Comment by walterbell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by walterbell | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

WHO is meeting this week to vote on amendments to international health regulations, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-far-reaching-us-proposals-to-am...

> proposed US amendments to Article 12 IHR will both considerably extend the executive powers of the WHO Director-General to declare global emergency-like situations and centralise this power further by removing the need to consult and find agreement with the respective state party ... Articles 9 and 10 IHR moreover strengthen WHO’s powers to assess alleged global health risks by relying on information received outside official channels, giving the respective states only 24 hours to verify such information.

> ... if WHO’s powers are extended in this way, is there a need to also answer the question quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who guards the guards?), and to thus set up mechanisms ensuring that WHO complies with its obligations under the IHR and its Constitution, as well as its responsibilities for human rights deriving from customary international human rights law?

WHO's Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) site has videos from their April 2022 meeting: https://inb.who.int

> centralise this power

That's the part I take issue with. Any time power becomes centralized (including during emergency situations) it leads to loss of individual freedoms, and often increased anthropogenic (=human-caused) suffering.

What is the “power” here? Does the power to declare things itself result in consequences?

Nb America has too many elected positions; most democracies have fewer (are more “centralized”) but also it’s easier to fire them if you don’t like them (here it’s difficult to impossible). For instance the best reason to elect both a mayor and supervisors of SF is if you want them to fight instead of getting things done, and indeed that’s what they do.

A proposal cited by the EJIL article, previously rejected during a 10-year revision process for IHR:

> The proposal to grant WHO – and the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which is closely associated with WHO due to its technical skills in epidemiological investigations – the right to carry out on-site assessments/send expert teams that the state party in question cannot easily reject, should be carefully analysed also in light of similar US proposals made in 2004 during the then thorough revision process of the IHR (lasting from 1995-2005). At the time, some WHO regions rejected the proposal as they suspected a US’ intention behind them to gain access to biodefence research facilities around the world, thus fearing espionage. This appeared against the background of the Iraq war which started in 2003 under the pretext of the existence of Iraqi bioweapons that UN investigators had been unable to find.

>What is the “power” here? Does the power to declare things itself result in consequences?

Great question, and no it doesn't. Part of the UN's push[1] around this treaty is ensuring that it actually has teeth and isn't just hot air. For example, it recommends the involvement of World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization and International Labour Organization in the negotiations, and suggests the treaty offer financial incentives for the early reporting of health emergencies:

>In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak.

The UN also raises the question of countries being punished for non-compliance:

>[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.

In other words, if you report disease outbreaks in a timely manner, you will get financial resources to deal with them. If you DON'T report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions.

These proposed rules would incentivize reporting possible disease outbreaks. Some would suggest they actively encourage outbreaks.

[1]https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/C...

This is probably in response to the CCP attempts to cover up the covid epidemic in Wuhan and to misreport cases and deaths.

Although I fail to see how the Xi era China would allow a WHO team investigate in a timely manner, after they placed the covid investigators in a two week quarantine more than a year after the event occured and they had plenty of time to further cover things up.

Arguably yes. For example declaring a state of emergency does have knock-on if not immediate consequences.

This is a really hard philosophical claim you have here. Especially given the fact that it uses vague terms like freedom and power, which philosophers don’t really know the full ramifications of, and whole books have been written on trying to understand what they even are.

I’m gonna call bullshit on this. This sentence can mean anything you want to, while being constructed in such a way to be arise suspicion.

That is, unless you care to clarify what you mean by power and freedom here, i.e. is patents on vaccines included in centralization of power? Is my freedom to infect those around me included?

And even after you have clarified these terms, some empirical data wouldn’t hurt either. To show a negative correlation with—whatever you call centralization of power and individual freedom (however you define it).

> Is my freedom to infect those around me included?

Yes.

yeah sorry. I'm not going to support a country that can't even talk about Taiwan "centralizing" its power.

If you were wealthier you would understand the importance of centralized power

/s

ETA: I made this comment before the author clarified they were being sarcastic.

I'd propose that if you made more of an effort to be empathetic with people who lack access to wealth and privilege, you'd understand better the criticisms of centralizing power and power structures in general.

"You don't understand because you can't see my perspective" goes any which way, and so is not an argument. If their are artifacts of your perspective that we need to form a full and coherent view - then share them with us. If you're just looking to be patronizing and dismissive because you only value a certain perspective - then please reconsider.

Pretty sure the parent comment was just missing a /s

There's a big difference between centralized power and coordinated action facilitated by wise leadership.

The latter does not require the former, contrary to what some people might say -- those who wish to hold unfettered power, or those who wish to be ruled over by one holding such power.

The issue is you and I know this, but they don't

Or the opposite.

> and centralise this power further by removing the need to consult and find agreement with the respective state party

This is discomforting. Genuinely curious how anyone would see this as anything more than a power grab.

The WHO is not really "powerful" like a nation is, as they do not have a military or enforcement arm, and they do not pass laws.

All they can do is decide how their funds get spent. They are granted all these "powers" to spend their funds by the participating states. Furthermore, they are restricted to spending it on things that promote world health. The worst they can do is squander the money, which isn't even all that much.

Compare this to people like Jeff Bezos who have vastly more money, 100% centralized, and effectively no restrictions on how they spend it. Whether you should be concerned about that is up for argument, but by contrast, any concerns about the WHO are pretty absurd.

> The WHO is not really "powerful" like a nation is, as they do not have a military or enforcement arm, and they do not pass laws.

True, but a majority of policy makers and talking heads (that influence and approve laws) carry out their deeds under the guise of "Well, the WHO says so". Consider how frequently the "appeal to authority" tactic was used during the pandemic.

This isn't entirely without consequence.

But still consider the relativity here. The risk of a malicious WHO is insignificant next to the risk of rich industrialists like Jeff Bezos. Very wealthy and powerful entities like Jeff Bezos do lobby and influence governments and media on a totally different scale then international organizations such as WHO. And more often then not these industrialists do succeed in bending policy to their favor at the cost of everyone else.

Maybe this isn’t without consequence, but relatively speaking the risk of negative consequences are next to nothing.

Is it intended to remove politics from science?

By replacing it with unilateral power?

Yeah, what could go wrong with that?

1984 but instead of televisions with pee-bottles and blood-tests ;))

> WHO is meeting this week

This seems off topic.

The article is about monkeypox. The WHO meeting is about regulations.

Yes, they are both public health issues, but that's about as close of a connection as there is.

Fascinating look at their new proposal

https://twitter.com/criticalsway/status/1526464386386345984

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1526464386386345984.html

Thanks for posting this plain-english summary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com