Colonial regimes are good employers if you are from the colonising side. They pay well and offer exciting travel to exotic locations. They support your family with benefits and subsidies. And they convince you (because you want to be convinced) that you are benefiting the many whilst, as Rudyard Kipling insisted, carrying their burden. Rather than being an enabler of greed and pillaging, you are really bringing civilisation, such as education or healthcare – sacrificing yourself for the greater good. A humanitarian, even if at the beck and call of rich and powerful people.
International public health and decolonisation
The World Health Organisation (WHO) arose in the aftermath of World War Two, as much of the world was throwing off the yoke of colonial masters. Colonialist approaches varied, from those who built infrastructure and were seen to provide something for those they ruled, to those whose only interest seems to have been loot. Some had conquered well-functioning states, others replaced regimes as brutal as themselves. However, like slavery, colonialism, or imposing one’s will on others for one’s own benefit, is always wrong. Both probably go back as long as humankind, have been ubiquitous across most of history and remain prevalent today. We have learned to veil them.
The 1950s to 1970s saw half the world move from serving other nations to become more-or-less politically self-governing. It was far from smooth, with European powers ‘freeing’ their colonies based on arbitrary colonial borders and so leaving behind intrinsically unstable states (the Balkans tell us this is not just an Asian or African problem). Another legacy is the ownership of companies that extract resources, with former masters and their allies sometimes going to considerable lengths to maintain this. They ensured that their colonies remained, economically at least, colonies. Companies exist to extract and accumulate wealth, and the rich world wanted their companies to continue gaining higher returns from lower costs after their colonies were lost. Poorer countries tend to have lower costs and less oversight, and with a sufficiently amoral approach they can be kept that way. Wealth can still flow upwards to the former colonial power, even when the colony is officially free.
The WHO in its early days was relevant to this process as it stood for the benefit all, its constitution requiring it be controlled equally by each Member State. Each emerging state had one vote in its governing World Health Assembly – equals of their former colonial rulers. This differs from the United Nations Organisation (UN) itself, where past colonialists on the Security Council retain a power of veto. Though a UN agency, it was decided WHO should better reflect a decolonising world.
For some decades, WHO generally succeeded. Many people like to highlight the caveats – ‘but this Director General once said this’ or ‘another senior officer said that’ – but the organisation was bigger than those few. WHO concentrated on major addressable disease burdens such as malaria, tuberculosis and, later, HIV/AIDS. It helped make others like yaws and leprosy become rare. It prioritised the drivers of infant and child mortality. It also led the smallpox elimination campaign – at least accelerating its elimination.
Recognising the main determinants of longer life – improved living conditions, nutrition and sanitation – WHO prioritised these and emphasised the importance of community structures and primary care to achieve them. The Alma Ata declaration of the late 1970s, a million miles removed from the COVID-19 response of 2020, recognised the importance of local structures to health outcomes, reflecting the reality that improving human capital builds longer lives more reliably than chemicals supported by financial capital. As WHO had no one pushing it to overinflate the risk of profitable diseases, few people actually heard much about it.
Large disease burdens drain economies and prevent communities and countries from getting on their feet, especially when their children and young adults are dying. Inability to address the underlying causes of ill health ensures poverty and aid dependence. Building individual resilience and national capacity should do the opposite, and that was once WHO’s role. Success in this context would be steadily reducing dependency, with reduced requirement for foreign finance and workers. This, up to perhaps about the year 2000, was a common understanding within the international public health workforce. There was supposed to be an endgame to most of this work, where countries support themselves.
International public health and recolonisation
Working with the WHO towards the endgame of healthcare self-reliance (or completing decolonisation) were relatively few organisations. UNICEF (concentrated on child health), a few foundations like the Wellcome Trust, and traditional schools of tropical health and hygiene. Small non-government organisations (NGOs) worked around these. All, even the Wellcome Trust founded by a Pharma magnate, shared an emphasis on capacity building and on high burden diseases. Manufactured commodities such as drugs were part of achieving outcomes, but not the primary focus. Western people would study at Mahidol University in Thailand rather than a public health school in America because public health was about communities rather than funders.
The change since then has been dramatic. The WHO and its major pre-2000 partners are now outnumbered in an increasingly lucrative industry. The Global Fund is the main multilateral grant agency for malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. UNITAID, a public private partnership (PPP), is dedicated to establishing markets for vaccines, drugs and diagnostics in low-income countries. Gavi, the vaccine alliance, is a PPP buying and distributing vaccines. CEPI, a PPP founded quite extraordinarily at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos in 2017 almost 100 years after the last major pandemic, is dedicated solely to vaccines for pandemics. The Gates Foundation, a private charity with strong Pharma alliances, grew to fund and have governing influence over all the above, while the ever-growing World Bank’s health arm houses, among other things, the Pandemic Fund. All these entities share a common interest in expanding markets for commodities or in financing their use. None has the main historical determinants of longer life – improved sanitation, nutrition and living space – as a primary focus. Their work is not devoid of benefit, but the overall emphasis is clear.
Whole new campuses have been built in Switzerland and the United States over the past 15 years to house the thousands administering this profitable approach to managing health in low-income countries. They were not built in Nairobi or Delhi, but Geneva and Seattle. A thriving industry of non-government organisations (NGOs) serves them, headquartered also in high-income countries. These are staffed by recruits who studied ‘global health’ in colleges sponsored by donors whom they now aim to spend the rest of their lives serving. If there is money to be made manufacturing and distributing injectable chemicals, then they will find public health reasons to do it. If their sponsors prioritise climate, then climate will be a threat to health. If pandemics, then we will be told of an existential threat from disease outbreaks. It is the message, rather than truth, that keeps you employed.
Sponsoring global health schools in rich countries builds the dependent workforce required to ensure compliance with a colonialist, top-down agenda that is actually the antithesis of good public health. A few million dollars to the University of Zambia will likely do far more to address the root causes of poverty and child mortality than tens of millions to the University of Washington, but the outcomes are less well controlled. Wealthy people have a right to put their money where they want, but the job of agencies such as the WHO is supposed to be to ensure this does not affect policy. They are supposed to ensure that populations, communities and individuals facing large disease burdens still control the agenda. In this they have abjectly failed.
A lot of money buys a lot of consensus. One Geneva salary may support over 20 health workers in central Africa, but the focus of that Geneva-based worker is their own child’s education, their healthcare and holidays. For this, they must keep their job. With a quarter of WHO’s budget arising from private sources that also specify how the money is spent, the funder’s wishes naturally become the staff’s priority.
These are simple realities. The WHO and other international health agencies do what they are paid to do. Hence, a large proportion of global health staff in Geneva now prioritise natural pandemic risk, which in the past century has barely impacted overall mortality, over the millions who die as a result of simple micronutrient deficiencies. Whilst flying business class, they support policies that restrict access to fossil fuels in Africa, further embedding the poverty and undernutrition that they know shortens lives. This requires no conspiracy, it is the expected outcome of greed and normal human self-interest.
Facing the betrayal
These recent changes in global health are not entirely novel. The industry is returning to where it began – in the latter half of the 19th Century with the sanitary conventions that sought to protect the European colonial powers from an influx of plagues arising from their newly-acquired assets. A rapid increase in travel was seen to promote recurrent rounds of typhus, cholera and smallpox. Yellow fever outbreaks hit cities in the United States. Agreements between powerful countries sought to control the movement of people and dictate their healthcare whilst continuing to appropriate wealth.
We have simply turned full circle. Manufactured narratives such as that on pandemic risk do not just protect the colonial investment but have become a lucrative instrument of the colonial endeavour. The Western-based institutions listed earlier – WHO, Gavi, CEPI, UNITAID – are all developing a global marketplace for mostly Western corporations. Their workforce has become the enablers and enslavers – pulling a veil of altruism over the face of corporate greed to save us from the next ‘public health emergency’. Funnelling wealth from low-income countries prevents the transformation in health that growing economies would bring, maintaining the inequality necessary for the colonial model to work. In parallel with the expansion in the global health industry, the OECD notes that the gap between high and low income countries has increased 1.1% annually since 2015.
If international health institutions were succeeding in their claimed objective, building capacity and improving health, they would be downsizing. In contrast, they are growing while basic interventions such as nutrition are losing funding. The COVID-19 response demonstrated their purpose. While countries across Africa increased debt and poverty, sponsors of the global health industry landed unprecedented gains in wealth.
The buy-out of the original WHO dream occurred with the full consent of the workforce. Like the East India companies of a former era, WHO and its growing partners offer exciting and lucrative careers. Dismantling this will be a painful process for the many thousands on this gravy train, and they will fight as workers would in any large extractive industry under threat.
When WHO is headquartered in Nairobi or Delhi, we will know public health is once again about populations rather than profit. When the big public private partnerships concentrate on individual resilience rather than quick fixes tied to patents, we can believe decolonisation is the intent. Until then, the global health industry should be treated no differently than any growing industry that uses public money for the benefit of investors. The arms industry is an obvious parallel; they can both extract lives as well as wealth, and they both exploit the old colonial hierarchies. Seeing public health institutions as the neo-colonialist instruments they have become, and understanding what drives those within them, is essential for progress. A future world that is healthier and more equitable is still possible, but the public health momentum is clearly pointed elsewhere.
Dr David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a Senior Scholar at the Brownstone Institute.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Annoying all the right people” (Neil Oliver on GB News tonight re . Twitter takeover).
For me (and I’ve never been a user of “Twitbook”), however it eventually turns out, today is a good day.
I am now even less likely to rejoin Twitter.
Is that because you hate free speech or just hate Musk?
“Would you object if your daughter married a Muslim… according to those metrics, Britain is among the least racist countries in the world”. (Toby Youmg (?), LC).
Or would you object to the conflation of race with religion? There are Muslims of various races, including white people, particularly in European areas that were formerly in the Ottoman Empire. I also seem to remember a story that there was a fair bit of racism among the supporters of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). And likewise, there are lots of Christians in some parts of Asia. I remember a story about an Indian Christian in Middlesbrough who got abused as a terrorist by ignorant locals (not that all people in Middlesbrough are like that, there’s some great people in that area of Yorkshire).
‘Would you object if your daughter married a Muslim’
First things first was she forced into it?
Over my dead body is my stance on that matter.
“The Northman… there are no black Vikings”.
No clean shaven ones either v (probably), but that didn’t stop Kirk Douglas.
the vikings kirk douglas at DuckDuckGo
I remember a report about how there were African people manning Hadrian’s Wall who intermarried with the native population, though I don’t know if there were any Vikings in Britain at that time.
And Kirk Douglas’s Viking was also Jewish, don’t forget.
Vikings raided coastal Britain and surrounding islands before, during and after the Romans.
The Romans brought auxiliaries and slaves with them from all over the empire, so some undoubtedly would be black people.
‘whether Marine Le Pen’s 42% share of the vote means France is more racist than Britain’
Racism is simply self preservation.
If the UK was sane we would never have allowed any immigration of the followers of the religion of peace, there should be no Islamic rape gangs or Islamic mass casualty terror attacks here.
Same with mass African immigration, we would be far better off it that had never occurred.
Of course you can’t criticise the imported minority that have used their financial power to push this mass immigration because that would be to pick on the weakest people on the planet and they will have you cancelled if you dare.
I’m tempted to nod in agreement, but given the UK fertility has been below replacement rate since the 70’s, I’d like to see some numbers, has anyone attempted this analysis?
Besides my time in the RN, and my GP, almost every Dr, specialist, or consultant I’ve seen in over 50 years has been an immigrant, as has a large % of nurses and cleaning staff I’ve come across in the NHS, I could almost lump taxi drivers and railways staff into that large % too.
I guess we’d have to define “better off”, I’m thinking in economic terms rather than “the feels”.
Maybe ask your mates for a controlled opposition jingle?
” … and whether Marine Le Pen’s 42% share of the vote means France is more racist than Britain…”
I can’t believe you wrote that. I don’t think I’ll bother reading the whole thing – that alone put me off.
Quite so: I hope (probably wrongly) that it was just sarcasm. Sadly, my respect for Young is falling even more quickly than covid ‘infections’!
TY has done a lot of positive things – more than most people
I think the comment is a bit clickbaity
I think there are a few related, important questions:
1) Is mass immigration good, bad or indifferent for the existing citizens of a country?
2) Is there a moral obligation to allow immigration, or should governments act solely in the interests of their own citizens?
3) Does WHO is immigrating matter? Is it “racist” to prefer some groups over others in terms of who you let in? Is it “racist” to select who comes in on some non-race basis that turns out to have a disparate impact on some racial groups? Bear in mind certain groups are unlikely to want to come to the UK in their millions as they already have good countries they like.
4) If any of the above is “racist”, is it wrong to be “racist”? What does “racist” actually mean (not much these days as far as I can see)?
1) Bad
2) Not at all
3) Yes
4) The current cancer in UK culture is to label anything you don’t like as ‘ist’. People need to learn to compromise and accept each other’s opinions.
It is fine to dislike any person for any reason you choose.
I tend to agree. It’s impossible to have a sensible discussion on this in most forums, and with many people.
I think there is a distinction to be made between legal immigration and illegal immigration.
Tge problem arises with illegal immigration. Legal immigrants go through a vetting process which means they have the right level,of education and skills to find useful employment and contribute to society and also numbers controlled.
Illegal immigrants tend to be the dross and arrive in droves.
Indeed the two things are different. I’m not sure I would completely agree with your characterisation of the two forms though – in practice I have doubts about the overall contribution of legal immigrants to our country (though clearly many have and do contribute immensely) but it’s also a matter of culture and social cohesion, regardless of the economics. The numbers are not as controlled as many (IMO the majority) of British people would like.
It is a gross misunderstanding of Le Pen’s support. Nearly all of her support is in rural France, the large area whose population feel they have been abandoned, ignored and treated with contempt by the metropolitan elites, and where the gilets jaunes movement rose up – they hate Macron.
Immigration is not the key issue – there are few in these areas, most being in the big cities and towns – it is the lack of work, lack,of prospects for the future and lack of representation.
Le Pen’s manifesto was anything but ‘right wing’ it was old France, Dirigiste – State direction of the economy, know elsewhere as the economics of Fascism. This is why the Left don’t like ‘Right Wing’, because so-called Right-Wing Parties have Statist policies of central economic and social planning and control, and out-Left the Left.
But it’s the modus operandi of the Establishment, label anyone not ‘their sort’, not a member of their club, ‘Right-Wing’ with ‘extreme’ left unspoken but implied, then automatically that means anti-immigration and therefore racist.
However, it is the case Le Pen isn’t really charismatic, or with a vision and new policies needed for the economic restructuring that France needs, to wean its people off total State dependency, she would have brought ever more. She just had the same old failed policies so her only attraction was she wasn’t Macron
I thought it was patently meant as humour, but we all have different filters when reading…
I do not have a Twitter account, but I think it’s best to wait and see what difference Elon Musk actually makes before any Champagne corks are popped.
But the torment he is causing the Stupids is a joy to behold.
I wonder weather this could be a litmus test as to weather the globalist WEF YGL Musk actually wants free speech, or will roll out digital ID under the guise of free speech.
i.e. is there a global conspiracy, or more bumbling cock-uppery from the various governments and YGLs who all appear to be on the same page, regardless of “free speech” platitudes ^.^