Argentina’s WHO Withdrawal: A Multidimensional Setback for Democracy, Global Health and International Cooperation
The recent announcement by the Argentine government of its intention to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) represents a direct threat to democratic principles and the fundamental rights of citizens. This unilateral decision, taken without parliamentary debate or citizen consultation, not only weakens democratic institutions but also jeopardises the constitutional right to health. Argentina was among the first countries to sign the WHO Constitution in 1948, demonstrating its historical commitment to global health cooperation. Although the precedent of the United States during the Trump administration is evoked, there are crucial differences: while the U.S. is the main financier of the organisation and wields significant influence, Argentina, as a middle-income country, strategically depends on international cooperation to guarantee the right to health for its population.
Furthermore, withdrawing from the WHO could limit Argentina’s access to international health cooperation mechanisms and affect the country’s ability to participate in global decision-making on health policies. This issue is particularly relevant in a context where emerging diseases, climate change, and other transnational threats require coordinated international responses. Additionally, withdrawing from multilateral organisations would disproportionately impact the most vulnerable sectors, exacerbating preexisting inequalities and weakening equitable access to medical care.
The Announcement of the WHO Withdrawal and the Right to Health
Health constitutes a universal human right and a fundamental pillar of any democratic society. This right is enshrined in international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), ratified by Argentina and incorporated into its constitutional framework. In a genuine democracy, the right to health is materialised through citizen participation in decision-making and the development of public policies that ensure equitable access to quality health services.
Consequently, the unilateral decision to withdraw from the WHO in various ways undermines these principles and fundamental rights. It weakens the international legal framework that supports the right to health, excludes citizens from global health protection mechanisms, compromises democratic participation in global health decisions, disproportionately affects the most vulnerable sectors, and limits access to essential resources. Moreover, withdrawal would fragment the response to health crises since transnational coordination is vital for reporting information and access to data—key elements in the surveillance of pandemics and epidemic outbreaks; without a coordinating entity like the WHO, the national response would become slower and less effective. It is worth noting that this decision if implemented, could jeopardise the functioning of Argentina’s “Centro Nacional de Enlace - CNE” (National IHR Focal Points), an epidemiological intelligence unit responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and notifying the WHO about Public Health Events of International Concern (PHEIC).
An emblematic example of the importance of international cooperation is evident in the fight against COVID-19. During this crisis, WHO-led initiatives, such as COVAX, were designed to guarantee equitable access to vaccines in low- and middle-income countries. The coordination and support provided allowed the acquisition of vaccines in record time to combat an emerging disease despite enormous logistical and production challenges. However, the global response to the pandemic was significantly hindered by the unilateral decisions of some countries, the weakening of the multilateral system, and a lack of coordinated action. This crisis demonstrated that no country can face such challenges alone and that greater international cooperation is essential to effectively address global health emergencies. Therefore, if Argentina withdraws from the WHO, it is foreseeable that in future health emergencies, the population—especially the most vulnerable sectors—will suffer from the loss of cooperation mechanisms and the distribution of critical resources.
The Fundamental role of the WHO and Multilateralism
Since its founding in 1948, the WHO has been the backbone of the global health system, fulfilling essential functions that go beyond merely issuing recommendations. It is, in effect, a coordinating entity that facilitates the early detection of epidemiological outbreaks, the standardisation of clinical protocols, and the provision of technical and financial assistance to countries with developing health systems. For example, epidemiological surveillance enables the early detection of outbreaks of diseases monkeypox, which allows governments and health systems to take immediate measures to contain their spread. Likewise, the organisation harmonises regulations—from the definition of clinical protocols to the safety in the use of medications—establishing standards that guarantee quality medical care worldwide.
Similarly, the technical and financial assistance offered by the WHO has been crucial in programs aimed at combating diseases such as polio, Chagas, tuberculosis, or HIV/AIDS. Thanks to its ability to mobilise resources and coordinate efforts, significant advances have been achieved, such as eradicating smallpox in 1980 and a 99% reduction in polio cases since 1988. It is worth mentioning that in 1988, the World Health Assembly launched the global initiative to eradicate poliomyelitis, which Argentina joined by meeting the established requirements; this has given the country a voice in the Assembly for decades, where priorities are set and resources allocated that benefit the country and strengthen global health. Therefore, multilateralism in health, despite its difficulties and limitations, allows common challenges to be addressed through cooperation and exchanging knowledge. In an interconnected world, where health threats transcend borders and are intertwined with economic and social issues, abandoning this system is equivalent to isolating oneself in a global environment that demands constant coordination. No one is safe on their own.
Multidimensional Impact of the Withdrawal
The decision to withdraw from the WHO would have multidimensional consequences, affecting political, diplomatic, economic, social, ethical, and health spheres. In the political-diplomatic realm, Argentina would lose influence in global regulation formulation and active voice in multilateral forums, limiting its participation in international policies in areas such as tobacco or pharmaceutical patents.
Economically, withdrawal could increase costs for programs currently receiving international support. Argentina's annual contribution (10 million dollars) is insignificant compared to withdrawal costs. A concrete impact could be losing access to the PAHO/WHO Strategic Fund, which for example, enables savings up to 75% on vaccines through joint purchases with 41 countries. Withdrawal could also trigger brain drain and weaken the country's innovative potential.
In health realm, disengagement would reduce access to essential mechanisms for importing supplies and medications at competitive prices. The WHO Prequalification System ensures high quality standards; without it, treatments would become more expensive and access to innovative therapies would be limited. Specifically, exclusion from the Medicines Prequalification Program could complicate access to essential drugs for HIV or tuberculosis.
Outside the International Health Regulations (2005), Argentina would have reduced access to early alerts about global health threats. Dismantling the CNE could leave the country without alerts for outbreaks like Ebola or new COVID-19 variants. Isolation would hinder coordinated response to regional crises such as dengue or yellow fever, and compromise participation in key Collaborating Centres (e.g., ANLIS-Malbrán) for pathogen surveillance.
Refuting Arguments from a Rights Perspective
Various sectors have defended withdrawing from the WHO, arguing that by doing so Argentina would regain full health sovereignty and save resources. However, a thorough analysis reveals important limitations in these arguments.
Firstly, arguing that the withdrawal would allow for the recovery of full health sovereignty misinterprets the very concept of sovereignty in the context of global health, given that the WHO issues non-binding recommendations and respects national autonomy in decision-making. Moreover, true sovereignty is strengthened through informed participation in multilateral spaces, cooperation, and the exchange of knowledge; the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that not even world powers can face health crises in isolation. Furthermore, when a country withdraws from a multilateral organization, it also exits its governing bodies (such as the World Health Assembly in this case)—meaning it relinquishes its seat at the table in intergovernmental debates. By losing its voice and vote in these spaces, the country can no longer shape the global regulations and standards that will inevitably impact it, both directly and indirectly, as a state and on its private sector, regardless of its preferences.
Secondly, the economic argument—which posits significant savings on international contributions—ignores that the modest annual contribution of 10 million dollars is minimal compared to the economic benefits derived from cooperation, such as savings from joint vaccine purchases and reduced costs for essential treatments.
Lastly, the criticism regarding the institutional efficiency of the WHO—referring to its alleged inefficiency and politicisation—does not justify its abandonment since the deficiencies require internal reforms and strengthened governance, as proposed by countries such as Brazil and South Africa, rather than isolating oneself from a system necessary for coordinating global responses. Consequently, the unilateral decision to withdraw from the WHO lacks valid justification across political, diplomatic, economic, social, and health dimensions.
Final Reflections
Reconsidering WHO withdrawal is imperative as it would harm public health cooperation. What is more, this decision, made without Congressional input, undermines democratic principles and the constitutional right to health.
Maintaining international scientific networks and presence in multilateral arenas are crucial. Health rights require cooperation in our interconnected world where crises cross borders. In this scenario, internal WHO reform should be prioritized over abandonment.
Claims of economic or sovereignty benefits lack evidence—true strength comes through collaboration. WHO withdrawal isolates Argentina when coordination is essential and weakens democratic foundations. If Argentina’s withdrawal from the WHO became a fact, would represent a setback regarding health policy, sovereignty, and democracy. An evidence-based public debate is needed.
Only through increased cooperation can a robust health system be built—one capable of protecting the population and guaranteeing health as an inalienable right.
María Belén Herrero is a Sociologist and holds a Ph.D. in Social Sciences from the University of Buenos Aires (UBA). She has specialised in Epidemiology at the National University of Córdoba (UNC) and in International Health (PAHO). Currently, she is a Researcher at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and in the International Relations Department of FLACSO Argentina. She teaches in the Master of International Relations at FLACSO Argentina, at the doctorate of Social Sciences (UBA) and in other regional courses and programmes. She is coordinator of the Higher Diploma in South-South and Triangular Cooperation at FLACSO Argentina and of the Diploma in International Health of the School of Government in Health. She is a specialist in Global Health; International Cooperation; and Social Epidemiology.
The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of EU-VALUES Network.