of matcha-flavored drinks have tripled in the past year alone and have even surpassed that of the classic Earl Grey there. Some in other countries like the U.S. said they have completely given up coffee in favor of matcha. A vendor in Ireland remarked that Japan will probably need to increase its production by 10 times in the next five years in order to keep up. Considering the fact that farmers of all kinds are literally a dying breed in Japan, a 10-fold increase seems unlikely unless a radical solution can be found. Many in the industry are saying we're already in the midst of what they call a 'matcha crisis' with it being hard to secure, and if both supply and demand continue on their current course we may end up in a full-blown matcha supply shock. ▼ A news report on the matcha crisis… I feel bad for those girls who probably had no idea they would appear on Japanese TV with 'MATCHA CRISIS' underneath. This could cause prices to spike hard and throw the future of matcha as we know it into turmoil. With the demand being what it is, it would seem likely that buyers in other countries would turn to more quickly produced and inferior matcha both from Japan and China, lowering the bar for a drink and ingredient once only made with an extremely high degree of craftsmanship. Many online comments in Japan felt that rising prices would preemptively help protect the integrity of Japan's more finely produced matcha and put it on the level of a high-class ingredient that it deserves. 'Japan has been selling it too cheaply. It should be marketed as a high-end product because it is.' 'This could just be a fad too, like bubble tea or tiramisu. Increasing production for now is fine, but you need to be prepared for after.' 'I don't think matcha is a passing fad because it can be used in so many ways.' 'Why don't they sell it for more?' 'This global demand probably doesn't know what good matcha tastes like, so the market will be flooded with poor-quality stuff.' 'Raise prices and make more of it so we can get some money over here.' 'Alright, who told everyone that matcha is delicious?' 'Looks like taking matcha snacks as a present for my trip to Europe was the right choice.' 'I work at a store in a tourist-heavy area and everyone is buying matcha stuff.' 'The matcha used in the tea ceremony is very carefully made. I hope this wave of commercialism doesn't affect that.' Indeed, matcha might've done well to follow the sake model in which it is marketed as a luxury drink and tends to sell for a premium overseas due to the high degree of technique that often goes into making it. But in the end, it will probably splinter off into something like chocolate where you'll have a more clear-cut range of co-existing options from the exquisitely crafted and highly expensive kinds to the stuff they use to mass produce KitKats. Source: TV Asahi News, The Guardian, Kyodo, YouTube/ANNnewsCH Photos ©SoraNews24 ● Want to hear about SoraNews24's latest articles as soon as they're published? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!
Japan Times
a day ago
- Japan Times
Trump's WHO withdrawal could cost the U.S. dearly
While the COVID-19 pandemic is firmly in the past for many Americans, U.S. households continue to bear the costs of infectious-disease outbreaks. A few months ago, the price of eggs in the United States soared to a record high, largely owing to the spread of H5N1 bird flu. Since March 2024, the virus has ravaged U.S. chicken farms, leading to tens of millions of poultry deaths from infection or culling. More ominously, at least 70 human cases of bird flu have been identified in the U.S., with one death reported in Louisiana. In a recent report about enhancing the response to H5N1 in America and globally, the Global Virus Network, a consortium of the world's top virologists, warned of 'the terrible consequences of underreacting to current threats.' But while bird flu poses the most immediate risk to Americans, it is by no means the only one. Virulent infectious-disease outbreaks in other countries, such as mpox in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ebola in Uganda, Marburg in Tanzania and multicountry outbreaks of cholera do not respect borders and thus are a threat to people everywhere — including in the U.S. Without the efforts of the World Health Organization to contain these outbreaks, the risks of wider transmission would be much greater. This underscores the need for a global agency like the WHO to supervise cross-border cooperation — and the shortsightedness of U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the organization. Despite being the world's richest and most powerful country, America is not immune to another COVID-19-style calamity and abandoning multilateralism and neglecting pandemic preparedness (such as the stockpiling of treatments and vaccines) will make it all the more vulnerable. One might think that the deadly spread of COVID-19, prolonged by the emergence of new virus strains, would convince policymakers to strengthen the world's public-health architecture — especially as experts warn that future pandemics could be even worse. But with other leaders indicating that they may follow Trump's example and leave the WHO, the resources for pandemic prevention and control could dwindle to the point that global outbreaks become more frequent and difficult to overcome. If Trump follows through with the move, his administration will become increasingly isolated and impotent. American officials, including at U.S. military installations abroad, will lose access to the WHO-led and -facilitated global networks that collect and share information about infectious-disease threats and respond to outbreaks. Moreover, the U.S. government will have no say in developing new solutions (which will almost invariably be less effective) for controlling the spread of diseases across borders — including its own. Trump has suggested that he may change his mind, presumably if the grievances set out in his executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the organization are addressed. This implies that the WHO should apply pressure on China to identify the pandemic's origins. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, for his part, has refused to accept the Chinese government's prevarications. If Trump can propose a way to determine the cause of COVID-19, I am sure that the WHO's leadership would gladly hear it. Trump's second condition is that the WHO undertake reforms and use its resources more effectively at the local level, with a greater focus on stopping the spread of infectious diseases. This is a demand that can and should be met. To that end, Tedros has already promised more targeted use of funds and implemented other measures to transform the organization. In addition, under Tedros, the WHO has transformed the way it raises funds. Its member states have sharply increased their annual contributions and it has diversified its donor base to share the funding load more widely. This is all part of the WHO's drive to be more sustainably financed, a plan launched as part of Tedros's effort to transform the organization's operations after he took office in 2017. Back then, he and member states assessed that the departure of a major donor could leave the WHO's programs and independence vulnerable to funding shocks. Who knew it would be the U.S. But, had those changes not been made, we can only imagine how much more challenging the WHO's current financial situation would be. The Trump administration should welcome these changes, not least because it benefits from having a seat at the table. If the U.S. ultimately abandons the WHO, developing evidence-based guidance and regulations for chronic-disease prevention and management will be significantly harder, undermining the administration's goal of addressing America's chronic-disease epidemic. The U.S. will also no longer be a part of the WHO's medicine prequalification process, a program that opens a host of new markets for drug producers in a cost-effective manner. Instead, U.S. pharmaceutical companies will be forced to sell their prequalified products to each country individually, putting them at risk of losing access to highly profitable multibillion dollar markets. Twenty-first-century trends — including more mobility and international travel, greater urbanization and increasing human encroachment on nature — fuel the global spread of infectious diseases, to the detriment of everyone. U.S. officials would be better positioned to protect their citizens if they joined — and perhaps even led — a discussion on how the WHO and other global health organizations, such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, can meet the world's needs. One such initiative, in which the U.S. had been a strong partner until Trump took office, was to negotiate a WHO Pandemic Agreement, which WHO member states adopted by consensus at the World Health Assembly on May 20. This historic compact, based on the principles of equity, collaboration and the reaffirmation of national sovereignty in public-health decision-making, will make the world safer from future pandemics. The U.S., bolstered by its world-class medical professionals and substantial public investment in medical research, has long exerted considerable influence on global health priorities. But withdrawing from the WHO places America on the outside, unable to shape the agency's policy agenda and reforms. When the next pandemic strikes, the U.S. will be left watching from the sidelines, as the WHO and its remaining member countries manage the global response and pick up the pieces as they see fit. Gordon Brown, a former prime minister of the United Kingdom, is U.N. Special Envoy for Global Education and Chair of Education Cannot Wait. © Project Syndicate, 2025.
The Mainichi
a day ago
- The Mainichi
Editorial: With WHO Pandemic Agreement, global cooperation needed to raise its efficacy
Member countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted an agreement at a general meeting that sets forth a response the international community should take in the event of a future pandemic. Multilateral cooperation must be strengthened and measures to protect lives must be advanced. During the coronavirus pandemic, which claimed more than seven million lives, WHO was delayed in its initial response, leaving developing countries unable to secure sufficient vaccine supplies due in part to hoarding by developed nations. The Pandemic Agreement aims to address these shortcomings and create a global environment in which everyone can benefit equally from medical care. Under the initiative, advanced nations support developing countries in securing medicinal products and procuring funds. In exchange for collecting information on pathogens necessary for drug development and providing it to pharmaceutical companies WHO will receive at least 10% of vaccines produced as a donation. These vaccines will then be distributed to developing countries. The detailed design of the system will be finalized over the next year. WHO member states will also work to develop domestic laws to request pharmaceutical firms to supply vaccines. The agreement will take effect upon ratification by 60 countries. The question is how effective the agreement will prove. The United States, a pharmaceutical powerhouse, was absent from the General Assembly after President Donald Trump's administration announced the country's withdrawal from the WHO. Unless major U.S. drugmakers, which led the world in the development of COVID-19 vaccines, participate in the donation program, meaningful results cannot be expected. A system to encourage companies to join the initiative must be established. Washington has also stopped contributing operating funds to WHO, compelling the latter to significantly slash its budgets and undergo restructuring. This is likely to hinder efforts to secure personnel for assisting developing countries. The negotiations, which began in 2022, came to a brink of collapse after the rift between developed and developing nations deepened. Yet, the world has no alternative to WHO as a control tower when a pandemic arrives. It deserves credit that member countries came together and drew up the new rules after extending negotiations by a year amid the U.S. absence. False information over the agreement, such as that WHO will forcibly vaccinate people, became viral worldwide via social media. There is no such clause, and the agreement stipulates that the sovereignty of member states will be respected. Both the WHO and its members should exhaust all efforts to send out correct information. A new pandemic could occur at any time. Countries must take the adoption of the agreement as an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of international cooperation.
