Hi,
To understand how coloniality thrives in global health, sample this:
During a discussion on its proposed withdrawal from WHO, Argentina made a statement this week in response to calls for continued engagement and cooperation: “…As a western, civilized country we need to respect rules and work with the whole world.”
Palestinian-American thinker Edward Said came to mind at the mention of the word “occidental” in the original intervention in Spanish made by Argentina. Even in the current times of caustic geopolitics, such a formulation speaks volumes on the nature of dialogue in global health.
Despite the pessimism, it seems there is much that collective, decisive and effective leadership can achieve. For the rest, I guess we need even more political will and the guts to name elephants in the room.
In this edition, we present a wrap of key issues, dynamics that unfolded at the WHO Executive Board meeting that concluded last night on February 6th.
My goal has been to bring to you the most pertinent matters that were taken up, all in one place. In addition, find below a story by my colleague Iman Ibrahim, on the discussions on emergencies including the votes on Palestine.
We were onsite all week, soaking up the action beyond what you could see on the webcast.
We will also be reporting on the negotiations on the Pathogen Access Benefits Sharing system starting Monday, February 9th. So stayed tuned. (Yes, so no weekend to speak of.)
Geneva Health Files strives to offer value to our readers who work in global health. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive. It is incredibly hard to do this without institutional support. So we rely on our news they can use. Help us raise important questions, and in keeping an ear to the ground, become a paying subscriber.
Gratitude to our subscribers who help us contribute to greater accountability in global health.
More later.
Best,
Priti
Feel free to write to us: genevahealthfiles@gmail.com; Find us on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/genevahealthfiles.bsky.social
I. UPDATE EB158
Decisive Meeting at WHO Silent On U.S. Withdrawal, Debates Governance Reforms, Buys Uneasy Peace on Cultural Wars
In one of the most decisive meetings of its Executive Board, member states of the World Health Organization, dealt with not only a range of complex global health policy challenges – a characteristic of such deliberations, but also discussed crucial matters on governance, financing and key accountability mechanisms.
From considering the memberships of the United States and Argentina; to reforms in governance processes; from determined challenges to the engagement with non-state actors to political votes on issues concerning Palestine; the Board variously noted and decided on more than 30 items on the agenda. Some seemingly procedural matters including on the dates of the upcoming World Health Assembly, weeks from now in May 2026 also became complicated (this was eventually resolved). As always, in global health, nothing is merely procedural or technical, there are often potential political implications for seemingly innocuous-looking choices.
The meeting was chaired by Blair Comley, Secretary, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, Australia. By the end of the week-long meeting, Comley’s clinical approach to the conduct of the meeting ensured that the deliberations concluded ahead of time, a rarity in multilateral settings. He walked the tightrope combining diplomatic finesse on difficult matters, while not being shy in wielding a no-nonsense communication in keeping discussions focused. He meant business and got business done. [Not all may have been happy with this approach.] Australia is one of the countries in the 34-member Executive Board.
In addition, during the week a number of countries from different regions played key roles in resolving differences, or finding ways out of a seeming impasse, across various topics, such as for example, Norway, Nepal, Australia, Brazil among many others.
Despite the positives, there is no doubt that a confluence of factors is making the governance of global health increasingly difficult, if not impossible. Geopolitics and cultural wars, threatened to nearly hijack the work of the Board. This was only averted by deft diplomacy, but there is no telling how these pressures will reveal themselves in the run up to the World Health Assembly and after. Below, we join the dots across issues and present the potential implications for not only WHO, but what this means for people’s health more generally.
The use of the principle of “sovereignty” is increasingly being deployed selectively by a range of countries across policy areas seeking carve outs from international law, norms and guidelines– this will have serious implications for global health policy-making, observers say. Sovereignty is emerging in opposition to universality – which underpins success in global health governance.
In this story, we analyse a few key issues that were taken up at the Board this week. (Also see our previous update from earlier in the week: Developing Countries Get More Time to Negotiate Language on Technology Transfer To Fight Anti-Microbial Resistance)
