Over the past week the world has been transfixed by the US election results as they first rushed in, then trickled slowly. The question of why the results mattered to so many non-Americans is linked to the acknowledged threat posed by the rising tide of nationalism across the globe.
As the world fights a pandemic that has transcended borders, race and class, the pursuit of a global solution has been of fundamental importance. Global solutions, whether in health care, trade or the pursuit of peace, have in the past benefited from the existence of multilateral institutions that force friends and foes to co-operate, consult and compromise rather than engage in conflict.
Of key importance to such institutions is the understanding of the benefits of working together in pursuit of common objectives. And in a world defined by inequalities in resources and capabilities, the ability to leverage the strengths of some to address the weaknesses of others has been the great success story of multilateralism.
When richer countries contribute more than their fair share into the pooled funds that keep these institutions operational, poorer countries benefit from the shared outcomes. However, as we saw in the Trump administration’s funding cuts to the World Health Organisation (WHO), multilateral institutions still have a long way to go to solve their funding models.
Long before Donald Trump pulled the plug at a time when the WHO desperately needed financial support, he had already expressed reservations over how other multilateral institutions were overly dependent on US support. Nato, founded with the express intention of ensuring global peace and security, was — according to Trump — funded disproportionately by the US.
In cases where funding models were established when the balance in global economic power was different from what it is today, Trump may have had a point worth deliberating. The primary targets of his fury — Germany, France and the UK — have historically spent much less than the US on defence costs. In 2019 the BBC estimated the US spend at 3.4% of its GDP, more than double the average of 1.55% spent by the European countries and Canada. In relation to the costs of running Nato’s operations, the US was funding up to 22%. Trump’s great achievement is that from 2021 the US contribution will fall to 16%, with a greater share of the burden spread across the other Nato states.
At the WHO the hostility of the Trump administration highlighted the organisation’s unbalanced funding model. In its current form the model depends on the compulsory assessed contributions of member states and the voluntary contributions of benevolent nations and philanthropists. Over time, as political trade-offs and the fluctuating fortunes of member states affected their ability to meet their obligations, the WHO gravitated towards a greater dependency on voluntary contributions.
This practice has led to assessed contributions making up a small fraction of the funding. The risk that always existed with this approach is that the WHO’s ability to extract funding from benevolent benefactors is linked to the economic fortunes of the world at large. As the pandemic the WHO seeks to conquer decimates economic outcomes, this core funding is under serious threat.
The lesson for the WHO is that while Trump’s intentions had little to do with the quest to fix fragile but important institutions, his actions have forced an acceleration in adapting to the challenges of the prevailing times. And given that he still polled more than 70-million votes in the election, the ideas espoused by Trump clearly resonate with a significant part of the US electorate.
As such, the risk exists that another Trump may emerge in the near future. When that happens one can only hope multilateralism, and the institutions underpinning it, are far more resilient than they have turned out to be in the age of Trump.
• Sithole (@coruscakhaya) is an accountant, academic and activist.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.