In an essay published in the Sankei Shimbun, Jun Sakurada, professor at Toyo Gakuen University, argues that the WHO’s China-leaning conduct during the Wuhan virus crisis represents the erosion of the liberal international order. Although the United States has contributed far more funds to the WHO than China, China has exercised disproportionate influence within the organization, revealing the need for fundamental reform or even the creation of an alternative institution.

May 12, 2020
While the United States contributes approximately 15 percent of the total, 553.1 million dollars, about 59.5 billion yen, China contributes only 0.21 percent of the total, 7.9 million dollars, about 850 million yen.
The following is from an essay by Jun Sakurada, professor at Toyo Gakuen University, published in today’s Sankei Shimbun under the title “The WHO Violating the ‘Liberal International Order.’”
During the “pandemic” of the Wuhan virus disaster, U.S. President Donald Trump, who had criticized the policy response of the World Health Organization under Director-General Tedros Adhanom, announced on April 14 that the United States would temporarily suspend funding to the WHO.
Trump’s Persuasive Argument
In connection with this, AFP News, in its Japanese electronic edition distributed on April 17, accurately explained the WHO’s “financial circumstances.”
Broadly speaking, the WHO budget consists of two pillars: “assessed contributions” allocated to all member states, and “voluntary contributions” made voluntarily by member states, international organizations, and private organizations. Of the budget of 5.62 billion dollars, about 605 billion yen, recorded for the multi-year period 2018–2019, assessed contributions amounted to 957 million dollars, about 103 billion yen, while voluntary contributions, which made up the larger portion, amounted to 4.3 billion dollars, about 460 billion yen.
According to the article, in terms of “assessed contributions,” the United States contributes 237 million dollars, about 25.5 billion yen, accounting for 25 percent of the total assessed contributions, while China contributes 76 million dollars, about 8.2 billion yen, accounting for 8 percent of the total.
When one looks at “voluntary contributions,” the difference between the United States and China in financial contributions to the WHO becomes even more striking.
While the United States contributes approximately 15 percent of the total, 553.1 million dollars, about 59.5 billion yen, China contributes only 0.21 percent of the total, 7.9 million dollars, about 850 million yen.
In other words, compared with China, the United States has contributed three times as much in assessed contributions and seventy times as much in voluntary contributions to the WHO.
From the standpoint of “Trump’s America,” the logic becomes this: “Why is China, which contributes in substance only one-eighth as much money as the United States, acting so arrogantly in the WHO? Why does the WHO allow itself to be dominated by China?”
It can already be said to be a well-known fact that the WHO, out of consideration for China, has excluded Taiwan and has, in substance, tolerated China’s “concealment and distortion of numbers” concerning the virus disaster.
Therefore, the logic of “Trump’s America” has a considerable degree of persuasiveness.
This response by President Trump cannot simply be dismissed as a reckless act under the preconceived notion that “whatever Trump does is….”
In fact, within the Republican Party in the U.S. Congress, a movement has also begun to appear calling for “Tedros’s head” in exchange for the resumption of U.S. funding.
In response to U.S. pressure on the WHO, with the executive and legislative branches acting in step, the Chinese government, which has in effect half-privatized the authority of the WHO, will likely resist.
After the virus disaster is brought under control, the renewal of the WHO’s system and management, including the position of Director-General Tedros, will likely emerge first as a focus of international politics.
The Concept of Creating a “WHO Alternative Organization”
In addition, what greatly interests me is the fate of the concept of creating a “WHO alternative organization,” which President Trump was reported to be considering in conjunction with the suspension of funding.
The U.S. political magazine Politico, in an article distributed on April 10, named the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS, as a possible receptacle for that concept.
To begin with, specialized agencies under the United Nations, such as the WHO and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, have been positioned as embodying the spirit of the post-World War II “liberal international order,” underpinned by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
However, what the present situation surrounding the WHO suggests is the fact that countries that do not seem to accept the spirit of such a “liberal international order” are exercising influence over these international organizations merely to push through their naked interests, and as a result are corroding the foundations of the “liberal international order.”
The fact that Taiwan, which has shown a clear example of successful response to the virus disaster in the free democratic world, is excluded from the WHO framework symbolically represents the corrosion of that “liberal international order.”
Therefore, if the renewal of the WHO’s system and management is not achieved in the future, and if it continues to remain dubious as a framework of the “liberal international order,” then the concept of creating a “WHO alternative organization” mentioned by President Trump must be taken up for discussion as appropriate.
Once Again, Liberalism Confronts Authoritarianism
If this concept proceeds in the direction of creating something like a “Free Democratic Health and Sanitation Coalition,” based on the original purposes of the “liberal international order,” such as freedom and respect for human rights, with Japan, the United States, Australia, Canada, Western European countries, and Taiwan as core members, then Japan would have meaning in joining it.
There, the broad framework for joint development of pharmaceuticals and the securing of public health would be discussed.
In this way, after the Wuhan virus disaster is brought under control, attention must once again be directed to the “contradictions” contained within the post-World War II international order.
The Cold War structure in which free democratic systems and authoritarian systems confronted each other had not changed, even after the thirty years that passed following the “end of the Cold War.”
(Jun Sakurada)