Who holds WHO accountable? | The Listening Post (Feature)

Much of the coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic treats the World Health Organization (WHO) as an authoritative, impartial source of information. But should it?

From the advent of COVID-19, the WHO's press conferences have been a fixture in global news coverage. They serve as a touchstone for journalists and, given that the WHO has 194 member states, the pressers have become a primary source of information for global context.

"The WHO does shape information globally quite significantly," says Lawrence Gostin, a professor in global health law at Georgetown University who has worked closely with the WHO in the past, "because it is a trusted and objective science adviser to the world".

However, the organisation's objectivity has been called into question. It started in early January when China media analysts started observing a similarity between what the WHO was saying and official statements coming out of China. For example, on January 14, the WHO tweeted: "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus".

That same day, the Wuhan Health Commission's public bulletin declared, "We have not found proof for human-to-human transmission." The question is, why would the WHO repeat - almost verbatim - the claims made by China when news outlets, in Hong Kong and elsewhere, were already comparing the novel coronavirus to SARS and saying that it could very well be transferred from person to person? The answer comes down to access. China only granted the WHO access to Wuhan in February 2020, nearly three months after the first case was detected.

"WHO's reporting, by virtue of its governance, is highly dependent on every member country's ability, honesty and willingness to share data and issue notifications of epidemics," says Osman Dar, director of the Global Health Programme at Chatham House. "Its verification systems can only be as good as the access their member states provide."

Which is the crux of the issue. Member states are not beholden to the WHO but rather the WHO is beholden to them. Not only is the organisation's access, in large part, determined by its member states, but they also make up most of the WHO's funding.

On April 15, US President Donald Trump threatened to halt his country's funding to the WHO, accusing the organisation of being China-centric. The president's critics say the threat was an attempt to deflect criticism of Trump's own mishandling of this crisis; however, his actions highlight a key vulnerability in the WHO.

The US is, by far, the organisation's biggest funder and if Washington follows through with Trump's threat, then that would severely hinder its operational capacity. Which begs the question - how can the WHO speak truth to power when those powers largely control its access and its funding?

"It's not totally neutral. If you're seeing something coming from the WHO, it's something that its member states wanted to be released, it is something that a member state consented to be released," says Stephen Buranyi, a journalist at The Guardian newspaper, "to see the full picture, you have to go beyond what states are telling it."



Produced by:

Nicholas Muirhead

Contributors:

Lawrence Gostin - Director, O'Neill Institute, Georgetown University

Osman Dar - Global Health Programme, Chatham House

Stephen Buranyi - Journalist, The Guardian

Rana Mitter - Director, China Centre, Oxford University

#AljazeeraEnglish #WHO #Coronavirus

[sanjaydas]

Is it worth it? Selling your soul for money.

[rafalpedros]

Stop buying chinese. I understand its not entirely possible, but as much as you can.

[johnyon]

Your name will be remembered for centuries

[davidbradford]

Before Tedros can step down he has to OK it with his Chinese masters.

[andrewkhoo]

stop WHO and start a new HOW would be great!!

[jesusk]

When there was no known evidence, there was no evidence. Just because you have all the information here now doesn't mean you knew better. Human beings!

[rauleyshar]

World heartless organization should be held accountable.

[diepchaungoc]

TEdros ran up to his father and held his father hand...evil ...devil...

[camonty]

During SARS the WHO director was a doctor, not a specialist in cholera outbreak cover ups. Taiwan told WHO and WHO ignored it. We can see now, announcing to early is better than this.

[FakeNews_Ignored]

If WHO is blind, why and who needs it?

[marcelpatricetalleyrand]

Can any American voice any discontent vis a vis anyone but themselves and their Government!

[bs]

Only me or does the reporter look like epstein?

[cldwzgb]

Aside from saying the off-repeated line of washing your hands and social distancing what did the W.H.O. do to earn their junkets? They are receiving money that ought to be used in more meaningful ways.

[Kevjoseful]

Shame on you Al jazeera for towing Trumps line

[jasybrigde]

There is quite a lot to blame for the WHO. First the report that it was not a human-to-human communicable condition. When the infectiousness and mortality of the disease was known, plead against closing the Chinese borders so that the Chinese could continue to travel. I think they are still very sick in Lombardy. When it was already known that China arrested doctors who warned and silenced at an early stage, they still claimed that China deserved compliments and was fantastic. All statements from the aforementioned man of the WHO and all to read. And then I mention just a few, the series is longer. Trump is absolutely right in this matter. China has invested heavily in Ethiopia, among others, and what is the right thing. The US pays the bill of a WHO bought by China. The world population pays the bill of its consequences.

[bogusbalikji]

If a police chief in a city obtains bribes to favor the agenda of a certain politician, it does not necessarily mean that the whole police force under him or her is corrupt. Even with a corrupt police chief, the police force of a city still protects the lives of the majority of ordinary defenseless people of that city; just because a certain police chief is corrupt, the government still funds the police organization of that city. Punish the corrupt chief of that city, not the whole police force.
Thus, if certain members of the World Health Organization obtained bribes to accommodate the agenda of a certain country, the organization itself must still be funded in order to protect the lives of the ordinary defenseless people around the world. Punish the corrupt chiefs of the WHO, not the whole WHO.

[danielguntermann]

This seems to be pretty much a WHO apologist piece. It doesn’t address why bureaucrats from the WHo spend such a large portion of its budget on first class travel and four star hotels and restaurants, amounting to hundreds of million dollars for posh lifestyles. It doesn’t attempt to address the input from Taiwan that there was human-to-human transmission. It doesn’t address why the WHO excluded and withheld info from Taiwan. It doesn’t explain it’s criticism of Trump and the US for banning international travel to the US on late February. It doesn’t address. It doesn’t address the inexplicable inability of the WHO to identify this virus as a virus originating in China. The reporters don’t do the story justice in my opinion.

[MrTweetyhack]

The WHO given MILLIONS to do nothing. Give it to me, I excel at doing nothing. Heck, I might even send an email or two.

[traceymacy]

who is a failure and is responsible for every single death

[frylicaicarganivid]

if they need to resign then let it be. If china doesn't want cooperate then go ahead. Lesson can learned easily in esp. if it cause more lives. Let thus idiots suffered their negligence. Each of us can decide and we must teach them the consequence of their wrong doing. When they lied and we died.