Timing, evidently, is not Donald Trump’s forte. Even as the world grapples with the health and economic costs of a raging pandemic, the president of the United States of America has announced that he would be halting the funds meant for the World Health Organization because of its alleged poor handling of the coronavirus crisis. Such a step is likely to adversely affect the WHO’s health programmes; the US, after all, is one of its principal funders, contributing around 15 per cent of the total funds. Some of Mr Trump’s allegations against the WHO merit closer examination. There is speculation that the world’s premier health body had been markedly overenthusiastic with Beijing’s response to the crisis in that country. The WHO praised China’s containment strategy even though there is evidence to suggest that Beijing, characteristically, had attempted to stifle information on the scale of the outbreak. Astonishingly, the WHO woke up to the reality of human transmission in the case of Covid-19 rather late in the day. But Mr Trump’s retaliation — India has opposed it cautiously — is as myopic as the WHO’s initial prognosis. This is because in spite of its initial bunglings, the WHO’s experience and reach remain unmatched when it comes to combating contagions. Awareness campaigns and logistical interventions by the WHO have helped countries — especially the poorer economies in Africa and Asia — eradicate smallpox and polio. The WHO also has solid expertise in the field of assembling healthcare workers, doctors, medical technology and regulators whose collaboration can be the key to the outcome of the battle against the virus. The WHO’s vast networks across geographies help tailor medical strategies to specific cultural settings. It is pointless to weaken the WHO at this juncture; the point is to initiate reforms to make the agency more effective.

There is, however, another way of viewing this development. In an insular world enamoured with the principle of protectionism, multilateral platforms are increasingly being viewed as fallible — even dispensable — institutions. Mr Trump’s punitive actions against the WHO are, essentially, an extension of this cynicism with the spirit of global collaboration. The WHO and other such bodies must reclaim their efficiency. They have in the League of Nations one of the earliest examples of collective cooperation failing against narrow populism. The world cannot afford to suffer the repetition of this ignoble history.