The Responsibility of the States Regarding Bill Gates

Melinda and Bill Gates’ divorce is testing Geneva International, which is massively financing three major global health institutions. If the financial support of these two philanthropists is welcomed, this poses some questions about independence, notably of the World Health Organization.

It’s divorces that count. And the Melinda and Bill Gates divorce is one of those. It resounds clearly at the heart of Geneva International. The American billionaire and his wife are major silent partners in the ecosystem of global health on the edge of Lake Geneva. A change in the Gates family could consequently have repercussions for the financing of the World Health Organization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria — all generously funded by these philanthropists.

Beyond undoubtedly exaggerated worries, the situation raises a fundamental question in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic that has killed more than 3 million people: How do you finance global health? The WHO remains an incredibly under-equipped organization that is very vulnerable to the pressures of the member states. This was seen with China and Italy in the context of COVID-19. Despite Angela Merkel’s request to the World Health Assembly in Geneva in 2015, where she asked for more substantial financing for the WHO, the member states shied away from their responsibility. Year after year. At the 74th World Health Assembly, to be held from May 24 through June 1, they will, however, need to face the facts: Without a stronger financial base, the WHO will not be able to manage future pandemics.

Faced with such irresponsibility by the states, the generosity of philanthropists Melinda and Bill Gates is worth accepting. It makes up for what is missing. But this does not come without some questions.

Since the H1N1 pandemic, during which the identity of the WHO’s silent partners caused doubt regarding its independence, it reinforced its safeguards. But there is no doubt that Bill Gates has a real influence on the organization and the programs that he favors. And that’s without the democratic duty of answering to the citizens of this world who contribute, through their governments, to developing a quality health institution.

The dependence of the WHO on a billionaire reveals a great vulnerability. All this rich contributor has to do is change strategies or pass away and the WHO would be destabilized. This situation raises more questions about the private-public partnership of which Geneva is now the herald. In redefining multilateralism, this partnership seems necessary not just to mitigate the United Nations’ bureaucratic breakdown, but also to make up for the lack of funding from the states. But it must also be consistent with it. The private-public partnership cannot be a veneer destined to maintain hackneyed models like the inflexible one that Gates is defending regarding intellectual property rights relative to the vaccines.