Trump Threatens To Permanently Cut WHO Funding and Withdraw US Membership (usatoday.com) 382
President Donald Trump threatened to permanently cut U.S. funding to the World Health Organization and "reconsider" membership of the global health body if the WHO does not adopt "major substantive improvements" within 30 days. From a report: Trump's demands, made in a letter Tuesday to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, are an escalation of his attacks on the organization. He accused the WHO of "repeated missteps" during the coronavirus pandemic and demanded it "demonstrate independence" from China. "My administration has already started discussions with you on how to reform the organization. But action is needed quickly. We do not have time to waste," Trump wrote in his ultimatum, which comes about a month after he froze WHO funding pending a formal investigation into the international health body and its coronavirus response. The letter lists Trump's allegations that the United Nations agency missed warning signs of the virus' spread and then blithely accepted China's lack of transparency over the outbreak, such as whether the coronavirus could be transmitted between humans. The WHO initially circulated preliminary Chinese claims that there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus.
permanently* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is the problem off course if you have one side beholden to China and their leadership and the other completely against the values of the Chinese government.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little fuzzy here, which side is it that is "beholden to China"?
Re:permanently* (Score:4, Informative)
The side that gave Chinese companies a pass on Sarbanes-Oxley [justthenews.com] regulations when they do business in the US. Allowing them to bypass regulations related to fiscal transparency, rules that are enforced for US, EU, Canadian, etc. companies. All but China.
The same side which had a sitting Vice President who consistently insisting China isn't a threat or issue, c'mon man, it's China!
You know, the same side where that VP's son soon thereafter the "MOU" waiving SOX compliance went and formed a Chinese investment company (of which he owned 10%) that immediately had $1.5 BILLION invested from the same Chinese Government.
Must be Orange Man Bad...
Re: (Score:3)
So because Democrats have issues with Russia they must be on China's side? That's not really a logic based answer you've got there.
Re: (Score:3)
It also ignores that China and Russia are usually in cahoots with each other at the UN these days.
Re: (Score:3)
You are reading one sided tabloid press. DINO is a thing.
A bullshit term you just made up.
You're another deluded rightie, struggling with the truth.
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Informative)
That's just patently not true. US Democrats are certainly more globalist than Trumpian Republicans are (not to be confused with neverTrump ones who are mostly neocon globalists), but they are currently engaged in presidential campaign one of key points of which seems to be increasingly "who can be more belligerent toward China".
It's true that some portion of Democratic party are so deep down the Trump Derangement Syndrome rabbit hole, that they just take the opposite position to everything Trump says, meaning they do take pro-China positions when Trump takes an anti-China one. But most people in that party are nowhere nearly that far down into that hole of insanity, and do in fact criticise China on largely same merits that Trump does.
They do often have to pretend that they're in opposition to Trump in this. That's how we got those several stories in recent past from mainstream media that desperately tried to sell a fake story on how Trump is secretly pro-China because of his debt to China or investment in China. Which was rather hilarious considering that Trump was publicly and vocally anti-Chinese (regime and business tactics) all the way back to his New York Democrat days in the late 1990s.
Re: permanently* (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it wasn't a gift of $1.5 billion. It was a payoff for allowing Chinese companies to ignore Sarbanes Oxley financial transparency [justthenews.com] in US markets.
The Obama Administration waived the SOX compliance for all Chinese securities a few months before the payoff.
No other country gets that special treatment. You want access to US capital markets? You need to provide fiscal transparency of your finances, via audited, GAAP-compliant financial statements. Except China. They get a pass. Because of the 2013 waiver, overseen by then-Vice President Joe Biden, let's China ignore those rules.
I guess when your son's brand-spanking-new Chinese investment company gets $1.5 billion [nypost.com] (a son with zero experience investment management or China) from the Chinese Government, it really does mean something happened...
Re:permanently* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He is making us Venezuela only to the extent he uses state power to control private behavior, as in the Defense Production Act, which, according to the Dems, he isn't using _enough_. If anything, he's at least slowing our slide into a Venezuela, at least by contrast.
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Tax funded healthcare has faults but there is no profit incentive for creating more sick people like under private healthcare. More effort needs to go into preventing disease rather than treating the results of it.
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
What's completely ignorant about this is this politicizing that has brought it to this really dumb partisan issue when a global health watchdog is warranted in a world where people regularly move from one country to another country within hours. Like if we were still back in the day where it took weeks to get from one side of the Atlantic to the other, yeah, sure, "we don't need no stinking WHO." But we don't live in that world any longer. We really do need something that functions just like the WHO. Be it the WHO or not.
Now the fact that the WHO has a bunch of childish nations that it has to attend to. The US, UK, China, Russia, to name a few. Just makes their job that much harder. But all the whining that Trump is doing, pretty much every agency within the UN hears this from the big nations. Trump criticism of China isn't some unique thing, pretty much every country whines about it. However, it's up to the actual nations, not the WHO, to solve the kiddie problems. All the while the WHO asks that nations get over themselves for a flipping minute and understand that the WHO's function is something that is absolutely needed.
If Trump wants to make this some partisan issue, whatever. But it doesn't negate the fact that a global disease information organization is needed in this day and age. But the WHO isn't there to settle stupid issues that leaders bemoan like "You like them more than me!" But whatever, at this rate I'm pretty convinced that leaders now exist solely to murder the common cattle that is their citizens and that us commoners are more than happy to mindlessly march off to the stockade in the name of our ideology. Yes, let's get rid of a disease watchdog all in the name of not being beholden to China. That'll show those damn Chinese. That's a super great idea!
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
AKA hardball
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Trump has a track record of flip-flopping his public rhetoric while he is trying to effect changes
That makes it sound like a strategic, planned approach. I think that gives him credit for more planning and savvy than he is capable of.
for example, on Russia and China he waffles between admiration and Hatred depending on the most recent thing that has come out in the news. This is likely just him trying to scare them to get a change in their behavior.
I don't think so. I think this is just the way he works: He reacts from the gut to the most recent thing he's seen, tempered only slightly by his broader -- but still personal, subjective and largely ungrounded in facts -- view of whether the target is "good" or "bad".
You have to remember, that Trump isn't a politician, much less a strategist, he's a TV character. There
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Interesting)
" the other completely against the values of the Chinese government"
Press freedom? Trump and CCP agree it should be curtailed. Invasive government surveillance? Both Trump and the CCP are for it. No objective oversight of the government? Both are down with that. Rejection of scientific consensus? Well, Trump and Republicans are certainly for it, the CCP is only against it when it threatens their interests.
Re: (Score:3)
Ties to China you say?
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
https://www.salon.com/2020/05/... [salon.com]
Sorry to burst your bubble, but BOTH major parties have ties to China.
As for who shares the values of the Chinese government, let's just look at who praises dictatorships world-wide, and who jokes about being king for life. Who attacks the press every time it criticizes him? Who makes self-dealing and corruption the new normal?
Hint: It's Trump. It has always been Trump.
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
This belief is at least 10 years outdated. If anything, China has superior innovation capability in numerous areas including tooling, manufacturing, construction, silicon engineering, mathematics, textile engineering. Companies donâ(TM)t go to China because itâ(TM)s low cost anymore, because itâ(TM)s not. Itâ(TM)s the capability they have developed over decades of investment, powered by export and their government policy to excel at these things. Itâ(TM)s the American innovation playbook to the letter, sans democracy, for those who studied 20th century innovation policy. Only way these capability come back to US shore is with massive Federal government investment into manufacturing, education, and academia. Germany is the only western country today that invests heavily in local manufacturing. Without government investment in this space, America will not be able to sustain its innovative capacity. We are on borrowed time.
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
But only China is Communist and has as a national goal the destruction of "Western Imperialism". Hence, the leftists in the West LOVE it.
What are you talking about? While all political parties have championed globalization in the past few decades, push back against outsourcing has been a left leaning talking point until Trump. It started primarily with unions fighting against the practice, and unions have generally been left-leaning in their politics.
Push back against China is not what "leftists" complain about. Incompetent push back against China is the concern.
Re:It wasn't just for cheap goods (Score:5, Informative)
Real wages have been collapsing for ages.
Why do you keep posting ridiculous claims that are so trivially debunked? Real wages have been steadily rising for decades. [wikipedia.org] Here's a graph [wikipedia.org] from the St. Louis Fed.
Using the PCE, the real wages of a typical worker have increased by 32% over the past three decades. Median wages — for all workers, not just production and nonsupervisory workers — grew by 25% over the past three decades (using the PCE deflator). Wages for the bottom 20% of workers grew by more than one-third.[9]
You really need to fact-check your statements before posting. Try putting your statements (especially if they involve statistics) through a search engine and make sure what you're about to say isn't completely opposite of reality - as you've done in this instance.
My kid just graduated and is going to make about 30% less than someone in her major would have 20 years ago (adjusted for inflation).
What major would that be? Dare I ask for a source supporting your statement? Probably a dumb question since you have a habit of providing sources that actually refute the claims you make.
Because it's true (Score:3, Informative)
For the 1% and folks over 45 real wages are indeed up. Also most of
For the rest of the country, which is 90%, wages are down. But you won't see that in overall figures because they include folks at the top & the baby boomers who've remained untouched by globalism.
You need to get out of the media bubbl
Re: (Score:3)
> Also most of /. has been insulated from declining wages because we're better educated, tech hasn't collapsed as much
Your average 2020 slashdotter isn't even a tech worker.
Re:Because it's true (Score:4, Informative)
See here [cnbc.com]
That report is based on this report [newamerica.org] that in turn is based on this report [younginvincibles.org] which cites this report [younginvincibles.org] which does in fact claim that real wages have declined for millenials, but it uses only two data points from 1989 and 2013 - and nowhere does it mention where those numbers come from or how they were arrived at. It simply states a 20% decline without providing any information to support the claim.
But, thanks for the citation. It sorta (very poorly) supports your claim regarding your daughter. Best of luck to her.
and here [fas.org]
Uh oh. Maybe you'd better re-read that report (if you even read it to begin with).
For the 1% and folks over 45 real wages are indeed up...For the rest of the country, which is 90%, wages are down.
Sigh. From your own source, [fas.org] real wages are up 1.6% for the 10th percentile, up 6.1% for the 50th percentile, and up 37.6% for the 90th percentile over the period 1979-2018.
I guess you're still in the habit of citing sources without actually reading them.
But you won't see that in overall figures because they include folks at the top & the baby boomers who've remained untouched by globalism.
If you'd have bothered to look at the FRED chart I linked to, you'd have seen that the data they used was for production and non-supervisory employees. Those are hardly folks at the top. Again, your own fas.org source provides data for the tenth percentile wage growth at 1.6%. The figures are out there, you just refuse to look at them.
You need to get out of the media bubble you're in.
Challenging your claims means I'm trapped in a media bubble? You're cute.
Re:It wasn't just for cheap goods (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a graph [wikipedia.org] from the St. Louis Fed.
Your graph says that wages have been rising since 1995, and still have not reached what they were in the seventies.
Re: (Score:3)
I should evaluate your statement as though it were in a vacuum, like you're off in a corner ranting loudly to yourself, and not evaluate it in the context of a larger conversation. I will keep that in mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, a whole 32% across 30 years if you go by buying power.
Yep, it's pretty bad. Never said is wasn't. I just think that those who use outright false claims about how bad things are should be called out for it. There's no need to use lies in order to point to the truth.
How does it look relative to productivity gains that have been made in that time?
I think it looks something like this. [assets.bwbx.io] Also very very bad. Good thing I didn't say anything stupid like "wage growth has kept up with productivity growth".
Re: (Score:3)
Kansas - $53,510
Omaha - $54,206
Salt Lake - $54,421
Denver - $60,020
Seattle - $69,252
Portland - $76,261
San Diego - $83,063
Sacramento - $101,511
If she's moving anyway, why not pick someplace that compensates her better?
---
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If Canada and England(+Wales) would switch places, building a wall would be so much cheaper.(Just those, not Scotland or N.-Ireland)
England and Wales already have a wall blocking off Scotland. Needs some renovation though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or....
And please just hear me out here...
The US administration can stop trying to think of how the real world works as some sort of reality TV game show that the US somehow has to "win" or be ahead of everybody else and be a part of a cooperative global community where everybody actually ends up better off.
Life isn't a game where whoever finishes with the most toys wins, and it's a profound tragedy that the USA is currently being led by somebody who lacks the emotional maturity to see that.
Re:permanently* (Score:4, Insightful)
If you read the letter, Trump goes into why the WHO's loyalty to China threatens the world...as if you needed more evidence than what happened with the wuflu.
Sure, he's thinking about the US first, but he also has considerations about how the rest of the world is impacted by WHO's behavior.
Re:permanently* (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not loyalty to China, that's just propaganda. The WHO goes to great lengths to avoid taking political sides or positions on anything, and then when they fail to take Trump's side he accuses them of disloyalty.
The WHO needs to remain independent, and yes that means taking China at its word sometimes because calling them liars would force it to get involved in politics. If China did lie then that's for politicians to sort out, not the WHO.
It's rather ironic that Trump wants the WHO to be loyal to him, don't you think? Which is a great demonstration of why independence is the only way, otherwise the WHO is just owned by the highest bidder.
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:permanently* (Score:4, Insightful)
That's how you deal with anything you pay for.
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
You misunderstand: if you pay to have high health ideals upheld by WHO, then find out that those ideals have been compromised by WHO (because they altered their investigations and messaging to avoid embarrassing a particular country in Asia), then it's reasonable to withhold your funding.
Re: permanently* (Score:3, Informative)
Uh huh...
Ask the WHO to recognize Taiwan as a country and to let them join the organization.
You could also watch the video where they ignore the question, hang up the connection and attribute any Taiwanâ(TM)s work to China.
They are not going to piss Chinaâ(TM)s Cheerios and they are clearly taking sides.
We shouldnâ(TM)t be wasting money on this organization.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask the WHO to recognize Taiwan as a country
Why is that the job of the World Health Organization? Do you ask your doctor to make your neighbor keep his dog out of your yard? I think you fundamentally misunderstand what the WHO is for.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah that sounds like a great organization, one that refuses to listen when a country says "hey guys, shady shit happening."
Re: permanently* (Score:4, Interesting)
WHO wasn't even asked to formally recognize Taiwan as a country. They just needed to acknowledge that there was different information coming from Taiwan than from China, that they can be discussed separately. WHO rep. wouldn't even do that. It reeks of taking orders from China.
Re: permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Taiwan identified the issue before the WHO [time.com] did. Why turn away a nation that has proven to be vigilant and correct in its actions, just because another nation doesn't want to acknowledge their right to exist?
The WHO is the WORLD HEALTH organization. Allowing a nation of the WORLD - who has proven to be quite observant and beneficial about this current HEALTH pandemic - would seem pretty rational to most people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: permanently* (Score:4, Informative)
fyi, the US has had One China policy [wikipedia.org] for decades, please try and catch up
Re: permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignoring the question was the right thing to do, in that it resulted in the least harm.
No, it wasn't.
The "West" has learned from experience that censorship has bad results. China needs to learn that, for most of us, what they do is not acceptable. Their pettiness and jealousy about Taiwan is one example of their nonsense.
You keep accusing the US of being petty about the WHO situation (you're right), yet for some reason you support China's ridiculous games? Both parties are at fault. I'm not sure why you can't see that. If you think it's fine to lie to your own citizens and to the world in order to make your political party look better, then please-- by all means-- go live in China. I'm sure they'd be happy to have you.
To be clear, I love Chinese cultural heritage and Chinese people. I lived over there for quite a while. I just think that their government is dangerous to the values that most of the world holds dearly. Unity is good. Lying is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your statement is correct, but there is a big mismatch.
Most of the United Nations style of organization are more coordination forums for lack of a better term. That is to say, they work WITH a collection of countries and are not THE AUTHORITY.
They by in large did take China's word on issues, and it's not deference to China. They generally would take any country's word on issues. I'm Canadian and if Canada says... we have X cases and Y deaths... I don't think the WHO sends their own investigators to Canada t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Highly doubtful.
He's only thinking of how he can dupe his followers into believing that he has no responsibility for anything that goes wrong, but is solely responsible for everything that goes right.
Re:permanently* (Score:4, Insightful)
I've still not seen one person able to say what specifically the WHO should have done differently. A whole lot of bitching and finger-pointing, and no solutions. Hindsight is 20/20. No one had better answers at the time, so the only choices were use China's data or say nothing. Both options would have lead to the same path. Trump was behind the curve on Coronavirus long after the reality of it was public knowledge from other countries.
Half of the US still isnt taking this seriously today. The media is seen as scaremongering when in reality they're holding back. Our president has done litte to nothing to convince the populace of the seriousness of the situation, unless you count no longer actively downplaying it.
It's not some fluke that every other country is in the recovery stage while the US is crying "reopen" while still having areas on the rise. The average citizen on the street is so ignorant and stubborn it's painful to even try and talk about it with them.
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Insightful)
>I've still not seen one person able to say what specifically the WHO should have done differently ... No one had better answers at the time
Did you read the letter? Of the 3 pages, most of it is dedicated to a timeline of criticism of WHO starting from early December. The point is, people did have better answers that were ignored and silenced. WHO protected no one and praised China despite China's actions to destroy evidence and silence/ignore doctors and scientists.
Re: (Score:3)
While I won't excuse China for being initially reticent about the knowledge of the coronavirus, it is nonetheless the case that they did eventually come forward on the matter, and the very *FIRST* cases outside of china were not reported until 2 weeks after this.
Given the typical incubation period of the virus, it is likely that man of the people who had been spreading the illness from China had left China some time after China's announcement. Granted, this is speculatory, but given the sheer amount o
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. It was several weeks after their announcement before *ANY* cases appeared outside of China, and given the incubation period of the illness, it is probable that most of the asymptomatic spreading of the illness was carried outside of China *after* their announcement, and not before.
Hanlon's razor applies here. And given the seriousness of the crisis, it frankly seems like a completely misplaced sense of priorities to be concerned about finding someone to blame.
If this had act
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does the WHO have to do with manufacturing?
Re: (Score:3)
So were you cheering when the Chicoms were dragging politicians out of HK's Parliament, and China was busy locking down ~100m people again while claiming there's no new batflu cases? While at the same time CN state media was claiming there's been a massive explosion in new cases. Just curious.
Re: (Score:3)
Guess you also missed the part where they invited the WHO in to investigate, and then platitudes of "no human to human transmission" while pushing the other chicom view points.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Do you not remember this? [latimes.com] Also did you forget this? [twitter.com] Also, not talking authority to lockdown. But you might have forgotten that China pushed heavily on the WHO to delay any concrete findings, repeatedly. Per the multiple intel(from a dozen different countries at this point) and media leaks from SEA based news orgs. This was going on all the while, while the lefties were screeching "racist to ban flights from China" and telling people to congregate in large public gatherings.
Re:permanently* (Score:5, Interesting)
Another thing you might have missed, is how much the letter outlines alleges missteps by the WHO that parallel the missteps made by the Trump administration.
Unfortunately, GP was right - the WHO relies on information provided by the member countries; it does not have police powers that can subpoena and investigate. Regardless of how corrupt the current head of the WHO is, or how corrupt some of the member countries are, rejecting the WHO entirely because of the Wuhan virus is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Re:permanently* (Score:4, Informative)
Guess you missed the part where this isn't a singular case of China pulling this exact same bullshit. But the third case in the last 20 years. You might remember SARS, if you do then why don't you dig back through all the info and when you get to the same part with China doing the same thing you'll be in for a shock. Also, you'll bump into the flu cases. And it's not just limited to people, but transmission of diseases via animals. The current outbreaks of swing flu in various SEA countries and in Europe are because China hid the information. So it's not only one organization, it's not just one instance, it's not with same said organization not putting proper notifications out either.
What's that saying from The Art of War? Lie to me once, shame on me. Lie to me twice, shame on you. Lie to me thrice, and we go to war.
Also, it's a starting point for negotiation (Score:3)
I don't know the details of what the Trump administration is asking WHO to do, but if Trump is involved they are probably asking for more than what they hope to get.
Something to know about Trump is that he likes to start off asking for more than he really wants, then negotiate, "giving up" some demand. In other words, on a scale of 1-10, if he wants a 5 and you want a 7, he'll start by demanding 3. Then he can "meet you in the middle" at 5 - which is what he actually wanted in the first place.
An example wo
Re: Also, it's a starting point for negotiation (Score:2, Informative)
You write about the most basic negotiating tactic ever as if it's been revealed to you on copper tablets.
Get a grip.
Re: Also, it's a starting point for negotiation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Does this sound familiar?
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
It is how trump behaves, but it was originally the OSS (CIA Precursor)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Also, it's a starting point for negotiation (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever actually looked at what new NAFTA looks like compared to the old one?
Canadian "concessions" alone are excellent for both US and Mexico, as it basically excluded all those incremental concessions both made to Canada in the previous one.
People with any clue call it "a six day surrender on week deadline" which is literally what it was - Freeland's face when she found out that Mexico and US have a deal on the podium was amusing. The sheer amount of "What in the actual fuck did you just say you did?!" needs no audio in that moment. It's rare to get something like that captured on video in highest circles of power.
Canada was given a "we'll wait a week for you to sign on to what we have, and after that, we'll have a US-Mexico deal and Canada can go quietly into the night alone". It took Canada six days to sign the deal.
As for Mexico-US part, that was quite a good rehashing of points of contention, where US got quite a few things that it wanted, as did Mexico. That's one of the reasons why US-Mexico relations are arguably some of the best they have ever been in history in spite of AMLO and Trump being respective leaders. You'd think that left populist and right populist would go together like oil and water.
And yet they work together exceptionally well.
Which why one of the tells of peak Trump Derangement Syndrome and/or AMLO derangement syndrome is to see if people actually get to pretend that new NAFTA is not a clearly better deal for US and/or Mexico than what the old one was. There was a one loser in that deal, and that's Canada. Other two parties got significant improvements.
Re: (Score:3)
FYI, DMCA is NAFTA with a couple of little cherries on top (US can sell milk in Canada, percentage of car per country changed and corporations can sue countries big woop) [brookings.edu]
of course, if you listen to trump, it is a yuuuuge difference, but that exposes your mistake... listening to trump without checking every single thing he says
Re: (Score:3)
It might be more permanent than that. One of two things will happen, the WHO will collapse and be replaced or others will step in to fund it and take over the United States' soft power over it.
The WHO needs reforming and it will happen one way or another, the only real question is if the US wants to retain its interest or not. Given that scapegoating the WHO for his own failures probably won't work it seems short sighted to give up the position.
Re: permanently* (Score:2)
You donâ(TM)t pay someone to keep doing a bad job and hope they get better. The WHO has continuously demonstrated who they work for and it isnâ(TM)t us.
Re: (Score:2)
>if the US wants to retain its interest
How has the US interests been retained during this outbreak? What are we buying exactly? After this emergency, it is clear our interests nor the worlds interests are of concern to WHO.
Re: (Score:2)
You forget, the WHO and CDC act on data and evidence. At that time there was no clear evidence of transmission by asympomatic people. Once that situation changed they updated their recommendations. Unlike conservative organizations they respond to changes in data by admitting they were incorrect and adapting to the most appropriate response to the information available.
People in glass houses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People in glass houses (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
shouldn't throw stones
Yes, but are these barbarians smart enough to understand that? After all, all they can do _is_ throwing stones. When all somebody can do is throwing stones, then then they may just convince themselves there is not a single glass-house in sight.
You cannot make a fundamentally destructive person into somebody that actually contributes anything positive.
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas (Score:2)
The WHO chose to lie down with the CCP dogs, now they must deal with the results.
Re:Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas (Score:5, Insightful)
What do people actually want WHO to have done? And what difference do they think it would it have made?
As far as I can see, public health was one of those government functions politicians hoped to drown in a bathtub some day, replacing it with contractors as needed:
I don’t like having thousands of people around when you don’t need them. When we need them, we can get them back very quickly.
--Donald Trump, on downsizing public health agencies [source [whitehouse.gov]]
So as far as I know the only thing the administration has *ever* wanted from WHO is for WHO to take part in his political condemnation of China, another WHO member state, which will never happen. The Director-General's job *is* political, but it's anodyne. He does the ass-kissing and flattery that are a necessary prelude to WHO's real work of data sharing.
Ham fisted and short sided (Score:5, Insightful)
Unable to grasp the idea that the WHO has no enforcement powers of it's own. It can't storm the Chinese government and get "the real information". It has to walk a tightrope in the middle of all the member countries politics. That's why it cannot acknowledge Taiwan which people have really given the WHO unfair criticism about. By it's nature the WHO can only do so much in these cases and it is not perfect. The US being on the security council can influence making the WHO stronger moving forward but that involves diplomacy, hard work and tough decisions, all things this administration is not a fan of. It's not a perfect organization by nature of it's design but that is also the reason countries put their own people in place around it to verify what's happening.
Re:Ham fisted and short sided (Score:5, Insightful)
Issues (Score:2)
You would have a point, if the WHO didn't have a pretty lousy track record of handling outbreaks, even when they have the authority to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Also, it's not an efficiently run organization. It's largest expenditure is administrative overhead, accounting for roughly 30% of it's budget. It's next largest outlay are funding programs in Africa, which accounts for another ~25% of the budget. The next big chunks are the Middle East and Asia. The rest of the world gets the remaining
They must recommend... (Score:2)
...Hydroxychloroquine for the US to pay.
IT WASN"T ME (Score:4, Insightful)
It was the WHO!
It was the Chinese!!
It was Obama!!!
It was Dr. Fauci!!!!
It was the Democrats!!!!!
It was the Media!!!!!!
It was Hillary!!!!!!!
It was the Deep State!!!!!!!!
IT WASN"T MY FAULT.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed it's just plain awful that the president should ever be held responsible for anything. That's not his job.
Good idea (Score:4, Interesting)
They can create an American Health Organization that panders in alternative medicine, anti-vax rhetoric, and religious healing away from the oppressive burden of peer review or clinical trials that are just holding America back. This will also make it easier for the rest of the world to just tune the US out and carry on as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget MMS!
Ridiculous (Score:2)
This is ridiculous, we're in the middle of a global pandemic and Trump is demanding immediate reform of WHO at the same time? What a great way to make it even less effective.
Don't get me wrong here, I agree with some of Trumps beefs with WHO but his threats here are not a solution to anything. Post pandemic is when these issues should be resolved.
Re: (Score:2)
The damage has been done. There is no putting the corona genie back in the bottle. it'll take time as we balance that with reopening.
WHO has already failed in their mission. Now is the time, while still fresh memory and evidence, to document the WHO failings.
Trump Squandered a political moment to shine (Score:4, Insightful)
Disasters are often a chance for politicians to shine.
George W Bush with 9/11 for example was able to unify the American Public around fighting terrorism. When Starting the War with Afghanistan and Iraq, there was wide support, and the public and the congress and senate were behind him, past partisan levels. Later we found out that the threat from these countries were much more limited. But Bush used 9/11 as a political advantage to unify Americans, against a common enemy.
Trump on the other hand, just strikes a further divide. Red States are probably saying to themselves when they see NY Death rate, "Good that is one less liberal". As well as we see the Red States not doing so well in slowing down their curve the Blue States are going "Good we are weeding out the gene pool of Conservatives"
This divide is dangerous, and stupid. Oddly enough we are all Americans and we actually hold more values that are the same than different. However Divisive media and Trump who likes to amplify what he hears on such media. Makes us think the other side are Monsters while our side are the Good guys.
To solve this problem we need to work together with all Americans, and also with the Rest of the world. This problem is bigger than the US. and we need such Global organization to help manage things in such a large/but focused scale.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not paying attention then. The number of countries lining up behind the US and demanding an investigation is growing, rather quickly. Even our chicom sucking government here in Canada is behind the US in calling for an investigation. China's response has been to threaten, and send substandard medical gear to countries who are getting on board. The most recent ratchet up in this case was them slapping an 80% tariff on AUS barley, and saying it was because AUS backed the investigation.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much. The problem is that Trump is not a leader at all and he cannot do that job. He is a con-man and mudslinger.
panem et circenses (Score:3)
A flat tax (Score:3)
Look, Trump is no prize pearl; but there's a point here. China is stepping up with $2billion or something to WHO. It's like the WHO was already doing their bidding, but now they have to pay for it. The whole deal is a disgrace, and here's my modest proposal:
If you want to participate in global organizations like WHO or the UN, you pay a flat tax based on your country's GDP as determined by some independent 3rd party, or a consensus of polled economists or something.
Most importantly, you aren't allowed to pay any *additional* money to fund such organizations. Single sanction for violations: break a rule, and you're out for some specified period of time until you come back into compliance. Don't like the organizations politics? Pissed off about them acknowledging Taiwan or funding abortions? Tough noogies. You either play or don't. No bribes.
As long as organizations like this allow themselves to dance on the purse-strings of members, they're not going to have any integrity.
Don't think integrity matters? This whole thing is an object lesson. A WHO with integrity would have sounded the alarm much earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ever stop to consider that?
Yep, and then I looked at their arguments and data and came to the conclusion that they were full of crap. You should try it some time.