
Why Taiwan has become a problem for WHO - clouddrover
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167
======
freeflight
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_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#Background)

~~~
emmelaich
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
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/o...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-
insight/2013/oct/13/world-health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium)

------
paulus_magnus2
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.

------
emmelaich
> _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.

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

~~~
schoen
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.

