Following Trump, Argentina withdraws from World Health Organization
The announcement on Wednesday echoes a similar move last month from the United States.
Far-right administrations currently govern both countries, and President Javier Milei of Argentina has a close relationship with his US counterpart, Donald Trump.
The two leaders have each criticised the World Health Organization for its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A United Nations agency, the organisation cannot mandate governments to follow its guidance, but it does offer research and recommendations for how countries might collaborate to address public health crises like pandemics.
Still, on Wednesday, Milei blamed the World Health Organization for its advice about physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
'That is why we have decided to leave such a nefarious organization that was the executing arm of what was the greatest experiment in social control in history,' Milei wrote on social media.
He punctuated his message with a campaign slogan: 'LONG LIVE FREEDOM, DAMN IT.'
Milei was elected in 2023 amid spiralling inflation in Argentina. A dark horse in the race, he ran on a platform of slashing government expenses with his signature 'chainsaw' approach.
He has described himself as an 'anarcho-capitalist'. But while month-to-month inflation has stabilised under his leadership, Argentina's poverty rate has climbed to upwards of 50 percent.
Critics have blasted his administration for cutting key public services over the past year that might have help address this crisis, including funding for soup kitchens that provide food for the poor.
Argentina contributes approximately $8.257m to the World Health Organization, as of 2024.
In an official government news release, however, Milei's administration accused the organisation of heightening Argentina's economic crisis.
'Quarantines caused one of the greatest economic catastrophes in world history,' the official statement read.
It alleged that self-distancing models ran afoul of the Rome Statute of 1998, which establishes the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction over key international crimes, like genocide and crimes against humanity.
The WHO's guidance about self-isolating, Milei's government argued, was itself a crime against humanity.
'In our country, the WHO supported a government that left children out of school, hundreds of thousands of workers without income, led businesses and SMEs [small- and medium-sized enterprises] to bankruptcy, and still cost us 130,000 lives,' its statement said.
Milei's government also questioned the integrity of the World Health Organization's research.
'Today the evidence indicates that the WHO's recipes do not work because they are the result of political influence, not based on science,' the statement said.
The heated rhetoric was a reflection of Trump's similar order on January 20.
Hours after he was inaugurated into a second term as US president, Trump signed an executive order rescinding US funding from the World Health Organization, alleging a 'mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic'.
Trump also accused the agency of an 'inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states'.
The US is the single biggest contributor to the World Health Organization's budget, responsible for 14.4 percent of its budget or close to $1bn. Its withdrawal is expected to cause cost-cutting — and potential rollbacks of services.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
US withdraws from WHO pandemic response reforms
Washington, DC – The United States has withdrawn from reforms introduced by the World Health Organisation (WHO) last year to enhance the global response to pandemics, part of a broader push by Washington against international regulations. The administration of President Donald Trump formally rejected on Friday the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) that were put in place in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F Kennedy announced the move in a joint statement, saying that it aims to 'prevent international bureaucrats from shaping US domestic policies'. The legally binding amendments expanded the regulations to enhance the international response to a future pandemic. They included the adoption of a clear definition of what constitutes a pandemic emergency and how it can be triggered, as well as efforts to improve information-sharing between countries across the world and WHO. The amendments also called for allowing poorer nations access to medical products to 'equitably address the needs and priorities of developing countries'. The US officials took issue with several provisions in the reforms. 'Terminology throughout the 2024 amendments is vague and broad, risking WHO-coordinated international responses that focus on political issues like solidarity, rather than rapid and effective actions,' Rubio and Kennedy said in their statements. Lockdowns and vaccine mandates were a contentious political issue in the US during the pandemic, with right-wing activists close to Trump leading the charge in rejecting the measures. At the same time, US conservatives have long been suspicious of multilateral institutions, viewing international rules as an infringement on the US's sovereignty. But advocates of global health regulations argue that pandemics do not stop at borders, and therefore must be confronted with a collaborative, international effort. Shortly after taking office earlier this year, Trump officially announced that the US would pull out of WHO altogether by January 2026. On Friday, Kennedy and Rubio said the amendments 'compel countries to adopt digital health documents'. 'Our Agencies have been and will continue to be clear: we will put Americans first in all our actions and we will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans' speech, privacy, or personal liberties,' the officials said. 'These amendments risk unwarranted interference with our national sovereign right to make health policy.' While the reforms require WHO to develop and improve a database for digital health certificates that can be accessed internationally, participants would voluntarily submit information to the documents. During the pandemic, most countries, including the US during Trump's first term, required travellers to show negative COVID tests. The US was absent in May when WHO adopted a separate agreement to enhance pandemic preparedness. COVID, which caused flu-like symptoms and started to spread early in 2020, killed nearly 70 million people across the globe and brought the world to a halt for long stretches of time.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Israel's narrative cannot survive the truth, so it's silencing the world
We are living in truly extraordinary times. We recently witnessed the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, being sanctioned by the United States for doing her job – that is, documenting Israel's abuses against Palestinians during its ongoing military assault on Gaza. But with more than 58,000 Palestinians killed to date in Gaza, the case for Israel is weaker than ever. So, for Israel's sake, we need to silence and ban everything. Of course, silencing and censorship have been the modus operandi of the pro-Israel camp since October 2023. In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack on Israel, they came for all those who insisted that the history of Palestine and Israel did not begin on October 7, 2023, and for pointing to the longer history of occupation, settler colonialism, or the siege of Gaza since 2007 – they were silenced, censored, and punished. Those were the days of the now‑discredited reports of 'beheaded babies'. Across the US and Europe, some faced death threats and social media attacks, while others were reprimanded by employers and line managers for criticising Israeli policies or publicly expressing pro-Palestinian views. In schools across Maryland, Minnesota, Florida and Arizona, teachers were suspended and student clubs shut down for pro-Palestine activism. University professors in the US and the United Kingdom were reported to the police for 'liking' or sharing pro-Palestinian social media posts. In May 2024, Maura Finkelstein became the first tenured academic to be dismissed for anti-Zionist speech. She was fired from Muhlenberg College after posting a Palestinian poet's work. Between October 2023 and now, there have been scores of such cases around the world. Only a few days ago, four adjunct professors at the City University of New York were dismissed for their Palestine solidarity activism. Then they came for the press. While the foreign press has been banned from entering Gaza, Palestinian journalists there have been treated as legitimate military targets by Israel. On average, 13 journalists have been killed per month – a toll higher than that of 'both World Wars, the Vietnam War, the wars in Yugoslavia and the United States war in Afghanistan combined'. It is the deadliest conflict for media workers ever recorded. Elsewhere, journalistic voices – especially those of Middle Eastern or North African descent – have been systematically silenced for supporting the Palestinian cause or criticising the Israeli government. This includes Australian radio host Antoinette Lattouf, who was dismissed in December 2023 after posting a Human Rights Watch report alleging that 'Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza'. Palestinian-Canadian journalists Yara Jamal (CTV) and Zahraa al-Akhrass (Global News, during maternity leave) were both sacked in October 2023, following pressure from Honest Reporting Canada. Briahna Joy Gray and Katie Halper were also fired from Hill News for statements critical of Israel. Gray announced on X: 'The Hill has fired me … there should be no doubt that … suppressing speech – particularly when it's critical of the state of Israel.' Beyond dismissals, Western media executives have shaped the narrative, repeating Israeli propaganda, mischaracterising Palestinian activism as pro-Hamas or anti-Semitic, portraying Israelis as victims far more often than Palestinians, and whitewashing Israeli war crimes in Gaza. The BBC, in particular, has faced repeated criticism for its pro-Israel bias. From the language used in headlines to the disproportionate airtime given to Israeli officials, its reporting has consistently been accused of downplaying Palestinian suffering and mirroring Israeli government talking points. Staff resignations, open letters, and public protests have all challenged the broadcaster's editorial stance on Gaza. At Upday, Europe's largest news aggregator owned by Axel Springer, employees were instructed to 'colour the company's coverage of the war in Gaza with pro‑Israel sentiment'. Internal documents obtained by The Intercept revealed staff were told not to 'push anything involving Palestinian casualty tolls' unless 'information about Israel' was given 'higher up in the story'. There is more. After October 7, students at Harvard were subjected to terrifying doxxing campaigns labelling them anti-Semitic or terrorist sympathisers, their photos and personal data shared publicly. As Israel's scholasticide continued in Gaza, the silencing spread on campuses across the US and Europe. Palestine solidarity encampments saw students demanding their institutions cut ties with Israeli universities and the military‑industrial complex. They faced brutal police crackdowns, suspensions, and some were denied graduation. Universities swiftly imposed new restrictions on gatherings and protests to curb student Palestine solidarity. Now, under a Trump administration, such suppression is public policy, extending to threats of arrest, denaturalisation and deportation for pro‑Palestinian voices, including lawmakers like NYC mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani. Trump falsely labelled him 'illegal', branded him a 'communist', and threatened arrest if he obstructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 'operations' – echoing GOP Representative Andy Ogles's call for denaturalisation and deportation, citing alleged misrepresentations in Mamdani's naturalisation without any evidence. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the Justice Department had received related requests. We have also seen Palestinian flags banned at sporting and music events. Individuals have been refused entry into public venues and businesses for wearing a keffiyeh. The International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, was warned that he and the ICC would be 'destroyed' if they did not drop the case against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. Four ICC judges were sanctioned by the US government. Academy Award‑winner Susan Sarandon was dropped by her talent agency, UTA, for remarks at a Palestine solidarity rally. Melissa Barrera was dismissed from the cast of Scream VII for social media posts describing Israeli actions as genocide and ethnic cleansing. Spyglass Media Group stated it has 'zero tolerance for antisemitism … including false references to genocide, ethnic cleansing, Holocaust distortion'. Recently, performers like Bob Vylan and Irish group Kneecap used their platforms at music festivals to show solidarity with Palestine. The group now faces terror charges. Vylan's shows in Europe were cancelled, and his US visa revoked, putting an upcoming tour of the country in doubt. The pro-Israel camp also launched a campaign against the Glastonbury Festival after both artists performed there in June. They targeted the BBC for airing the performances live and pressured organisers to distance themselves from the musicians. The backlash made clear that even major cultural institutions are not safe from censorship efforts. Adding to this troubling trend, widely respected Israeli‑American historian and genocide scholar Omer Bartov has become a focal point of a fierce backlash. In an op‑ed for The New York Times, titled 'I'm a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It', Bartov declared that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, pointing to the systematic infrastructure destruction, forced population shifts and rhetoric by Israeli leaders, arguing it matches both UN and legal definitions of genocide. Since then, he has been slammed by pro‑Israel factions, accused of misapplying the term and urged to be 'cancelled', a campaign he rebuts by highlighting that many genocide studies experts share his conclusion. The reputational assault currently faced by Bartov demonstrates how even the world's leading genocide experts are now being targeted for naming Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide. This may already appear to be an extensive campaign of suppression. But consider: what does it say about Israel's position if it relies so heavily on censorship? Nonetheless, it remains insufficient. For Israel's sake, every student, academic, activist, musician, artist or lawmaker who criticises its policies must now be branded a terror supporter. Every civil society organisation, human rights group or international body documenting Israeli abuses must be labelled anti-Semitic. Only then can we claim we saw nothing. Only then can we say we heard nothing. And only then can we justify why we did nothing when the genocide was ongoing in Gaza. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Qatar Tribune
3 days ago
- Qatar Tribune
Brussels kicks off two years of budget battles with new plan
Agencies The European Commission will kickstart two years of tense negotiations when it unveils its proposal Wednesday for the EU's long-term budget including funding reforms that risk renewed confrontation with farmers. EU chief Ursula von der Leyen has to balance a growing list of priorities including bolstering the bloc's security, ramping up Europe's competitiveness to keep up with US and Chinese rivals, countering climate change and paying debts due from 2028. And all of this against a backdrop of soaring trade tensions with the European Union's biggest commercial partner, the United States. The 2028-2034 budget could be worth 1.7 trillion euros, with the commission creating an umbrella 'competitiveness fund' worth over 500 billion euros, EU officials said—but with discussions ongoing, this could change. Von der Leyen could also announce a fund for Ukraine, worth up to 100 billion euros. One of the biggest challenges ahead will be over the size of the budget, as the EU's biggest—and richest—countries want to avoid paying more. But unlike in the previous budget, the EU has debts due from the COVID pandemic, when states teamed up to borrow 800 billion euros to support the bloc's economy. These are estimated to cost 25-30 billion euros a year from 2028. The European Parliament has made it clear that an increase will be necessary. 'We believe that the union cannot do more with the same amount or less. So we believe that in the end, an increase of the budget will be unavoidable,' said Siegfried Muresan, the EU lawmaker who will lead negotiations on behalf of parliament. The previous 2021-2027 budget was worth around 1.2 trillion euros ($1.4 trillion) and made up from national contributions—around one percent of the member states' gross national income—and money collected by the EU such as customs duties. Von der Leyen plans to propose new ways of raising money including taxes on large companies in Europe with annual net turnover of more than 50 million euros, according to a draft document seen by AFP. An area of fierce debate will be the large farming subsidies that make up the biggest share of the budget, known as the common agricultural policy (CAP). Brussels plans to integrate it into a new major 'national and regional partnership' fund, according to another document—which farmers fear will mean less support. The CAP accounts for almost a third of the current seven-year budget—around 387 billion euros, of which 270 billion euros are directly paid to farmers. Centralizing 'funding into a single fund may offer some budgetary flexibility, but it risks dissolving' the CAP with 'fewer guarantees', pan-European farmers' group Copa-Cogeca has said. Farmers will put pressure on the commission from the outset, with hundreds expected to protest outside the building in Brussels on Wednesday. That will raise fears in Brussels after protests broke out last year across Europe by farmers angry over cheap imports, low margins and the burden of environmental rules. Muresan, who belongs to the biggest parliamentary group, the centre-right EPP, urged the same level of funding for the CAP, 'adjusted for inflation'. The commission has stressed the CAP will continue with its own rules and financial resources, especially direct aid to farmers. Brussels could however propose reviewing how CAP payments are calculated to better target beneficiaries. For example, the commission wants to cap aid per hectare at 100,000 euros—a thorny issue unlikely to garner much support. Facing new costs and competing challenges, the EU wants to tap new sources of funding—fast. In one document, the commission suggests the bloc take a share from higher tobacco excise duties and a new tax on non-recycled electronic waste. Such a move, however, is 'neither stable nor sufficient', according to centrist EU lawmaker Fabienne Keller, critical of giving new tasks to Brussels 'without the necessary means to accomplish them'. Wednesday's proposal will launch difficult talks over the budget and is expected to 'as usual, end with five days of negotiations' between EU capitals, an official said.
