None gains: On U.S. withdrawal from WHO
Paper: II
Mains: General Studies- II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International relations.
Background
On July 6, when the number of novel coronavirus cases and deaths in the U.S. reached over 2.8 million and nearly 0.13 million, respectively, the U.S. officially notified the United Nations of its intention to withdraw membership from the World Health Organization. This comes after President Donald Trump announced on May 29 his decision to halt funding and pull out of the global health body. After accusing WHO of being “China-centric” on multiple occasions, this unfortunate development is one more attempt by Mr. Trump to deflect blame for gross mismanagement of the crisis.
Key Details:
- Since assuming office in January 2017, Trump has pulled the US out of many global organizations and treaties — the most notable being the 2015 Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
- He pulled out of Trans-Pacific Partnership.
- The trade deal covered nearly 40 % of the world’s economy and was negotiated by countries like the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, among others with an aim to boost growth, improve economic ties and reduce tariffs.
- Following the US withdrawal, the remaining 11 countries renegotiated parts of the TPP and later signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), also known as TPP-11.
- Trump pulled the US out of UNESCO in 2017, citing anti-Israel bias as Washington was upset with UNESCO for granting full membership to Palestine.
- The US pulled out of the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2018 citing it as a hypocritical body that “makes a mockery of human rights.”
Impact:
- The decision has apparently been taken without the approval of the US Congress and there could be a possibility that Congress or Courts might reverse the withdrawal.
- Academia and medical associations have put constant pressure on Congress to prevent the USA from withdrawing.
- Democratic challenger Joe Biden has promised to revoke the decision if he is elected as President.
Consequences
- If the USA withdraws from the WHO, it will lose its seat and will not have access to new influenza virus samples for research.
- With no more U.S. scientists embedded in the WHO in key roles, including outbreak response teams like the one that visited Wuhan, it will lose out on health intelligence that will compromise the country’s response to international disease outbreaks.
- The departure of the U.S. will be a significant blow to the WHO in terms of loss of technical expertise and could lead to loss of annual funding of about $450 million.
Challenges faced by WHO
- In 2005 there was a revision of the International Health Regulations which made it mandatory for countries to notify the WHO of all events that may constitute an international public health emergency and to “respond to requests for verification of information regarding such events”.
- Yet, the WHO has limited power to ensure compliance by the Member States, including limitations in independently verifying member states’ official reports.
Conclusion
- In the end, none gains from a further weakened WHO, neither the USA by withdrawing nor the Global Community.
- With no more U.S. scientists embedded in the WHO in key roles, including outbreak response teams like the one that visited Wuhan, it will lose out on health intelligence that will compromise the country’s response to international disease outbreaks. In the end, none gains from a further weakened WHO.
Invisible loads, arbitrary deletions
Paper: II
Mains: General Studies- II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International relations.
Context
The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has announced a reduction in the curriculum for the year 2020-2021 for Classes IX to XII. This is a measure they have adopted in view of the reduced number of class hours available this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CBSE circular says that the move has been finalized by the respective Course Committees with the approval of the Curriculum Committee and Governing Body of the Board.
Key Details
- Class 11 students of political science will not study about federalism in the Constitution during the academic year of 2020-21.
- Political theory sections on citizenship, secularism and nationalism have also been removed.
- In Class 12, the topic of India’s relations with its neighbors has been deleted, along with sections on social movements, regional aspirations, the changing nature of India’s economic development, and the Planning Commission.
- Business Studies students will not study the concept of demonetization, Goods and Services Tax, or the impact of government policy changes on business with special reference to liberalization, privatization and globalization in India.
- In History classes, students will not study chapters on understanding partition, or on peasants, zamindars and the State.
- The education board also clarified that no question shall be asked from the reduced syllabus in the Board Exams for 2020-2021 only.
Issues with removal
- The proposed syllabus for Classes XI-XII physics presents quite a shock.
- While many basic topics such as Newton’s laws; motion along a straight line and basic concepts of heat have been removed, more advanced topics corresponding to these have been retained.
- For instance, the topic work, power and energy, which uses the concepts of Newton’s laws; motion in a plane, which expands on linear motion; and kinetic theory of gases, which builds on heat, have been retained
- In basic science topics, it is much better to retain the fundamentals and, if need be, remove the higher application levels. On the contrary, the steps taken by the CBSE are in the opposite direction.
- At the other end of the spectrum is biology. In the biology syllabus, higher-level topics such as ecology, environmental science and evolution have been arbitrarily removed. It is not just that topics like these connect the student to real-life situations, it is ironic that such a deletion should happen at the time of the pandemic.
The resultant syllabus is twice damaging
- First, the deletion being only nominal adds an invisible burden on teachers.
- Second, that it is not going to be used to examine the students may just encourage rote learning.
Conclusion
- A science curriculum is a holistic entity. The truncations and deletions suggested by the CBSE in the Class XI-XII syllabus violate the cohesiveness and holistic nature of the planned curriculum.
- It would be far better to allow the students a gap year to pursue their own interests.
- The alternative, of course, would be to take into account the voices of all stakeholders in the area of education and do a careful job of trimming the syllabus.