Taking the ball, going home alone

Throughout the halcyon days of grade school, I spent the better part of my summers playing down the street and across backyards with the neighborhood kids. Tag, ghost in the graveyard, football, kickball, the classics we all know. 

I remember one particular time, halfway through a sunny, warm afternoon of soccer, I threw a fit. Angry because I didn’t get my way, I screamed and shouted like the petulant child throwing a tantrum that I was in that moment. I took the ball, ran inside, and demanded two neighbor boys (good friends any other day of the week) to “get off my property!”

No matter what that initial conflict started over, no matter if I had any actual reason to be upset, that was not the way to handle it. Nothing productive comes from such egregiously self-centered, short-sighted behavior. And yet, that appears to be the actual policy approach of the White House towards several international organizations, agreements, and multi-party efforts.

At his inauguration, Trump let the world know we would finally start putting our country on top. “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first.” As if we didn’t have our own century, dominate culturally, economically, and technologically, to say nothing of our military’s utter preeminence - fun fact, the US Navy has the second largest air force. Though my own politics are to the left of the administration, I respect and understand conservative perspectives. Even in this day and age, when 7 in 10 Americans believe we are near the point of civil war, there is plenty of room for progress, for bold proposals, for forging ahead whether together in compromise or alone as that shining city upon a hill.

So, amid the many international efforts that President Trump has walked away from, why hasn’t his administration even once presented a new, better alternative?

Over the past few years, the United States has retreated from: the Human Rights Council, UNESCO, 2015's Iran Nuclear Deal, and the Paris Climate Accords. On the latter, we join the laudable ranks of Syria and Nicaragua in opposition to the world's strongest effort yet against climate change. And now, amid a global pandemic that is hurting America first with 21% of global deaths, we have left the World Health Organization.

In April, emphasizing legitimate mistakes that the organization made and its friendliness towards China, the US froze funding to it. Supportive pundits applauded the move. Trump told reporters, “We will continue to engage with the WHO to see if it can make meaningful reforms.”  Just one month later, in May, Trump announced he was “terminating” the country’s relationship with the WHO. 

Gordon Chang, known for his 2001 book The Coming Collapse of China, applauded the move for "at least now there is hope." By contrast, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, stated resolutely, "The world does need a WHO for outbreaks like this, and even for the general health of the globe" outside of pandemic events. And António Guterres, Secretary General of the UN, said the WHO “is absolutely critical to the world's efforts to win the war against COVID-19.” 

Trump tells us, “So much death has been caused by their mistakes.” That might be some legitimate criticism. Okay, how do we make sure that doesn’t happen next time? The last three years, we contributed about $400 million annually to the WHO. This is 15% of their budget and almost double that of the next supporter, the Gates Foundation. China, by turn, contributed $5 million. Why couldn’t the great negotiator, at any point during these past four years, get a better deal for the American taxpayer? 

Two weeks ago, the laudable International Criminal Court, which has brought justice against war lords and terrorists, was added to that list. The US has placed sanctions on its senior members for investigating charges of war crimes by US troops. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated, "We will not tolerate its illegitimate attempts to subject Americans to its jurisdiction."

For all of these organizations and agreements that the White House has decided to walk away from, why has no alternative been proposed? If there is a problem, fix it. If the rules are broken, change them. What could be more “America First” than having the best response to a global calamity? If the UN’s Human Rights Council is morally wrong to include countries like Saudi Arabia, with egregious human rights records, then let’s build a legitimate replacement. Because for now, we simply stand on the sidelines pouting and part of a select few; the US “joins Iran, North Korea and Eritrea as the only countries that refuse to participate in the council.”

Of course, this move against the WHO in particular could quite literally not come at a worse time. Supporters of the administration's position, beyond mere antagonism to the world order as is, dismiss the vital role of a globe-spanning health-focused organization. National governments are, inherently, loath to share intelligence and information. This is doubly true between nations with poor relations. The WHO acts as a neutral broker, an informed middleman passing along vital information about outbreaks, as it did recently (and in widely-celebrated fashion) with the West African Ebola outbreak.

At the beginning of our efforts against the COVID-19 pandemic, it was the WHO that provided American scientists on-the-ground access in Wuhan, China. The CDC, competent and capable though it certainly is, will be dramatically crippled without this international partnership. Its disease surveillance program is clever and innovative, acting as a dragnet over social media and web pages searching for clues of disease outbreaks. But, without the ability to investigate and gain precise, physical data, such programs leave the agency's efforts to protect American lives unfinished. Through the WHO, information from genetic sequencing to local health system best practices to broad epidemiological data is provided. Connections are enabled. Trust is established.

Stopping outbreaks of threatening diseases before they can substantially impact the world is essential to the health security strategy of the U.S. Prevention, from the personal level up to the systemic, is the easiest, safest, and surest way to mitigate risk. Losing access to the tools the WHO has to offer does  nothing useful. It will instead push the organization towards China and undercut US health strategies.

There is no alternative body serving these critical functions. The Trump administration has not put forth designs for a replacement nor signaled intentions to do so. It is a short-sighted, pernicious own goal in a continuing pattern of unilateral retreat. If America is to be First or Great or Strong, the country needs to maintain its robust global presence. The trend is that of a child throwing a tantrum, taking the ball, and walking home very much alone.

It is not a paradox to be a Republican and engage the world. It is a paradox to be American and retreat, alone, shouting at friends.

TL;DR: Elections matter. Vote. Volunteer. 

Austin May is a Master's of Public Policy Candidate in the McCourt School of Public Policy.