711 



lowed withdrawals by Bulgaiia, Ivunuinia, Albania, Czeclioslovakia, 

 Hiingaiy, and Poland. Iceland's withdrawal, which brought the termi- 

 nations to a total of nine countries, occurred on Aug. 15, 1050.'^' Tlie 

 criticisms otYered by the USSK had to do with WHO"s failure to abide 

 by the activities proposed for it in 1946, its failure to accomplish the 

 prevention and control of disease at the international level, and the 

 high cost of who's administrative machinery.*^** The six Eastern 

 States provided similar reasons for withdrawing and added a new- 

 one that the Organization was under U.S. domination.*''' 



The eastern members of the Soviet Bloc argued for medical supplies 

 for the war-devastated countries — insecticides, vaccines, antibiotics, 

 drugs, and materials for research and education; their charge of 

 '"subordination" may have meant that the United States was not sup- 

 plying such materials through WHO in the amounts requested. The 

 theme of the USSR from the beginning w-as that WHO should direct 

 its efforts and organize its activities for the consolidation and de- 

 velopment of national health services. Once again, this attitude em- 

 pliasizes the view^ at that time of the USSR and other Members of 

 the Soviet Bloc that W^HO should provide national health adminis- 

 trators wirh supplies, medical literature, and the results of research.""^ 



Political or otherwise, the official W^HO reaction to all this was 

 essentially non-reactive: (1) The Director-General requested an 

 invitation from the USSR to visit Moscow, (2) A draft resolution for 

 the Assembly took account of the prevailing sentiment that llie Mem- 

 bers concerned reconsider their decisions and resume active participa- 

 tion in WHO, and (3) A resolution was passed by the Assembly 

 (4^^0-6) stating that the objectives of WHO required the cooperation 

 of all countries ; expressing regret o\er the absence of these States from 

 WHO ; pointing to their loss to the work of the Organization ; hoping 

 that in the near future they mi^ht w'ish to reconsider their position; 

 and inviting them to join, if possible, tlie present and following session 

 of the Health Assembly.'^ These and certain ''non-developments'' in- 

 dicated that the Members of the Assembly were primarily motivated 

 by the desire to have the withdrawn States return to the Organiza- 

 tion. The non-developments were the almost complete silence of the 

 Assembly on tlie withdrawal actions and on the implications of such 

 withdrawals on the financial condition of the Organization.'- 



Subsequent resolutions reiterated the desire of the Assembly for 

 the non-participating States to resume full cooperation in WHO. In 

 the meantime, expenditure levels were adjusted, but the Assembly 

 assumed that the contribution of what they called "inactive Members" 

 would eventually be paid. The Second Assembly refused to recognize 

 the withdi-aAval of the Soviet States, and Members were generally 

 opposed to taking ]X)sitive steps to suspend services to these States. 

 Assembly after Assembly labored with assessment and budget prob- 

 lems but continued to assess the "inactive Members" for contributions 

 which in all likelihood would not be paid. It was difficult to get any 



6- "Official Records of WHO" (17). pages 52-53; "Official Records of WHO" (28), 

 luitrps ri."i.'!— ■'1.-4. 



s^ "Official Records of WHO" (17). page 52. 



"'"Official Records of WHO" (28), pages 553-554, "Official Records of WHO' (35). 

 pases .SSO-SSt. 



•» "Official Records of WHO" (13), pages 39-72, and 120-147. 



■^ "Official Records of WHO" (21 ). 



■- Calderwood. "Membership in the WHO ', op. cit., page IT. 



