Thread by @gyude_moore

A few thoughts on the USG's posture toward @WHO: Between Nov. 2002 & March 2003 UN inspectors conducted more over 900 inspections at more than 500 sites across Iraq and found no chemical or biological weapons. There was no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. 1/

Dissatisfied with Iraq's level of cooperation, however, the US United States abandoned the inspections process and initiated the invasion of Iraq on March 19. The whole Middle East is still paying steep price for this decision. It's important to note what did not happen after. 2/

Not a single member state held @UN or @iaeaorg responsible and threatened to withhold funding because the organization did not "demand" the the US remain in the process or "prevent" the US from invading Iraq. And as any adult knows, this made sense. 3/

Everyone understands that international organizations are what their sovereign member states make them - they can be powerful or powerless based on how much their members decide to cooperate. Yet the US will now withhold funding because @WHO didn't do something it can't. 4/

On February 15, 2003, Colin Powell presented outright lies at the UN to make a case for the invasion of Iraq. He later called it "painful". Yet not a single member state threatened to withhold funding from the @UN because it did not prevent Colin Powell from lying to it. 5/

As my colleague, @JeremyKonyndyk explains in this thread, @WHO acted within the constraints of the legally binding International health regulations:

https://twitter.com/JeremyKonyndyk/status/1251355977485635586?s=20

6/

And even though the US is only 4.2% of the global population that benefits from the existence and work of the @WHO, it is prepared to recklessly risk harm to the other 95.8% in the middle of an unprecedented global pandemic on spurious claims. 7/

This action is a clear demonstration of the very thing the US accuses @WHO of doing - letting a single member undermine a collective public good. How do Africans, Asians, Europeans, Latin Americans and Oceanians feel about @WHO's performance? Apparently it doesn't matter. 8/

If the US covers 15% of the @WHO, we will pretend that the source of the other 85% does not matter. Mtchew! Just as the EU 27 adapted to an EU without a UK, the world will adapt to @WHO without the US and ultimately free @WHO from capricious mood swings of an unreliable US. 9/

But this is another stark lesson for governments across Africa who chronically underinvest in social welfare. We are the main victims to a reduced @WHO presence. Nobody will respect us as long as we depend on the generosity of others for basic things like food and medicine. END