On the first day of his second term as U.S. president, Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the World Health Organization, listing, as justification for this action, issues with management efficacy, financial equity and geopolitical influence. I respect that the structure and management of international bodies like WHO will naturally require renegotiation and compromise as the global landscape changes, so I do not intend to argue these points. To initiate such a renegotiation, however, by withdrawing influence and funding from WHO will have disastrous and inhumane consequences for matters of national and international security. How, you might ask?
Although many people became aware of and/or familiar with WHO only during the pandemic in 2020, the organization is involved in much more than infectious diseases. In 1987, the global maternal mortality ratio was over 400 per 100,000 live births, which amounted to half a million maternal deaths every year. At the time, Dr. Mahmoud Fathalla, past president of the International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, stated, “Mothers are not dying because of diseases we cannot prevent or treat. They are still dying because societies have yet to make the decision that their lives are worth saving.”
In that same year, WHO launched the Safe Motherhood Initiative, which aimed to reduce maternal mortality worldwide by promoting access to quality health care, skilled birth attendants, family planning and emergency obstetric care, emphasizing the fundamental right to safe pregnancy and childbirth. Although WHO did not work alone, its efforts led the way for many collaborating organizations around the world to cut the maternal mortality ratio by more than half, a formidable achievement.
Because 800 mothers still die every day, WHO continues its commitment to ending maternal mortality through concrete ways such as monitoring and data collection, strengthening health systems, and advocating health care access for all mothers and children around the world. WHO is often one of the first organizations coordinating humanitarian response to the most vulnerable people — mostly women and children — caught in the crosshairs of human conflict, geopolitical displacement and natural disasters. As a licensed midwife, I have benefitted from training and gold-standard technical manuals provided free of charge by WHO.
The maternal mortality rate of a country serves as an essential indicator of a nation’s development and security because, as Valerie Hudson has explained, “What you do to your women, you do to your country.” Even though 95% of maternal deaths occur in low- or middle-income countries, the negative effects of these deaths spill across international borders. In a globalized world, the security and stability of foreign nations affect the security and stability of the U.S. When the maternal mortality ratio of a country is high, the nation becomes economically and socially insecure. Such insecurity drives domestic conflict, forced migration within and across borders, and economic and structural strain on neighboring nations. A pointed example of this is the increase of Venezuelan immigrants to the United States due to the economic collapse, political instability and other crises in their native country.
Kofi Anan, past secretary-general of the United Nations, said it best. “There is no policy more effective in promoting development, health, and education than the empowerment of women and girls … and no policy is more important in preventing conflict.”
Empowerment of women and girls begins with their survival. If the U.S. desires freedom and peace, we need to concern ourselves with the survival of women and children around the world. If the U.S. withdraws funding and support from WHO, critical programs that support the survival of women and children will be at risk. Unilateral action by the U.S. cannot accomplish the demanding work WHO is committed to.
If the role of the U.S. within WHO needs reconsideration and negotiation, it must be done with an eye toward peace and security. Do not place the lives of women and children on the negotiating table as bargaining chips. Let your voice be heard in the ears of your state representatives that withdrawing from WHO is an unacceptable maneuver in negotiating U.S. involvement because it puts women, children and international security at risk. History has proven and will continue to prove that this is a no-win deal.