4 ms·
I gotta say staging this whole event, again, has been pretty successful agitprop so far. Afaik WHO officials were maneuvered into similar "Gotcha!" moments abo
by 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 agoBut 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 agoAgain: 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...