759 



jb. If sGie/titlsts of many nations find it necessary to pool tfieiv 

 reso%irG€8 and talents on a global prohleTn th'at trdTiscends national 

 boundaiies^ thsy will do well to he in control of the enterprise as a 



.3. WHO worjfed out solutions to some political and controversial 

 issues, or refused to deal with others because they were political. It 

 continues to -function effectively even in the presence of unresolved 

 political, problems. ■ 



4. Its members are bound by treaty to support it at a budgetary 

 level deterrnined by the organization itself. 



5. Th^ member states ho,nor their commitments to international 

 health organizatioiis today more than they did in the past. '"On time'' 

 collections pyer the period 1958 to 196T were over 96 percent. 



The United States is the chief contributor to WHO and is also one 

 of tlie chief sources of complaint — principally with its heavy share of 

 the financial burden as matched against its lack of direct control over 

 the WHO programs. A ReJDort of the Comptroller General of the 

 United States"^ was critical of WHO and many agencies connected 

 with it. As a result the UN, the Department of State, and Health, Edu- 

 cation, and Welfare have sought to improve WHO 's fiscal and admin- 

 istrative practices. AVHO itself recently ' set up a Headquarters 

 Program Review Committee (HPRC).^"^ But the climate in the 

 Congress is cool, with the Federal agencies unable to change the 

 apathy, the outlook, or the nature and extent of the dialogue. In addi- 

 tion, the !N^ation*s health practitioners, researchers, and medical edu- 

 cators are very much preoccupied' with their own problems. Indeed 

 the entire tripod of support (goverhment-industry-education)^°^ 

 essential to the success of any technicallj^ based enterprise is missing. 

 Yet the United States abides by its treaty obligations to WHO. 

 Through other channels, the United , States provides additional sup- 

 port to both WHO andPAHO by means of voluntary contributions 

 whicli more than double the amount it is, obliged to provide under the 

 United Nations scale of assessment. There is no doubt about it : For 

 some reason the moral support for international health institutions as 

 seen in the public record is extremely low-keyed, yet the overall level 

 of financial support provided by the United States to the multilateral 

 health organizations is actually quite substantial. 



It is important that this multilateral support continue and that the 

 level of it increase somewhat each year, because other foT*ms of U.S. 

 supported direct or related activities in international health have 

 been extensively curtailed in recent years. W^ith the exception of a few 

 overseas laboratories operated by NIH and DOD, the activities of a 

 number of Federal agencies relevant to health, and especially the 

 health and sanitation work of AID, have been reduced to very small 

 percentagesof their earlier peak levels. . 



Recent trends reflect the deliberate movement of international 

 health activities from bilateral program? to multilateral ones such as 

 the United Nations Development Program and the World Health 



i»B "U.S. Participation In the World Health Organization." Report to the Congress by the 

 Comptroller General of the United States. (Washington. IGBS"), page 1. 



»" Airgram from U.S. Mission Geneva, to the Secretary of State re : Information. Office 

 of International Health, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. December 24. 

 1970.: , , .. - - 



*<^ Caryl P. Haskins. "Science and Policy for a New Decade." Foreign Affairs (January 

 1971), page 251. 



