How to Kill it like a (WHO) Boss
COVID-19, a tragedy Made in China
Political Animals
Some unions were born as political animals. The United Nations (UN) is an excellent example of this. The UN was founded on the idea of defeating Hitlerism, making no bones about its political alliances or aims. The Cold War allowed the organization to reinvent itself as an agency for peacekeeping, collecting member states as colonialism fell apart. These new member states also joined for political purposes, including the recognition of their legitimacy and the protection of their borders. Post-Cold War, the UN has descended into a form of political one-upmanship with member states jockeying for positions on various councils to protect and promote their worldviews. An example of this would be the inclusion of Saudi Arabia on the UN Human Rights Council. More recently, the UN has attempted to increase its relevancy with high-level, feel-good strategies, such as the Millennium Development Goals. Good or bad, however, the UN has always maintained its political roots.
The European Union (EU) was also a child of politics. It was created during the Cold War when the genuine threat of a USSR military and financial invasion was at its doorstep. The original leaders wanted power to be shared equally. Despite backing the agreement, the Thatcher government maintained the British Pound as a safety net. It was still an untested political union, after all. At the time, no one could conceive of the juggernaut, which would become the overwhelming financial power of a reunified Germany. German economic influence yanked the power balance out of kilter, causing it to favour one nation – Germany. Considering that the union was always a practical, political one, it’s not a surprise that once the UK felt the promised equality was lost, it voted for Brexit.
Virtue Signaling
On the other hand, some organizations were meant to transcend politics, relying on virtue signaling to galvanize support and gather strength. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was intended to step in when politics made justice impossible. That isn’t to say that politics do not impact the ICC. The United States (US) has argued that the ICC doesn’t sufficiently protect against politicized prosecutions. African leaders allege that the ICC is a tool of Western Imperialism, focusing too sharply on Africa and smaller, weaker states while allowing richer and more powerful ones to go unchecked. Indeed, the US, Russia, and China are not submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the ICC, and it remains to be seen how this young organization will prove itself in this world.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) promotes itself as a humanitarian organization dedicated to protecting victims of armed conflicts, and for over 150 years, it has done just that. It has fiercely defended its public neutrality but not without controversy. Based in Geneva and receiving funding from the Swiss government, it actively chose to avoid opposition to the Nazis during World War II, aligning itself instead with Swiss wartime policies. (It should be noted that post-WWII, the ICRC reassessed its relationship with Switzerland to ensure autonomy.) While this neutrality has undoubtedly contributed to the success of the ICRC, the organization has increasingly taken up a political voice to condemn genocide and human rights abuses. For the most part, however, the ICRC prefers to remain apolitical and resolve internal and external disputes in a low-key and incremental fashion.
Undue Influence
The danger then creeps in when supposedly nonpartisan organizations poison themselves by playing political favourites. The World Health Organization (WHO) was created, in part, to monitor and respond to public health risks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Originally meant to protect world health without bias or prejudice, that principle has slowly been eaten away. This decline is evident by the preferential treatment given to China by the WHO. From expelling Taiwan to accepting traditional Chinese medicine to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus singing its praises, China has firmly established that they are more influential than other countries when it comes to the WHO.
With its neutrality compromised and its funding threatened, does the WHO still have a credible footing? It can, but it must evolve. First, the WHO needs to stop blinding accepting the information reported by member states and set up a strategy to investigate public health risks independently. If the organization is impeded in doing so by the member state, that lack of transparency needs to be communicated to world leaders so that they may decide what measures best protect their respective populations. The WHO’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct needs to be rewritten so that it encompasses the role of Director-General rather than viewing the Director-General as a demi-god above the organization. Lastly, it must focus on public health over placating member states. Politics should be left to the politicians and diplomacy to the diplomats; the mandate of the WHO is to safeguard public health.
The WHO didn’t need to mismanage the COVID-19 response to torpedo itself; it was already sinking. The problem is that with its continued struggle to disperse blame, it’s dragging the world’s health and economy down with it.
