1618 



Manila, New Delhi, and Washington, in addition to its headquarters 

 in Geneva. It had a total staff on the order of 4,500 — about a fourth 

 at headquarters, the remainder at regional and zone offices and in 

 131 (now 151) member countries. It maintained hundreds of lab- 

 oratories and reference centers or collaborating institutes all over the 

 world, had formal working relationships with some 82 major inter- 

 national government and nongovernment organizations in the health 

 field, and was supported by numerous advisory panels and expert 

 committees in virtually every health or health-related subject area. 

 It initiated annually thousands of research grants and training fellow- 

 ships. It administered the international health regulations adopted 

 by the World Health Assembly in 1969, and under the regulations 

 operated a global intelligence network on the principal epidemic 

 diseases of the world. Finally, it was a major pubhsher of biomedical 

 literature: Its monographs and technical reports often represented, 

 in effect, a world consensus of experts in various health subject areas. 



STATUS AND POTENTIAL OF W.H.O. TODAY 



Despite this impressive growth, WHO today is far from translating 

 into global accomplishment such principles, enunciated in its con- 

 stitution, as "The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attain- 

 ment of peace and security. ..." and "unequal development in 

 different countries in the promotion of health and control of disease 

 ... is a common danger." The failure to meet the implications of 

 these declarations has been generally attributed to budgetary realities. 

 Even if the major nations fully appreciated the diplomatic potential 

 of public health and modern medicine as a vehicle of international good 

 will, it is not likely that they would approve a budget or a philosophy 

 which would look to the World Health Organization for the solution 

 of all global health problems. With a budget less than one-tenth 

 that of the New York City Health Department,*** WHO concentrates 

 its resources on advisory and coordinating activities and on major 

 disease control and eradication programs. Undeniably, a greater 

 degree of U.S. involvement and contribution of funds in excess of 

 its annual assessment would improve the rate of success in the control 

 of malaria, cholera, and other infectious diseases, but the monetary 

 exchange rate is currently a greater problem for WHO than is the 

 U.S. attitude toward international organizations. 



Larger U.S. and other member commitments to WHO would indeed 

 make it possible for improved followup on its projects and programs; 

 disease eradication or control programs could be intensified and 

 studies of health care systems and of health manpower coordination 

 could be expanded. 



But WHO was not intended to be a world medical society to provide 

 global health services to developed and developing countries. Its 

 services and technical assistance are rendered in response to specific 

 requests from member governments. It is the demand and the legiti- 

 mate need for technical assistance, and the ability of the requesting 



14a Kevin Cahill. The Untapped Retource: Medicine and Diplomacy. Orbis Boaka, MaryknoU, New York, 

 1971: p. 7. 



