Isolationism Amidst Pandemic: Trump & the WHO
By Nikita Guelmer and Reetesh Sudhakar, 8/17/2020
Through the Lens of History
The United States was founded by men who wished to separate themselves from European governments. The early years of US history featured a cautious foreign policy, with a heavy focus on isolationism and separation from Europe, and strict avoidance of interfering with European conflicts and wars. This ideology remained largely until the first World War and was replaced by America’s role as a world superpower, but is now contested once again by contemporary isolationists.
The founding of the United States emphasized separation from the old world order. It was to be a country without the limitations placed on society in Europe, and one offering great chances for social mobility and personal growth. The founding fathers understood the unpredictability of the monarchy in Europe, as well as the tension caused by centuries of war and tensions between the ancient empires. George Washington, the first President of the United States, gave a warning to successors during his farewell address, discouraging any ‘entangling alliances’ and potential involvement in European conflicts. Jefferson’s inaugural address committed to “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…” American foreign policy continued to represent this idea of isolationism and barred itself from joining any long-lasting treaties with European powers.
American foreign policy continued to avoid European conflicts and affairs for the first century of its independence. With enough domestic issues to resolve, such as the Civil War and western expansion, the US had its hands full of conflicts. The British Empire and the French reached their peaks with new colonies in Africa and Asia, and the US desperately wanted to avoid this interference in the Western Hemisphere. James Monroe warned European nations to stay away from American politics and warned that any colonization in the Americas would be seen as an act of aggression. US isolationism continued until World War I, which saw the United States hesitate on participating and joining the conflict.
The US joined forces with Britain, France, Russia, and Italy in the fight against the central powers during WWI. The world had never seen a conflict of that scale previously and although the US was reluctant to participate, they eventually took a stand and became entangled in alliances. Woodrow Wilson attempted to create a global alliance called the League of Nations to prevent future conflicts and give nations a place to voice their concerns, but this idea was struck down by Britain and France. After WWII, the United States found itself in a position of great strength and power and was in a power struggle with the USSR over control of global power.
The years following WWII also saw the establishment of the United Nations as a global stage for negotiations, the US found itself a leader on that scale as well. Ever since the turn of the 20th century, the US found itself in a position of massive power and influence, and the world around it changed as well. New technologies ensured that the world remained interconnected and there was no space for hermit nations any longer, with the US economy now being completely reliant on the global market and trade as the engines of its economy. The US is no longer the isolated country it was in the days of Washington. It is now a global leader and its history ensures that it cannot leave the global stage, for it plays a role far too important.
The history of American isolationism is long and impactful, especially with regards to the nation’s formative years. The modern world and its technologies ensure that we cannot be isolationists any longer, and by founding and creating global agencies such as the UN, WHO, World Bank, and more, we have to finish what we started. Yes, the US has a long history of isolationism, but the last century has an even longer history of foreign entanglements and affairs.
The founding of the United States emphasized separation from the old world order. It was to be a country without the limitations placed on society in Europe, and one offering great chances for social mobility and personal growth. The founding fathers understood the unpredictability of the monarchy in Europe, as well as the tension caused by centuries of war and tensions between the ancient empires. George Washington, the first President of the United States, gave a warning to successors during his farewell address, discouraging any ‘entangling alliances’ and potential involvement in European conflicts. Jefferson’s inaugural address committed to “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…” American foreign policy continued to represent this idea of isolationism and barred itself from joining any long-lasting treaties with European powers.
American foreign policy continued to avoid European conflicts and affairs for the first century of its independence. With enough domestic issues to resolve, such as the Civil War and western expansion, the US had its hands full of conflicts. The British Empire and the French reached their peaks with new colonies in Africa and Asia, and the US desperately wanted to avoid this interference in the Western Hemisphere. James Monroe warned European nations to stay away from American politics and warned that any colonization in the Americas would be seen as an act of aggression. US isolationism continued until World War I, which saw the United States hesitate on participating and joining the conflict.
The US joined forces with Britain, France, Russia, and Italy in the fight against the central powers during WWI. The world had never seen a conflict of that scale previously and although the US was reluctant to participate, they eventually took a stand and became entangled in alliances. Woodrow Wilson attempted to create a global alliance called the League of Nations to prevent future conflicts and give nations a place to voice their concerns, but this idea was struck down by Britain and France. After WWII, the United States found itself in a position of great strength and power and was in a power struggle with the USSR over control of global power.
The years following WWII also saw the establishment of the United Nations as a global stage for negotiations, the US found itself a leader on that scale as well. Ever since the turn of the 20th century, the US found itself in a position of massive power and influence, and the world around it changed as well. New technologies ensured that the world remained interconnected and there was no space for hermit nations any longer, with the US economy now being completely reliant on the global market and trade as the engines of its economy. The US is no longer the isolated country it was in the days of Washington. It is now a global leader and its history ensures that it cannot leave the global stage, for it plays a role far too important.
The history of American isolationism is long and impactful, especially with regards to the nation’s formative years. The modern world and its technologies ensure that we cannot be isolationists any longer, and by founding and creating global agencies such as the UN, WHO, World Bank, and more, we have to finish what we started. Yes, the US has a long history of isolationism, but the last century has an even longer history of foreign entanglements and affairs.
A President's Powers
Amidst a global pandemic, President Trump has recently threatened to defund the World Health Organization (WHO), a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) focusing on international health. Recently, the president has notified Congress that the United States plans to withdraw from the WHO, while the WHO has been integrated deeply into public health within the United States. Although the president cannot unilaterally withdraw, the actions and threats will have adverse effects on welfare by disrupting ongoing efforts from US agencies.
As a global organization, the WHO is capable of coordinating international health emergencies and providing assistance to countries without resources to combat crises. While the United States primarily turns to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for public health issues, many countries rely on the WHO. Disinvestment from the WHO will harm the pandemic response in countries that depend on international infrastructure and assistance, putting millions of lives at risk across the world, including in the US.
In April, President Trump announced that he planned on halting funding to the WHO, alleging that they mismanaged the COVID-19 outbreak. The US yearly contributes around $400 million to the WHO, which comprises eight percent of its annual budget. These funds enable research to define and synthesize solutions to health conditions and diseases around the planet. The president recently stated that transparency is a necessity, and argued that China has been omitting data and information on the virus. These recent statements not only undermine the response to the outbreaks but also threaten US-China relations as the virus continues to spread. President Trump announced that he would give the WHO thirty days to improve its management and its response to the pandemic. The president's beliefs that the WHO exploits the US have fueled his decision to terminate their relationship. Furthermore, the president has accused China of failing to stop the spread of COVID-19 into the US. However, his skepticism will inflict damage on US agencies as they search for effective treatments and vaccines for the virus.
Because the United States and WHO rely on each other for scientific and technical expertise, many question the validity of the president's threats to disinvest. The president has no constitutional authority to deny aid if Congress mandates the funds by statute. On the other hand, current laws give the Trump Administration flexibility over WHO funding. Congress could eliminate such flexibility and require contributions; however, President Trump currently has the authority to withhold any portion of US investments to the WHO.
Because President Trump believes that the WHO has failed to control the virus, he plans to halt funding and work independently. As a substantial contributor to the WHO, the United States' disinvestment poses several health concerns upon the global community, the United States included. Current funds are aiding COVID-19 treatment and vaccine research. Weakening research into the virus that has been threatening the world poses an immense threat to international public health. Aside from research into COVID-19, disinvestment harms international cooperation in containing outbreaks.
As a global organization, the WHO is capable of coordinating international health emergencies and providing assistance to countries without resources to combat crises. While the United States primarily turns to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for public health issues, many countries rely on the WHO. Disinvestment from the WHO will harm the pandemic response in countries that depend on international infrastructure and assistance, putting millions of lives at risk across the world, including in the US.
In April, President Trump announced that he planned on halting funding to the WHO, alleging that they mismanaged the COVID-19 outbreak. The US yearly contributes around $400 million to the WHO, which comprises eight percent of its annual budget. These funds enable research to define and synthesize solutions to health conditions and diseases around the planet. The president recently stated that transparency is a necessity, and argued that China has been omitting data and information on the virus. These recent statements not only undermine the response to the outbreaks but also threaten US-China relations as the virus continues to spread. President Trump announced that he would give the WHO thirty days to improve its management and its response to the pandemic. The president's beliefs that the WHO exploits the US have fueled his decision to terminate their relationship. Furthermore, the president has accused China of failing to stop the spread of COVID-19 into the US. However, his skepticism will inflict damage on US agencies as they search for effective treatments and vaccines for the virus.
Because the United States and WHO rely on each other for scientific and technical expertise, many question the validity of the president's threats to disinvest. The president has no constitutional authority to deny aid if Congress mandates the funds by statute. On the other hand, current laws give the Trump Administration flexibility over WHO funding. Congress could eliminate such flexibility and require contributions; however, President Trump currently has the authority to withhold any portion of US investments to the WHO.
Because President Trump believes that the WHO has failed to control the virus, he plans to halt funding and work independently. As a substantial contributor to the WHO, the United States' disinvestment poses several health concerns upon the global community, the United States included. Current funds are aiding COVID-19 treatment and vaccine research. Weakening research into the virus that has been threatening the world poses an immense threat to international public health. Aside from research into COVID-19, disinvestment harms international cooperation in containing outbreaks.