4 ms·

Why Taiwan has become a problem for WHO

12 points by clouddrover 7y ago

DevKoala 7y ago
The interview with the head of the WHO is surreal. The WHO needs to be dismantled. It has been corrupted.
- schoen 7y ago
  Almost every intergovernmental organization and UN agency has substantially this behavior when you try to communicate with them about Taiwan. This in turn is apparently because the PRC will threaten to reduce its cooperation or funding or other kinds of participation in such organizations if they ever suggest that Taiwan is a country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Taipei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Taipei In this regard WHO isn't particularly unique or corrupt in comparison with other agencies, and presumably the people who continue to comply with this policy feel like it's worth it simply because they think the risk of the PRC punishing them with reduced cooperation is so serious. A more abstract view is that the intergovernmental organizations literally do work for the governments according to the rules that the governments have mutually agreed, which in turn includes things like defining who is or isn't allowed to participate. Therefore this kind of question could be viewed as asking "wouldn't you agree that your boss/employer's board of directors is wrong about...?". To return to criticism of this situation and behavior: I think things like this also raise questions about whether the intergovernmental organizations are doing a good job, and whether their governance model and responsibilities are appropriate (because as in this case, they can sometimes do a much worse job when their bosses -- the member states -- find reasons to pressure them over political or symbolic issues). Someone defending these organizations would probably say that international diplomacy is very hard and that creating an organization with as much power and responsibility as WHO (for example) actually successfully exercises is difficult, considering that the default alternative might just be "national sovereignty and purely ad-hoc collaboration". That is, this particular flaw in WHO's actions could be seen as part of the price for WHO's existence at all (or for the PRC continuing to be a member state, which has seemingly been pretty relevant for WHO's ability to try to manage the COVID-19 crisis). I think at the very least people should continue to pressure WHO about this kind of thing, not because it will directly change anything in the short term, but because it helps highlight the costs that the PRC's (or other states') conditions on participation are creating.
freeflight 7y ago
I gotta say staging this whole event, again, has been pretty successful agitprop so far. Afaik WHO officials were maneuvered into similar "Gotcha!" moments about Taiwan before, the interesting part: This reaction by WHO officials isn't exclusive to Taiwan. If somebody would ask them about the COVID-19 situation in, for example, Palestine, then their answer would be equally evading or just referencing Israel [0]. Kurdistan is another territory that comes to mind that you will never see a WHO official acknowledge in any way. This is the result of the WHO being forced to play "political triage" or risk losing support and funding from major power blocks that always want to dictate their particular territorial politics. In that equation, where the goal is to help and reach the most people on the planet, it's sadly those smaller territories that end up as the "casualties" trough their lack of recognition. This is most certainly not fair, but if the WHO would recognize every disputed territory in the world, which would include Palestine in addition to Taiwan and others, then it would suddenly lose support from major parts of the rest of the world. A WHO with Palestine and Taiwan, but without China, the US, Israel and whoever else would leave, would be a rather inconsequential WHO. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_t...
- emmelaich 7y ago
  But if the WHO acts in China's interest and not the health of the world, maybe we should abandon them? It's more than dancing around political disputes; the WHO acted in a way indistinguishable from Chinese official media. Their tweets and media have really not aged well.
  - freeflight 7y ago
    Again: This is not exclusive to China, the WHO has also acted in the US's interest, not only on territorial issues but way past those [0] So the question is rather: Would having no WHO at all be better than the WHO we have? Who or what would replace it while guaranteeing they are not running into exactly the same problem? The only way around that would be by putting some individual country in charge, but that way you would only bake the bias in by design. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/o...
emmelaich 7y ago
> Bruce Aylward, the WHO assistant director-general, No more! https://www.who.int/dg/who-headquarters-leadership-team https://www.who.int/dg/who-headquarters-leadership-team Perhaps his deference wasn't robust enough.
paulus_magnus2 7y ago
I was surprised Bruce Aylward was so easily caught off guard by the interviewee, WHO is mostly a political organisation. An easy way out was to interpret the question geographically (Taiwan is also the name of their main Island): Taipei did this and that. And the response in rural areas / the whole island were such and so.

12 points by clouddrover 7y ago

DevKoala 7y ago

The interview with the head of the WHO is surreal. The WHO needs to be dismantled. It has been corrupted.

schoen 7y ago
Almost every intergovernmental organization and UN agency has substantially this behavior when you try to communicate with them about Taiwan. This in turn is apparently because the PRC will threaten to reduce its cooperation or funding or other kinds of participation in such organizations if they ever suggest that Taiwan is a country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Taipei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Taipei In this regard WHO isn't particularly unique or corrupt in comparison with other agencies, and presumably the people who continue to comply with this policy feel like it's worth it simply because they think the risk of the PRC punishing them with reduced cooperation is so serious. A more abstract view is that the intergovernmental organizations literally do work for the governments according to the rules that the governments have mutually agreed, which in turn includes things like defining who is or isn't allowed to participate. Therefore this kind of question could be viewed as asking "wouldn't you agree that your boss/employer's board of directors is wrong about...?". To return to criticism of this situation and behavior: I think things like this also raise questions about whether the intergovernmental organizations are doing a good job, and whether their governance model and responsibilities are appropriate (because as in this case, they can sometimes do a much worse job when their bosses -- the member states -- find reasons to pressure them over political or symbolic issues). Someone defending these organizations would probably say that international diplomacy is very hard and that creating an organization with as much power and responsibility as WHO (for example) actually successfully exercises is difficult, considering that the default alternative might just be "national sovereignty and purely ad-hoc collaboration". That is, this particular flaw in WHO's actions could be seen as part of the price for WHO's existence at all (or for the PRC continuing to be a member state, which has seemingly been pretty relevant for WHO's ability to try to manage the COVID-19 crisis). I think at the very least people should continue to pressure WHO about this kind of thing, not because it will directly change anything in the short term, but because it helps highlight the costs that the PRC's (or other states') conditions on participation are creating.

freeflight 7y ago

I gotta say staging this whole event, again, has been pretty successful agitprop so far. Afaik WHO officials were maneuvered into similar "Gotcha!" moments about Taiwan before, the interesting part: This reaction by WHO officials isn't exclusive to Taiwan. If somebody would ask them about the COVID-19 situation in, for example, Palestine, then their answer would be equally evading or just referencing Israel [0]. Kurdistan is another territory that comes to mind that you will never see a WHO official acknowledge in any way. This is the result of the WHO being forced to play "political triage" or risk losing support and funding from major power blocks that always want to dictate their particular territorial politics. In that equation, where the goal is to help and reach the most people on the planet, it's sadly those smaller territories that end up as the "casualties" trough their lack of recognition. This is most certainly not fair, but if the WHO would recognize every disputed territory in the world, which would include Palestine in addition to Taiwan and others, then it would suddenly lose support from major parts of the rest of the world. A WHO with Palestine and Taiwan, but without China, the US, Israel and whoever else would leave, would be a rather inconsequential WHO. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_t...

emmelaich 7y ago
But if the WHO acts in China's interest and not the health of the world, maybe we should abandon them? It's more than dancing around political disputes; the WHO acted in a way indistinguishable from Chinese official media. Their tweets and media have really not aged well.
- freeflight 7y ago
  Again: This is not exclusive to China, the WHO has also acted in the US's interest, not only on territorial issues but way past those [0] So the question is rather: Would having no WHO at all be better than the WHO we have? Who or what would replace it while guaranteeing they are not running into exactly the same problem? The only way around that would be by putting some individual country in charge, but that way you would only bake the bias in by design. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/o...

emmelaich 7y ago

> Bruce Aylward, the WHO assistant director-general, No more! https://www.who.int/dg/who-headquarters-leadership-team https://www.who.int/dg/who-headquarters-leadership-team Perhaps his deference wasn't robust enough.

paulus_magnus2 7y ago

I was surprised Bruce Aylward was so easily caught off guard by the interviewee, WHO is mostly a political organisation. An easy way out was to interpret the question geographically (Taiwan is also the name of their main Island): Taipei did this and that. And the response in rural areas / the whole island were such and so.