|
|
|
|
|
by vagrantJin
1785 days ago
|
|
I think you overestimate how well the WHO is run. It has to be political because it is a multinational political entity whether they call themselves that or not. They don't have willy nilly use of their funding either, and they sometimes have to deal with very difficult heads of state. It's to be expected for an organisation that big, with that size scope to be in a state of semi-chaos no different than a huge multinational. |
|
However this crisis requires a different leadership, much more outspoken, more authoritative and quick acting. They could have stepped up to the task but they didn't. The WHO that we have had until now (and has done a great job at what they did) is not the WHO we need now to deal with this massive crisis that is spanning the globe. Just like with climate change this is not something you can leave to individual governments if you are to solve it, because they will only serve their own interests in the end.
I'm sure they will evolve over time. But stronger leadership would have recognised the threat, taken some risk and evolved already. Probably appointed a very visible crisis manager (e.g. an ex-president or other very high-profile executive), and set up a task force with high visibility, strong media communication etc. It would be much harder for governments to ignore and as such much more effective.
I wish they were only as political as a multinational because those do react to threats much better than a truly political organisation does. I'm not saying they're bad at what they do. I'm just saying the WHO we have now is not what we need.