The WHO is being transformed into an organisation independent of the founding states
МОСКВА, 19 октября 2021, Институт РУССТРАТ.
There is no doubt that the global backdrop (called the “deep state”, the “Committee of 300”, the “masters of money”, etc) sets the ultimate goal of establishing power over humanity. This power will be exercised by the world government, which will be erected on the ruins of sovereign states.
Drawings of such a world government are already available. And individual elements of the construction of the world government are already being created. This is clearly seen in the example of the World Health Organisation (WHO), which is being transformed into the ministry of the future world government before our eyes. He will be entrusted with the function of implementing the “dictatorship of health”.
The WHO was established by most UN member states in 1948 as a specialised UN body (the same status is held by FAO, UNICEF, ILO, UNESCO, UNEP and many other well-known international organisations). The WHO is headquartered in Switzerland (Geneva).
WHO’s activities began to be carried out on the basis of the Charter, which was adopted on April 7, 1948 (therefore, “Health Day” is celebrated annually on April 7 around the world). It was determined that the main role of WHO is to coordinate the efforts of national States in strengthening public health and combating the most dangerous diseases. WHO has received the right to issue recommendations to member countries. The organization has really done a lot in the fight against tropical diseases, polio, for the eradication of smallpox, etc.
From the very beginning, it was envisaged that the WHO would be funded on the basis of a budget that was autonomous from the general UN budget. The WHO budget is drawn up for two years and is formed from contributions from member states. The amount of contributions will be determined by the economic indicators of the country (first of all, the value of GDP).
There is no secret: the WHO (like probably any other organisation within the UN system) constantly experienced a chronic shortage of funds. More than once, the issue of expanding the financial base of the UN, its programs, funds, and specialised bodies was raised at the UN General Assembly. There were calls for member countries not to limit themselves to mandatory (assessed) contributions, but to supplement them with voluntary state contributions. Some countries have begun to actively increase the voluntary component of government contributions to the WHO budget.
Obviously, the largest donor to the WHO was the United States. It has further increased its financial participation through voluntary contributions. In the past decade, on average, about a third of all government contributions (mandatory and voluntary) accounted for the United States. This approach to expanding the WHO’s financial base had both positive and negative sides.
The negative was that some countries gained additional influence in the organisation. After all, the same US, making another “voluntary contribution”, directly or hinted that this money should be used for this and that. Washington could not say anything at all: all WHO officials understood what projects and programs the “voluntary contributions” of the United States should be used for. And if the use is different, then next year the donor may not provide “voluntary donations”.
In the current century, WHO funding has been further “improved”. Non-governmental organisations began to provide assistance to the organisation. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, created in 2000, appeared in the arena. This charitable foundation has identified several priorities for its activities. One of them was medicine and healthcare. And the Gates Foundation began making contributions to the WHO budget from the very beginning. The Gates Foundation is the largest non-governmental donor. But there are many other, smaller-caliber non-state donors and philanthropists.
Consider, for example, the sources of the WHO budget for 2016-17. As is noted in the document “WHO Results Report. Programme Budget 2016-2017″, the total amount of budget revenues for two years amounted to $4756 million. It is noteworthy that the document also has an indicator: “The resources that the WHO has at its disposal to carry out its programmatic activities”. The value of these resources is $5059 million, which is $303 million higher than the figure of the WHO budget. It turns out that the WHO also has extra-budgetary sources of funding.
The total amount of WHO budget revenues includes mandatory contributions from member states in the amount of $928 million and voluntary contributions of $3828 million. If in the first years of the WHO’s existence, almost 100% of the organisation’s budget revenues were mandatory state contributions, then in 2016-17 their share fell to 19.5%. And more than 80% are voluntary contributions. The latter, in turn, are divided into “basic” and “conditioned”.
The main voluntary contributions are not bound by any conditions for the subsequent use of the money received. The WHO is sovereign in making decisions on where to send money. But only $148 million turned out to be such money – less than 3.9% of all so-called “voluntary” contributions.
Half of these “unrelated” “voluntary” contributions came from two states – Sweden and the UK. It is noteworthy that the United States was not on the list of donors who provided voluntary unrelated assistance at all. There are Luxembourg, Kuwait and even Monaco. But there is no United States.
And more than 96% of “voluntary contributions” ($3.680 million) are “conditional”, they should be used as indicated by the donor. Thus, in the total amount of WHO funding for 2016-17, donor-related money accounted for 77.4%.
The World Health Organisation was commanded not by all states that are official members of the WHO, but only by some particularly “generous” states, as well as a bunch of other donors who are not states.
Here is the breakdown by the main types of WHO donors (share in the revenue part of the 2016-17 budget, %): member states – 51; charitable foundations – 17; UN, intergovernmental organisations and development banks – 15; partnerships – 7; non-governmental organisations – 7; private sector organisations – 3.
The de facto World Health Organisation was commanded by the main donors of “tied” money. Here is their ranking by the amount of “tied” contributions: 1) US; 2) Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; 3) Great Britain; 4) GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation); 5) World Bank; 6) Germany; 7) Japan; 8) European Commission; 9) Rotary International; 10) National Philanthropic Trust; 11) Central Emergency Response Fund (UN); 12) Canada; 13) UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; 14) Norway; 15) Australia.
In the next two-year period (2018-19), the structure of WHO funding sources has not undergone significant changes. But the current two-year period (2020-21) is characterised by many innovations in the WHO budget. These innovations are due to such a factor as the “COVID-19 pandemic”.
The WHO’s initial budget for 2020-21 has been urgently revised. First of all, in the expenditure part (the costs of viral infection control programs, PCR testing, vaccination programs, etc have been sharply increased). An unusual budget deficit has arisen in the WHO. The deficit increased even more after US President Donald Trump accused the WHO of negligence, unprofessionalism and an inability to proactively identify the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Trump escalated the situation to the limit, saying that he was not sure that the United States should retain membership in this organisation. Back on April 8, 2020, Trump tweeted: “WHO did stupid things. For unknown reasons, the organisation, which is mainly funded by the United States, has focused all its attention on China. We will carefully study this issue.” And at the end of May, he gave the command to temporarily stop WHO funding.
Under President Joe Biden, the United States has resumed WHO funding, but currently it is no longer the main donor of the organisation. In the adjusted WHO budget for 2020-21, the US share is a modest 7.12%. In the previous budget (for 2018-2019), its share was 15.9%.
But among the member states, Germany came out on top in terms of donor support with a share of 13.85% (in the previous budget, its share was equal to 5.2%). The positions of the UK (5.76% vs. 7.7%) and Japan (2.14% vs. 3.2%) look somewhat more modest compared to the previous budget. In general, the cumulative share of WHO member states fell below the 50% bar for the first time. More than half of the state contributions are “voluntary”, while “tied”.
But the positions of “other donors” in the adjusted WHO budget (%): Gates Foundation – 10.47; GAVI Alliance – 5.76; World Bank – 2.57; COVID-19 Solidarity Fund – 1.67; Rotary International – 2.42. It should be borne in mind that the GAVI alliance is the brainchild of Bill Gates. This partnership was created on the initiative of Bill Gates at the same time as the Gates Foundation in 2000 and immediately began to receive financial support from this Foundation.
Thus, the Gates Foundation and GAVI are a single entity. This unbreakable bloc of two donors accounts for more than 16% of all cash injections into the WHO. The voice of this two-headed donor is decisive in determining the priorities of the WHO’s activities. However, the donor is not double-headed, but multi-headed, since the Gates Foundation and GAVI have close informal relations with other donors. For example, with Bloomberg Family Foundation (0.38%), Rockefeller Foundation (0.10%), etc.
It should be noted that a newcomer has appeared among non-state donors – COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund – SRF. It was urgently established last year in order to financially support the WHO and other organisations in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. It is focused on collecting small donations from millions of legal entities and individuals around the world.
Fundraising is carried out under the slogans: “help others”, “buy a vaccine for the poor”, “save covid patients”, etc. Of course, SRF is primarily intended to at least partially fill the WHO budget deficit that has arisen. As of September 7, SRF has managed to raise $254.2 million. From this, $169 million (2/3) was transferred to the WHO. The rest of the SRF money was distributed among other organisations, but for activities that fit into the WHO’s priorities.
SRF is managed by the WHO Foundation– another new institution established last year. The WHO Foundation is legally independent from the WHO. But the main purpose of the WHO Foundation is to raise funds around the world and transfer them in the form of grants either to the WHO or to other organisations operating within the framework of the WHO’s priorities, together with the WHO. The WHO Foundation is tasked to raise funds in the amount of $1 billion within three years from the moment of its creation.
At the moment, it is not known what the first results of the WHO Foundation’s activities are. It is only known that this Foundation is ready to receive funds from companies in various sectors of the economy – with the exception of companies producing weapons and tobacco products. The WHO Foundation does not hide that it is ready to cooperate with Big Pharma companies.
Of course, as the heads of the WHO Foundation say, they will carefully study donors offering donations for compliance with the latest ethical standards. But there are already the first examples that the WHO Foundation is “omnivorous” and does not refuse donations from very dubious donors. The Foundation received a donation of more than $2 million. from the international food company Nestle. And its reputation is very dubious. In particular, it is known that it produces some products that are dangerous to health.
By the way, the charter of the WHO Foundation allows “benefactors” to remain anonymous, the Foundation can become a “grey” structure, a convenient intermediary between big business and the WHO. By the way, since January 1 of this year, the WHO Foundation has been headed by Anil Soni. By the way, prior to this appointment, he headed the global pharmaceutical company Viatris.
I will summarise the above. We see the completion of the WHO’s transformation process from an inter-state organisation into an organisation that has “emancipated” from the founding countries. Today, the priorities and program activities of the WHO are determined by very few states (USA, Germany, Great Britain), as well as non-governmental structures – foundations, companies, partnerships. They provide most of the WHO’s funding. They can be called “informal majority shareholders” of the WHO. And, as is said, “whoever pays, orders the music”.
More than 190 WHO member states can be perceived as “minority shareholders”. Not only that, such “shareholders” have not been making a difference in the WHO for a long time, they are forced to obey the decisions of “majority shareholders”. By the way, Russia should also be referred to as a “minority shareholder”, whose share in WHO budget revenues is currently only 0.62%.
For comparison: even in the IMF, Russia’s share in the Fund’s capital is 2.7%; the influence of the Russian Federation in this international financial organisation is not very great, but it is still noticeably greater than in the WHO.
The WHO has transformed into an organisation independent of the founding states. Moreover, after the beginning of the current so-called “COVID-19 pandemic”, it became obvious and understandable that these states themselves were under the control of the “emancipated” WHO.
WHO funding sources: http://open.who.int/2020-21/contributors/contributor
Germany – 13.85%
Gates Foundation – 10.47%
GAVI Alliance – 5,76%
USA – 7.12
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – 5.76%
World Bank – 2.57%
Rotary International – 2.42%
Japan – 2.14
Saudi Arabia – 1.87
COVID-19 Solidarity Fund – 1.67%
China – 0.66
Russian Federation – 0.62
Bloomberg Family Foundation – 0.38%
Spain – 0.20
Rockefeller Foundation – 0.10%
(@russtrat)
