Hungary to consider withdrawing from the WHO and UNESCO: Will it follow the example of the USA?
Hungary is considering following the United States in withdrawing from the WHO and UNESCO, a move that could reshape the organisations’ future. With the US being one of the WHO’s largest financial contributors, its departure may create a funding gap and shift the balance of influence within the organisation. As Hungary evaluates its membership, questions arise about potential financial burdens on remaining states and the broader impact on global health coordination, particularly in the face of future pandemics.
Following the USA’s footsteps
Portfolio writes that Hungary may follow the United States in withdrawing from international organisations such as the WHO and UNESCO, according to Minister Gergely Gulyás. He stated that if the world’s largest economy chooses to exit such bodies, Hungary should also consider doing the same. Gulyás emphasised that it would be reasonable for Hungary to evaluate its membership in any organisation the US departs from voluntarily. He said:
If the most powerful country in the world decides to leave an international organisation, I think the Hungarian government is acting in the right way if it considers whether we should also take this step. We may come to the conclusion that we should not do it, (…) but in any case it is worth considering.
Increased fees for Hungary?
The United States currently funds 14.5% of the WHO’s budget, with two-thirds of its USD 1.3 billion contribution exceeding the mandatory membership fee. If the US proceeds with its withdrawal, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which provides 14%, could become the largest donor. As the USA covers nearly a fifth of the operational costs of various UN bodies, its departure could lead to increased financial obligations for remaining member states, including Hungary.
USA could prompt a domino effect
The USA’s withdrawal from the WHO could prompt other member states to reconsider their commitment, potentially weakening the organisation’s stability and effectiveness. As a key financial contributor, the USA plays a vital role in supporting global health initiatives, and its departure could create a funding shortfall. Additionally, the absence of such a major global player may leave a power vacuum, allowing other countries to exert greater influence over WHO policies, potentially altering its priorities and decision-making.
What would happen in case of a pandemic?
While the WHO has faced criticism, particularly over its handling of the coronavirus pandemic, further weakening its structure may not be the best outcome. In a globalised world where pandemics remain a constant threat, a coordinated international response is crucial. Reducing the organisation’s authority and resources could undermine its ability to manage future health crises effectively, posing a significant risk to global public health.
Read also:
- PM Orbán warns ‘Tornado Trump’ is coming
- FM Szijjártó: Rebuilding of Hungary-US ties gives government policy new room for manoeuvre
Featured image: depositphotos.com
After you leave UNESCO please remove all reference to UNESCO “World Heritage” sites in Hungary that you use to drum up tourism. Hungary’s health care system is in total crisis. Withdrawing from the WHO is no surprise from this government. I don’t think Hungarians will react favourably.
Who and hell comes to hungary because it has a UNESCO signt !
Any organization that pushed the Covid BS to come clean.
A simple web site can handle information on hourly info in 100 languages for medical emergencies.
In one week the US has exposed where how much money and where its going – and thats just the beginnning. Most of these mega US agencies are bigger than most countries including hungary. bidens top advisor is on video in budapest talking about she wants ro bring democracy to hungary – the money was being pushed by the EU and US and Soros NGOS
All the misinformation and sidesteps around COVID was enough for me to see the WHO is a total waste of public money. You don’t have to look too deeply to see most of what goes on around the whole UN is just a massive drain on money but doesn’t really achieve anything or even mean anything. Just a big merry-go-round of smoke and mirrors funded by taxpayers. The truest meaning of a Fugazi.
The entire U.N. needs to be dismantled. It is an anachronism: a simulacrum of the world as it was 80 years ago. It is also irreparably corrupt and unaccountable.
Start again, let it run for 50 years, then wrap it up, and start again. It’s the only way to ensure such organizations do not get too big for their shoes.
(The same, if we’re honest, should be done with national governments, but every quarter century.)