Hey, it's Friday night, so let's get a little wonky in exploring just how off-base Trump and Pompeo's attacks on @WHO are.
Bottom line up front: they're attacking WHO for failing to do things that WHO...has no authority to do.
Bottom line up front: they're attacking WHO for failing to do things that WHO...has no authority to do.
Pompeo's interview with FOX this morning is pretty illuminating in this respect. He bashes @WHO for not "demanding answers" from China about the origins of the outbreak, so the world can "attribute" what happened.
state.gov/secretary-mich…
state.gov/secretary-mich…
There's a problem with this claim: WHO's member states (the US included) don't allow WHO to do that.
WHO's authority w.r.t. novel outbreak crises is enshrined in the Int'l Health Regulations, a legally-binding agreement amongst WHO's member states. who.int/ihr/publicatio…
WHO's authority w.r.t. novel outbreak crises is enshrined in the Int'l Health Regulations, a legally-binding agreement amongst WHO's member states. who.int/ihr/publicatio…
And the IHRs put all of the onus on the member state, not on WHO.
A member state has an obligation to promptly notify WHO of novel events, but the IHRs don't give WHO the authority to compel that.
A member state has an obligation to promptly notify WHO of novel events, but the IHRs don't give WHO the authority to compel that.
What if WHO isn't getting info from the member state, but gets a concerning report about it from elsewhere (like, say...Taiwan)?
The IHRs require WHO to go first to the member state to verify the report.
The IHRs require WHO to go first to the member state to verify the report.
What do the IHRs *not* do? Authorize WHO to unilaterally initiate and conduct its own investigation. The state has to agree.
This might sound frustrating, but flip it around: how would the USG react if WHO told us they were opening a unilateral investigation in our country?
This might sound frustrating, but flip it around: how would the USG react if WHO told us they were opening a unilateral investigation in our country?
Once a member state notifies WHO of an event, WHO then can share that info with the world. But only the info provided by the state, and only in consultation with the state.
Crazy as it sounds, the IHRs don't authorize WHO to publicly second-guess the info it receives.
Crazy as it sounds, the IHRs don't authorize WHO to publicly second-guess the info it receives.
So bashing WHO for uncritically sharing the skewed info it was getting from China in early January is basically...bashing WHO for complying with the legal guidance set out by the member states.
Again, it's designed this way because *states* wanted it designed this way. Few countries want to grant WHO the authority to publicly second-guess the info they provide.
What about an origin/attribution investigation, as Pompeo proposes WHO should "demand?"
Nada. Nothing in the IHRs grants WHO the authority to do this.
The closest thing that exists in int'l law is in the bio weapons convention - but that 1) isn't WHO, and 2) does't apply here.
Nada. Nothing in the IHRs grants WHO the authority to do this.
The closest thing that exists in int'l law is in the bio weapons convention - but that 1) isn't WHO, and 2) does't apply here.
Now the great irony in all this is that normally this administration would be deeply offended if a multilateral agency began asserting powers for itself that its members haven't granted it.
Which is essentially what they're demanding WHO do here.
Which is essentially what they're demanding WHO do here.
So at this point you're maybe saying - the IHRs seem...pretty problematic!
Yes!
But then the solution then is to amend and update the IHRs (long overdue, frankly) rather than pillory WHO for adhering to them.
Yes!
But then the solution then is to amend and update the IHRs (long overdue, frankly) rather than pillory WHO for adhering to them.
The Trump administration thinks it's mad at @WHO. It's actually mad at the IHRs.
But it's hard to turn an inanimate int'l legal instrument into a political scapegoat. And a rallying cry of "reform the IHRs!" doesn't give Trump much political cover.
So WHO gets the flak.
But it's hard to turn an inanimate int'l legal instrument into a political scapegoat. And a rallying cry of "reform the IHRs!" doesn't give Trump much political cover.
So WHO gets the flak.
Addendum:
