Revision summary
A U.S. exit from WHO cuts funds, programmes and legitimacy and pushes health into minilateral and philanthropic patches. COVID-19 already showed weak IHR compliance, earmarked budgets and vaccine inequity. Reimagining means unearmarked dues, a fairer pandemic accord, One Health and regional manufacturing. China-filling-the-gap politics and anti-UN populism are part of the shock, not a side issue. India needs both sovereignty over health data and a standing rules forum for the next pathogen.
Model answer
Introduction
- The World Health Organization is the UN system’s health steering wheel: norms, International Health Regulations, naming of emergencies, and a thin budget that still shapes what poorer states can do. A United States withdrawal — threatened in the first Trump term, reversed under Biden, and reopened as high politics in 2025 — is therefore not a clerical notice. It is a shock to global health as a public good.
Body
Far-reaching impacts
The United States has been among WHO’s largest funders, especially through voluntary earmarked money. Exit shrinks outbreak surveillance, polio and HIV programmes, and the political cover for COVAX-style equity. It also invites a China-centred narrative of filling the chair, which Washington itself fears. During COVID-19, vaccine nationalism and fights over origin-tracing already damaged trust. A second American walkout, even if legally staggered, tells others that health multilateralism is optional. States then hedge with minilateral deals, philanthropic vertical funds, and national stockpiles — a patchwork that fails at the next novel pathogen.
Withdrawal also hits legitimacy. WHO’s power is mostly expert and convening, not coercive. If the largest Western democracy treats it as an enemy of sovereignty, anti-vaccine and anti-UN politics elsewhere gain a script. Developing countries that used WHO as a shield in TRIPS-waiver and pandemic-treaty talks lose a forum.
Why reimagine, not only mourn
COVID-19 exposed late alerts, a weak IHR (2005) compliance machinery, chronic underfunding of assessed contributions, and a governance board that mixes science with P5 geopolitics. Africa’s vaccine-manufacturing gap and India’s later vaccine diplomacy both showed that WHO cannot be a charity window for the North. Reimagining means: higher unearmarked dues so the Director-General is not a grant-chaser; a functioning pandemic accord with real benefit-sharing of pathogens and products; One Health links to FAO and UNEP on spillover; regional manufacturing hubs; and a dispute path that does not collapse when great powers sulk.
- India’s interest is dual: protect sovereignty over data and traditional medicine claims, and keep a rules forum so that the next lockdown is not a rich-state cartel. A Global South-sensitive WHO is part of the same argument as a Global South-sensitive globalisation. Salvage is possible without pretending Geneva can replace national public health. The organisation must become harder to exit and fairer to stay in.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD U[US withdrawal] --> M[Money and legitimacy] U --> G[Geopolitical vacuum] R[Reimagine WHO] --> F[Assessed finance] R --> E[Equity and IHR] R --> O[One Health]
Conclusion
U.S. withdrawal punches WHO’s purse and prestige. Reimagining — finance, equity, IHR teeth, One Health — is how the rest of the membership keeps a global health agenda from becoming a great-power leftover.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Transnational actors have qualitatively transformed the world by the way of their fresh insights and actions. Illustrate your answer with suitable examples
Next question in the 2025 paper (Q2). View answer →
-
Can WHO work without the United States?
It can limp. Polio, emergencies and norms would shrink. Other donors cannot fully replace U.S. money or FDA-linked scientific weight.
-
Is a pandemic treaty the whole reform?
No. Treaties without finance and without pathogen- and product-sharing will repeat 2020. Budget reform is as important as legal text.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q3(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Global South-sensitive model of globalization would prevent the danger emanating from overcentralized globalization. Discuss -
2025 · Q4(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
Latin America has made moderate success in countering US-led global economic order by framing various organizations emphasizing regional sovereignty, economic integration and alternative development. Discuss -
2024 · Q6(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the potential role that India could play as the leader of the Global South in realising the goal of establishing a new international economic order in the 21st century.
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the psychological approach to the study of comparative politics.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
The psychological approach studies personality, attitudes, civic culture and cognition in comparative politics. Lasswell, Adorno, Almond and Verba, Easton and later political psychology are the main lineage. It explains voting, protest, obedience and leadership better than a constitution or a class map alone. Surveys, experiments and psychobiography are typical methods. It is a layer, not a substitute for institutions and political economy.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Neo-liberalism lightened neo-realism's dark view of international politics. Comment.
Comparative Politics
Waltzian neorealism pictures anarchy, self-help and relative gains as a dark constant. Keohane and Nye’s neoliberalism keeps anarchy but adds complex interdependence, regimes and absolute gains. Institutions reduce cheating and transaction costs; they do not create a world state. Ukraine, tariffs and health-governance shocks show both residual darkness and institutional repair. The ‘lightening’ is cooperation under anarchy, not the end of power politics.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain the non-traditional security threats in the context of food and environmental crises.
Comparative Politics
Non-traditional security covers harms beyond organised military attack: food, environment, health, cyber and crime. Food security is availability, access, utilisation and stability; war, climate and export bans can all break it. Environmental crisis is a threat multiplier through climate, water, disaster and migration. UNDP 1994 human security and Buzan’s sectors supply the theory. These shocks overload the state and also force cooperation through FAO, WHO, Paris and regional reserves.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.