4 ms·

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.

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.