WHO’s on First?

You’d think that politics would fall by the wayside in the time of a global pandemic, at least on an international level. The coronavirus hardly respects international borders. We know that COVID-19 has become a political football here in the United States, where it seems the President sees the events unfolding in terms of electability, religious beliefs, often rejecting recommendations from his own medical experts, his prioritization of the economy over life and his proclivity to shift responsibility and lay blame on others, usually Democrats. We also see rivalries between nations on a political plain, as, for example, the US blamed China’s agricultural practices, and China blamed the US military for the outbreak and spread of the virus.

But blame and fake news are also infecting relationships with allies. A friend of mine in France says the Internet there is exploding with an apocryphal tale of American money buying a massive shipment of surgical masks, otherwise destined for France, right off the tarmac as a cargo plane was about to lift off… for triple the price French buyers had paid. Germans too are accusing the United States of similar “theft.” The French and Germans see this as additional evidence that the United States was a selfish rogue nation no longer willing to play ball with the rest of the world on much of anything. That said, American states, hospitals, FEMA, etc., are activity bidding against all buyers, which moves the price up, for the same supplies. That is unfortunately true. Fake news based on the perception of the new Trump-driven America.

But this is a global pandemic, and lots of people are doing lots of stuff that just does not make sense. We see irresponsibility everywhere. Make no mistake, we are definitely part of the problem. We know the Trump administration cut funding for the CDC by 16% and disbanded a federal task force focused on pandemics. Those weren’t the only relevant cuts. As part of the policy of political self-isolation, the hallmark of the administration since they took office in 2017, has been to cut foreign aid and funding for international projects in general, regardless of any potential benefits to us. For example, “Two months before the novel coronavirus is thought to have begun its deadly advance in Wuhan, China, the Trump administration ended a $200-million pandemic early-warning program aimed at training scientists in China and other countries to detect and respond to such a threat.

“The project, launched by the U.S. Agency for International Development in 2009, identified 1,200 different viruses that had the potential to erupt into pandemics, including more than 160 novel coronaviruses. The initiative, called PREDICT, also trained and supported staff in 60 foreign laboratories — including the Wuhan lab that identified SARS-CoV-2, the new coronavirus that causes COVID-19…

“‘It’s absolutely critical that we don’t drop the idea of a large-scale, proactive, predictive program that tries to catch pandemics before they happen. Cutting a program that could in any way reduce the risk of things like COVID-19 happening again is, by any measure, shortsighted,’ said [Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, a key player in the program initiative].” Los Angeles Times, April 3^rd.

But politics is interfering on so many international levels as well. You’d think that of all organizations, the United Nations would be the most dispassionately neutral global organization to deal with this pandemic, obviously through their World Health Organization, created in significant part to deal with such crises. It was among the first agencies unleashed when the UN was created.

“The WHO's broad mandate includes advocating for universal healthcare, monitoring public health risks, coordinating responses to health emergencies, and promoting human health and well being. It provides technical assistance to countries, sets international health standards and guidelines, and collects data on global health issues through the World Health Survey. Its flagship publication, the World Health Report, provides expert assessments of global health topics and health statistics on all nations. The WHO also serves as a forum for summits and discussions on health issues…

“The WHO was established in 7 April 1948, which is commemorated as World Health Day. The first meeting of the World Health Assembly (WHA), the agency's governing body, took place on 24 July 1948. The WHO incorporated the assets, personnel, and duties of the League of Nations' Health Organisation and the Office International d'Hygiène Publique, including the International Classification of Diseases. Its work began in earnest in 1951 following a significant infusion of financial and technical resources.” Wikipedia. The WHO should have led the COVID-19 response. But alas, the WHO has its share of political restrictions that literally impair its effectiveness.

Let’s start with the exclusion of Taiwan from the United Nations (and the WHO) because China considers Taiwan a renegade province, part of China, that does not deserve recognition by the United Nations. “Amid the Sino-Soviet split and Vietnam War, UnitedStates President Richard Nixon entered into negotiations with Communist Chairman Mao, initially through a secret 1971 trip undertaken by Henry Kissinger to visit Zhou Enlai. On 25 October 1971, Albania's motion to recognize the People's Republic of China as the sole legal China was passed as General Assembly Resolution 2758.” Wikipedia. In one fell swoop, Taiwan was kicked out of the UN, and the Peoples’ Republic of China took its place, in the UN and on the Security Council. Taiwan was rebuffed again in 2008, when it sought admission to the UN.

Even though Taiwan sits in a very strategic position vis-à-vis the COVID-19 outbreak, this island nation of 24 million cannot coordinate its response to the virus with the WHO! But the WHO has to be global in pandemics to be effective. Indeed, political pressure from the PRC has negatively impacted the WHO COVID-19 response in other ways. “[The] WHO was under fire for taking weeks to raise its highest warning about the novel coronavirus despite its spread globally — a decision widely viewed as deference to China.

“Leading a medical response on a wide scale is a volatile mix of politics, disease, money, science, second guesses and lost opportunities. The WHO was blasted for taking too long to sound the alarm over the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Five years earlier, though, it was criticized for overreacting to the H1N1 swine flu.

“But the WHO’s position today is arguably more fraught than at any time since the end of the Cold War. As COVID-19 ravages more countries, the agency has to navigate political tensions between the two most powerful nations, the U.S. and China. It is also encountering growing nationalism and, in some cases, a rejection of science fueled by populism and social media.

“The WHO risks becoming a bystander in the unfolding crisis as countries make unilateral decisions about emergency measures, treatment and distribution of medical resources. There are parallels between the organization and the blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeepers dispatched to stop wars and conflicts but are eclipsed by national self-interests that undermine their missions.

“The fractious climate could result in renewed disease outbreaks and inequities, experts say, especially if an eventual vaccine leads to a free-for-all in which nations hoard supplies. It also raises questions about how the WHO, in an increasingly divided world, could handle an even swifter and more deadly virus, such as what scientists term as a Disease X.

“‘The WHO has been sidelined from the biggest pandemic of the century,’ said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown law professor and director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. ‘The powerful forces of sovereignty, nationalism and populism have literally overwhelmed the WHO as an institution for no fault of its own. At a time when the world should be coming together under the WHO banner, solidarity is unraveling.’” LA Times.

But as much as the United States is part of the problem, we still have enough political clout to be a very big part of the solution. We can reestablish and increase the funding we cut off, both at home and overseas, targeting preventing and controlling epidemics and pandemics. And if China does not mend its ways on the most basic commitment to global health, the United States could lead an effort, one that could even bring a vote back to the United Nations General Assembly, such that there a no exclusions for any nation from participating in the WHO. And most of all, we can stop pretending that we really can “go it alone,” flaunting and bullying our way in international relations. We are inseparable part of planet Earth!

            I’m Peter Dekom, and whatever happened to “we’re in this together” mantra that seems to have exploded into a new level of me, myself, and mine.