Foreign news

The Lancet: Cutting ties with WHO will make Americans far less safe

Published

6 years ago

July 12, 2020

Withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) would have “dire consequences” for the security, diplomacy and influence of the United States, said a commentary published Wednesday on The Lancet’s website, the world’s leading medical journal.

“The U.S.A. cannot cut ties with the WHO without incurring major disruption and damage, making Americans far less safe,” said the commentary, which was co-authored by 15 scholars from renowned American universities, the American Public Health Association and the National Academy of Sciences in Argentina.

Trump administration ‘violates U.S. law’

U.S. President Donald Trump announced the country would sever its relationship with the WHO on May 29, one month after he halted U.S. funding to the United Nations health agency over its alleged poor handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Trump administration notified the United Nations of its withdrawal from the WHO earlier this week.

The “unilateral action notifying the UN” violates U.S. law, the commentary said, noting that the Trump administration “does not have express approval of Congress” to quit the organization.

The United States joined the WHO “through a 1948 joint resolution passed by both houses of Congress” and the decision to leave the body and terminate its funding violates a binding condition in that resolution, the article explained.

“The law mandates the U.S.A. must pay its financial obligations for the current fiscal year. Because withdrawal could not occur until next July, the U.S.A. must pay its mandatory WHO contributions through the end of 2021,” it said.

If Trump loses the presidential election in November, a new administration “could simply revoke the withdrawal upon taking office,” it added.

Leaving WHO means ‘limited access to vaccine’

“The WHO has unmatched global reach and legitimacy,” the commentary said. “The U.S. administration would be hard pressed to disentangle the country from WHO governance and programs.”

It noted that “there are 21 WHO collaborating centers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and three at the National Institutes of Health, focused on U.S. priorities.”

A laboratory technician prepares COVID-19 patient samples for semi-automatic testing at Northwell Health Labs, in Lake Success, New York, U.S., March 11, 2020. /AP
When seasonal influenza strikes in autumn, the U.S. “could be cut out of the global system to design annual influenza vaccines” after leaving the WHO, whose Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System collects data worldwide and studies circulating viruses, the scholars said in the article.

“Severing ties with the WHO could impede U.S. access to crucial tools for developing biological countermeasures to influenza,” they stressed.

Currently, the UN body is conducting the “Solidarity Trial” for COVID-19 treatments joined by over 100 countries. “If the U.S.A. does not participate in these WHO initiatives, Americans could have limited access to scarce vaccine supplies, and are likely to be barred from travel to foreign destinations,” the commentary said.

The number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. is over three million, and the death toll has surpassed 132,000. Both numbers are the largest in the world.

A COVID-19 vaccine is vital for both safeguarding public health and safely reopening the society, the scholars pointed out.

In addition, the U.S. would not be able to promote crucial reforms of the WHO after leaving it, they argued.

“Health and security in the U.S.A. and globally require robust collaboration with the WHO – a cornerstone of U.S. funding and policy since 1948,” they said.

Share on Facebook

Foreign news

Court of Arbitration Declares Indus Waters Treaty Fully Operational Rejects India’s ‘Abeyance’

Published

1 month ago

August 31, 2026

The Gleamer

Cyril Ogar

The Court of Arbitration has unanimously reaffirmed that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) remains fully in force, ruling that India cannot unilaterally place the 1960 agreement in “abeyance” or suspend its obligations under the treaty.

The decision represents a significant legal development in the longstanding dispute between India and Pakistan over the management and use of the Indus river system.

The Court’s finding addresses a fundamental issue at the heart of the dispute: whether either party can unilaterally suspend the treaty outside the legal framework agreed by both countries.

In its unanimous determination, the Court made clear that the IWT continues to bind both India and Pakistan and that its obligations cannot be set aside through a unilateral political declaration.

The ruling means India remains subject to the treaty provisions governing the use of the Western Rivers, including requirements relating to the design and operation of hydroelectric projects, as well as the dispute-resolution mechanisms established under the agreement.

The Court has also ordered interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant, restricting specified construction activities while the broader dispute remains under consideration.

The measures are aimed at preserving the effectiveness of the arbitration process and preventing developments that could prejudice the outcome of the proceedings.

For Pakistan, the decision represents significant legal validation of its longstanding position that the IWT is a binding international agreement and contains no provision allowing either party to unilaterally place it in abeyance.

Pakistan has consistently maintained that disagreements over the treaty should be addressed through the institutional mechanisms established by the agreement, rather than through unilateral action.

The IWT provides a structured framework for resolving disputes through mechanisms including the Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration processes.

The latest ruling therefore reinforces the principle that treaty obligations cannot simply be disregarded because of deteriorating political relations between signatories.

The significance of the decision extends beyond the India-Pakistan dispute. It underscores the broader international-law principle that agreements governing shared rivers and other transboundary resources must be respected and disputes resolved through established legal and institutional channels.

The Indus river system supports agriculture, livelihoods, food security and communities across the region, making the stability of the treaty particularly important.

The ruling also highlights the distinction between seeking to amend an international agreement through mutually agreed procedures and attempting to alter its obligations unilaterally.

The IWT has endured wars, prolonged diplomatic tensions and periods of limited bilateral engagement. Its continued operation demonstrates the importance of rules-based mechanisms in managing shared resources when relations between neighbouring states become strained.

For Pakistan, the outcome provides an opportunity to frame the decision not merely as a bilateral legal victory, but as an affirmation of international law, treaty compliance and peaceful dispute resolution.

The central message from the ruling is clear: the Indus Waters Treaty remains in force, its obligations continue to bind both parties, and disputes concerning shared waters must be addressed through the legal mechanisms agreed by India and Pakistan.

Share on Facebook