Switzerland decisively rejected any restriction on the influx of immigrants in a recent referendum. The referendum comes with the advance of the right-wing conservative Swiss People’s Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei or SVP), which also sought to terminate individuals’ free movement within the European Union. Both SVP measures failed in Sunday’s vote.

What Happened in the Swiss Referendum?

According to the final result, 61.7 percent of participants in the referendum voted against the SVP’s plan. The SVP had argued that the influx of too many people reduces prosperity while also being too expensive for the country’s social welfare system. Since 1990, the population of Switzerland has increased by around 25 percent to 8.6 million.

The SVP had started the so-called limitation initiative, which demanded that Bern severely curbs migration to Switzerland. The bill “For moderate immigration” stipulated that the government in Bern ought to negotiate the end of free movement with the European Union within one calendar year. If this did not succeed, the government would have had to unilaterally terminate the freedom of movement within a further 30 days. As a result of the defeat of this motion, EU nationals can continue to move to Switzerland without significant restrictions. 

An End to Free Movement Would Have Damaged Swiss Economy

An end to the agreement would also have ended the free movement of the Swiss within the EU. Above all, however, it would have jeopardized the Swiss economy’s direct access to the European internal market. However, global corporations such as the pharmaceutical companies Roche and Novartis, the food producer Nestle or the major banks UBS and Credit Suisse rely on foreign workers. In addition, the EU is the most important trading partner of the export-focused nation.

The SVP routinely denounces mass immigration into Switzerland. It argues that too many people reduce the citizens’ prosperity and security and are too expensive for social services. They argue that the large number of immigrants had led to increased unemployment and polluted the environment and infrastructure.

Switzerland’s Big Population Increase Since 1990

Since 1990, Switzerland’s population has increased by around a quarter to 8.6 million, including more than 2.1 million foreigners. Almost 1.5 million of them come from an EU country, from Great Britain, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of people who commute to work in Switzerland every day from other EU countries.

In contrast, the government, parliament, the other parties, employers’ associations, and the trade unions reject the requested termination of persons’ free movement with the EU. The economic impact would be catastrophic and severely damage relations with the EU, they argue.

Switzerland’s Economic Relationship with the EU

The Swiss Confederation and the EU negotiated a package of seven bilateral agreements in the 1990s which the Swiss accepted by a large majority in a vote in 2000. The agreements provided Swiss companies access to the EU market. An agreement includes the free movement of people. In principle, Swiss citizens can live, work, and study in the EU. In return, citizens of EU countries can live, work, and study in Switzerland. If Switzerland were to terminate the agreement on persons’ free movement, the other six agreements would also automatically expire.

The weekend results are likely to bring new momentum to the lengthy cooperation negotiations between Switzerland and the European Union. The EU seeks to put all bilateral agreements under a framework agreement. This is also intended to weaken some of the privileges previously negotiated by Switzerland. If it refuses, Brussels threatens disadvantages for Switzerland. As a warning, it has already suspended recognition for the Zurich Stock Exchange and the Swiss government is calling for improvements to the proposal from Brussels.

L'articolo Switzerlands Rejects Immigration Restrictions via Referendum proviene da InsideOver.

L'articolo Social Services Being Cut Globally for Moms and Kids Due to COVID-19 proviene da InsideOver.

The WHO started its virtual annual assembly meeting on Monday. The main aim will be to guarantee a joint fight against the coronavirus through a common resolution. However, a global cohesion under the WHO umbrella is currently missing.

Grading the WHO’s Coronavirus Response

The WHO has faced severe criticism just as much as praise over these previous months. It is a testimony, that there is, as so often, not one truth, not one opinion when the WHO’s management of the COVID-19 crisis is debated. Or as Chancellor Merkel stated: The WHO’s performance grades differ from country to country.

The most outspoken opponent of the World Health Organization has been US President Donald Trump. He publicly accused the WHO of ineptitude and of being in China’s pocket. According to Trump WHO had been wrong about the pandemic ab initio and was still wrong to this day: an unacceptable track record. So much so, that only on Monday evening, Trump threatened to withdraw the US from the WHO while again accusing the organisation of belonging to China. However, Trump’s harsh rhetoric is first and foremost an attempt to establish a scapegoat other than himself for the initially disastrous crisis management of the United States.

The WHO Needs More Money

While the WHO has made mistakes, it has also been chronically underfunded for years, with a pitiful budget of just under $2 billion. Moreover, the organisation is essentially a paper tiger. It has no power to enforce anything against a national government and is ultimately dependent on information countries provide voluntarily. The WHO can, therefore, only be as functional and apt as its member states.

China’s conduct highlights the latter. Beijing initially did not voluntarily provide any information about COVID-19. At the end of January, WHO General Secretary Tedros had thus to travel to Beijing in person, in an attempt to appease the communist leadership.

Different Perceptions

For the White House, this might amount to being in China’s pocket. For a realist, however, it is nothing but an attempt at diplomacy. Without the latter, China arguably would not have let WHO scientist in the country – just as other nation’s scientists were not permitted.

Unlike the United States, Germany continues to support WHO and provides money and backing now that the organisation, which is responsible, among other things, for the worldwide vaccination programs, is under fire from Trump. Germany’s Foreign Minister Maas makes it undiplomatically clear that in such a phase it is counterproductive to question WHO or to cut its funding. Nevertheless, his point of view is too one-sided, also.

Weaknesses Must be Addressed

The truth is that the WHO is not going through the pandemic without errors. Weaknesses due to the fact that one acted too reluctantly are evident. Even Chancellor Merkel, who remains in support of the WHO, admitted that there were “weaknesses” which needed to be “analysed”.

These weaknesses not only need to be analysed, however. They must also be eradicated. The latter starts with increased funding. Here, however, the real issues begin. In order for the WHO to become more apt, more rights and more power would be needed to provide the organisation with actual influence and global say. However, one can be sure that none of these will be granted to WHO. No state will succumb its sovereignty to a supranational organisation in the current climate.

Besides, the current situation does not call for reform. This would distract from the current focus, which is to get the vaccination programs going. After all, it is the WHO that will distribute the corona vaccine — if there is one — worldwide, as with the smallpox vaccination, which is probably the greatest WHO success story in its 72-year history.

L'articolo The WHO’s COVID-19 Assembly is Not Addressing the Actual Issue proviene da InsideOver.

The most acute phase of the pandemic appears to be ending. Countries — or, at the very least, provinces, states and regions— are coming out of lockdown. Many nations are reporting fewer new infections, and economies around the world are slowly being revived.

The WHO’s Problems are Far From Over

But, for the World Health Organisation, there are further troubles on the horizon. The organisation will doubtlessly be a major subject of the oncoming investigation into the global handling of the pandemic, which, at the time of writing, has the backing of 122 countries, and includes the European Union, African Group, the UK, Russia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The WHO will likely need to answer whether it acted quickly enough, and whether it was too soft on China in the early stages of the outbreak.

The proposal for the investigation is said to be a watered down version of its initial draft. This is likely due to a fear of how China will react: indeed, the proposal did not even mention the country where the pandemic started, and whose authoritarian suppression media and whistleblowers in the country likely made it more difficult for the rest of the world to respond. China had already threatened Australia — which has led the initiative — with serious sanctions.

The WHO, of course, can’t strong-arm the investigation the way that China has done (and will likely attempt to do again). And there is a long list of things it, and especially its director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, will need to answer for: most notably, its mishandling of the situation when the virus first appeared.

Questions Surrounding the WHO’s Reaction to COVID-19

Take, for example, something the WHO tweeted out in mid-January. It said: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus.” The same statement was roughly reproduced by the Chinese health services in Wuhan. We now know that there was better information available at the time, and that the Chinese government in particular was aware that such transmission was possible, if not certain.

As a result of taking China’s word at face value, the WHO dragged their feet in declaring it a global health emergency, which affected the global response. And now there are those – the US senior security advisor, John Bolton, among them — who are alleging a cover-up between the WHO and China

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate

There is no hard evidence to support these theories of China-WHO foul play. Still, there are many who are concerned that Adhanom was too sympathetic with China and that this muddied his — and the organisation’s — communications.

The issue around faulty communication has since not been resolved. Take for example last weekend, the WHO tweeted out that: “There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from #COVID19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.” They were responding to the discussion around “immunity passports” — the idea that governments could grant special documents to citizens who test positive for COVID-19 antibodies, allowing them to move about freely. The WHO warned this was premature, since “no study has evaluated whether the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confers immunity to subsequent infection by this virus in humans.”

This misses vital context. There is currently no evidence of immunity, but scientists have good reason to expect people who have recovered from COVID-19 to have some immunity to the virus, as that is the case with many other viruses.

The sloppy phrasing had an enormous impact. Major news organisations like Bloomberg News, for example, reported the story the headlines ‘WHO Warns You May Catch Coronavirus More Than Once”: a total misrepresentation the facts.

Partly revealing of the difficulties scientists have when communicating with a laymen audience, it was nevertheless a serious oversight, and fosters an atmosphere of misinformation which affects how people think, feel and act during the pandemic.

The WHO’s many missteps during the pandemic have led to widespread calls for scrutiny. There are those already predicting it will need tremendous reform after the pandemic and the WHO’s relationship with China will likely be of central concern going forward.

L'articolo The Many Missteps of the WHO proviene da InsideOver.

While economies around the world continue to suffer from the coronavirus pandemic, the World Trade Organization faces the added difficult of replacing its director-general Roberto Azevêdo. He resigned on Thursday in a shock move. Azevêdo’s resignation will be effective Aug. 31, over a year before his second term was set to expire. 

Early Retirement

Azevêdo said his decision was based on personal reasons and not the result of any particular trouble within the WTO, the New York Times reported. He also said he would step down early to provide the organization more time time to hunt for a successor, but admitted the process of replacing him would most likely last into next year.

“The selection process would be a distraction from — or worse, a disruption to — our desired outcomes (rebuilding global markets),” he said during a virtual WTO meeting. “We would be spending valuable time on a politically charged process that has proved divisive in the past.”

Azevêdo, the former lead trade negotiator for Brazil, has been in Geneva since 1997, but recent years have brought increased pressure to his duties as head of the WTO. Specifically, US President Donald Trump’s trade war with China and general policy of applying tariffs on a number of states, created turmoil that rippled across industries worldwide.

Under Azevêdo, the WTO has been a bastion for free trade and liberal international economic policies. That mentality clashed with Trump, who decided to portray the WTO as an adversary that needed to go, much like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

China’s Status Questioned

The American president said he was “OK with” Azevêdo’s departure and took another chance to attack the organization. 

“We’ve been treated very badly… They treat China as a developing nation. Therefore China gets a lot of the benefits that the US doesn’t get,” Trump said.

He also blamed the WTO’s admittance of China in 2001 as a contributor to job losses in the US. 

“The WTO is BROKEN when the world’s RICHEST countries claim to be developing countries to avoid WTO rules and get special treatment,” Trump said in July 2019. “NO more!!! Today I directed the U.S. Trade Representative to take action so that countries stop CHEATING the system at the expense of the USA!”

In retaliation, the Trump administration has refused to confirm appointments to the WTO’s Appellate Body — its supreme court — for two years. With only one member left since December, it is unable to rule on international disputes, as Reuters reported.

In lieu of judicial appointments, several members of the WTO including the EU and China were forced to hobble together a temporary dispute resolution body.

The US isn’t alone in criticizing the WTO; Japan and the EU have both urged for reforms, especially concerning the way the organisation treats China. Azevêdo’s early departure will give the body ample time to deliberate on whether to pursue a candidate who can introduce change at the global level.

A Tunnel with No Light at the End

First, it must continue to navigate the COVID-19 crisis, however and Azevêdo has taken umbrage with states refusing to cooperate. As economic leaders, the US, China, and European states should work together to combat the emergency. Instead, the world has divided, mostly against China.

“Either we shape up and begin to talk to each other and find common solutions or we are going to pay a heavy price,” Mr. Azevêdo said in April.

The outlook for 2020 remains grim according to WTO projections. On the lower end of the scale, merchandise trade could plummet 13% with gross domestic product sliding 2.5%, Bloomberg reported. The worst case scenario foretells a 32% drop in trade and GDP fallout of 8.8%.

“These numbers are ugly — there is no getting around that,” Azevêdo said. “But a rapid, vigorous rebound is possible. Decisions taken now will determine the future shape of the recovery and global growth prospects.”

Leaderless at the Worst Possible Time

Without Azevêdo, a WTO veteran at the helm, the organisation’s effectiveness will be limited at best. Prior to his announcement, the WTO was already managing conflict between the world’s largest economies, navigating criticism from Trump, and trying to develop a strategy to rebound from the coronavirus pandemic. Now it has to somehow accomplish these goals without its leader, and perhaps any leader, until the pandemic relents.

In leaving the WTO before his scheduled September 2021 exit date, Azevêdo has further crippled the organisation at the absolute worst possible time. The WTO warned the global economic collapse may be the worst in a generation and states look to it for answers.

“To lose the leader of the WTO is a serious blow. There is a broken global trading system, and it needs leadership to fix it,” remarked Josh Lipsky, director of the global business and economic program at the Washington-based Atlantic Council.

On a positive note, Azevêdo’s departure may allow a more progressive candidate to assume the mantle, which could satisfy criticisms from Trump, the EU, and Japan. How the WTO decides to handle China going forward will quite possibly determine the organization’s future. As the tide turns against Beijing over lack of COVID-19 cooperation and transparency, it is foreseeable that WTO members change their tune on China and begin to advocate for real changes, including some reforms Trump has pushed for.

L'articolo WTO Director-General Resigns Early, Leaving Organisation Adrift During Global Pandemic proviene da InsideOver.

The number of migrants attempting to make their way from Libya to Europe continues to increase, particularly since COVID-19 has limited legal paths available for them. Now the United Nations to accuse the European Union of violation of international law with regards to this situation.

UN: ‘Deeply Concerned’ Over Reports of Libyan Migrants Being Left Stranded at Sea

The United Nations has criticized European countries for what it considers a violation of international humanitarian law, based on the decision to reject refugees and other migrants in the Mediterranean. The United Nations Human Rights Office and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva have been calling for ports to be opened and humanitarian lifeboats in the Mediterranean to return.

Concerns of the United Nations about the refugee policies of the European Union countries in the Mediterranean transpired after reports emerged that refugee boats were “rejected in a coordinated manner” and calls for help at distress rescue centers are “not answered or ignored. “SOS calls were reportedly being ignored, and aid was being deliberately refused. As a result, the UN was “deeply concerned” the UN Human Rights Bureau spokesman, Rupert Colville stated.

EU Conduct — Especially in Greece and Malta — Posing a Threat to Human Life

Moreover, European conduct was posing a clear threat to human life. If these reports were confirmed, the question arises as to whether the countries concerned respect human rights, Colville concluded. In particular, the organisations condemned measures such as those in Greece or Malta, where refugee boats are pushed back into international territorial waters or even brought back to Libya, Colville stated.

At the same time, UNHRC spokesman Charlie Yaxley criticized that the blocking of the last remaining humanitarian rescue vessels Alan Kurdi and Aita Mari in Italy. These were measures that were “endangering human life” according to Yaxley.

Italy and Malta Don’t Let in Refugee Ships Since COVID-19

Italy and Malta have stopped admitting refugee rescue ships to their ports since April 9 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. At least three ships with refugees on board were therefore currently waiting to be able to bring the rescued ashore, according to the UNHRC.

This week, Italy confiscated the German rescue ship Alan Kurdi because of “several irregularities” that could endanger the people on board. At the beginning of April, the Alan Kurdi took on 146 migrants off the coast of Libya before an Italian ship took over the rescue to provide increased care due to coronavirus concerns.

Libya’s Refugee Exodus

Overall, the number of migrants who flee from Libya to Europe increased rapidly in the first three months of the year compared to the previous year, with almost 4,000 new arrivals from January to March — the previous year the number was around 800 less. This was partly due to the improvement in the weather, but also the increasingly chaotic situation in Libya, Yaxley said. No refugee should be returned to Libya, as the country was “not safe”, he added.

Besides, due to the global border closures resulting from the corona crisis, more people would try to migrate through irregular refugee routes with the result that the pressure on these routes is likely to increase significantly.

Meanwhile, Director-General of the United Nations Organization for Migration (IOM), António Vitorino, warned in Geneva on Thursday not to cease legal migration due to COVID-19, which has stopped almost entirely worldwide. This will be very negative in the long term, Vitorino warned, since smugglers and traffickers were taking advantage of the refugees’ situation.

In order to assist the world’s neediest during the pandemic, United Nation’s emergency response coordinator Mark Lowcock said Thursday he estimates the total funding needed to be around $90 billion over the next twelve months. The latter would correspond to one percent of the sum that the wealthy countries had decided on as rescue packages, with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund able to make up two thirds of that figure. The remainder needed to be contributed from development aid, Lowcock urged.

L'articolo UN Accuses EU of Violating International Law proviene da InsideOver.

The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) recently reported that COVID-19 will adversely affect women more than men. The study laid bare a swath of undesirable effects including rises in domestic violence and female genital mutilation (FGM). The virus’ attack on women begins on the frontline where 70% of medical personnel are women, said Dr. Ramiz Alkbarov, UNFPA deputy executive director.

‘Catastrophe Within a Catastrophe’

According to the report, “Women and girls have unique health needs, but they are less likely to have access to quality health services, essential medicines and vaccines, maternal and reproductive health care, or insurance coverage for routine and catastrophic health costs, especially in rural and marginalized communities. Restrictive social norms and gender stereotypes can also limit women’s ability to access health services. All of this has particular impacts during a widespread health crisis.”

The pandemic has forced the closure of facilities that provide services to women and the ones that remain open are fielding more calls than usual. If the lockdown continues for 6 more months, UNFPA estimates there will be 7 million unplanned pregnancies and 31 domestic violence cases against women, as Time reported.

“These issues aren’t exclusive to the developing world. Inequality is less pronounced in the developed world but it’s still there. It’s a catastrophe,” said Alakbarov. “Women are the first to lose their jobs during these crises, they’re the first to stand up for the family, they take most of the brunt economically. But this report is a catastrophe within a catastrophe.”

Even before COVID-19, women earned less and were more likely to fall into poverty around the globe, he said. Now, with a lack of job opportunities combined with school closures, their duties have increased as they are often forced into roles providing more unpaid care for the family, such as looking after children.

Long-Term Losses

The impact on women’s health could have long-lasting consequences. With prevention programs closed, another 2 million girls and women are at risk of FGM and 13 million child marriages could be carried out. Unwanted pregnancies could compel women to take dangerous actions.

“As well as resulting in an increased risk of abortions, hemorrhages, and miscarriages,” Alakbarov told Business Insider, “unwanted pregnancies effectively raise maternal mortality. Children and households will be left without mothers. It launches up a whole vicious circle.”

The deadly cycle won’t stop once lockdown measures are lifted or even by the end of the year, the report concludes. UNFPA expects increases in violence and abuse to continue for the next decade, a sign of how quickly positive gains can be lost.

“Many women are being forced to ‘lockdown’ at home with their abusers at the same time that services to support survivors are being disrupted or made inaccessible,” the report reads. 

In a typical year, UNFPA estimates violence against women and girls costs the global economy $1.5 trillion per year.

Women-Focused Recovery

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said women must be at the centre of recovery efforts. To counteract the looming disaster for women across the world, he recommended having women leadership take charge. Women in power is the first step at putting women at the centre of recovery efforts he said. 

“Progress lost takes years to regain. Teenage girls out of school may never return,” Guterres said.

Economically, social safety nets and economic relief measures should provide for women. Governments should take care to ensure vital services for women remain open. This entails allocating more money for organisations providing essential care. 

“Reprioritization of national budgets is needed,” Alakbarov said. “Governments have to reconsider [their priorities], as well as citizens and private sectors. If we don’t over the next six months, we will see the above projections come to fruition.”

For each dollar spent on women’s education and health, $3 is returned to economies, he added. “It’s pretty much the smartest investment any government or society can make.”

L'articolo UN Report: COVID-19 a Disaster for Women proviene da InsideOver.

US and foreign officials have said that President Donald Trump and his top aides are working behind the scenes to sideline the World Health Organisation (WHO), following the 60-day hold on US funding to the WHO implemented last week.

Trump accused the WHO of failing to accurately communicate the severity of the coronavirus outbreak in China, a decision which, according to Trump, led to the most severe outbreak of the virus on US soil. The White House blamed the WHO for a “lack of transparency and chronic mismanagement of the pandemic,” including in its list of complaints the WHO recommendation to keep US borders open following the outbreak in Wuhan.

White House attacks against the WHO have spotlighted institutional problems within the United Nations organisation as a whole.

The Trump-WHO War

Created on April 7, 1948 during a post-war fervor for global consciousness and global health, WHO states that its goal is “the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.”

A subsidiary of the United Nations, its self-identified goal is to “detect and respond to acute health emergencies” and protect people from said emergencies by “identifying, mitigating and managing risks”. Its values demand fairness and impartiality towards every nation and global citizen.

WHO Praise for China

A WHO statement released on January 30 of this year praised the “leadership and the political commitment of the very highest levels of Chinese government, their commitment to transparency, and the efforts made to investigate and contain the current outbreak”. Yet accusations of dishonesty to the WHO, and to the global community, have followed China since it revealed the virus outbreak in late December, 2019.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, was accused of showing partiality to China, and taking China’s word as fact, without carrying out investigations of his own. In early February, a week after labelling the outbreak in China a PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern), Ghebreyesus argued against global travel restrictions.

Travel restrictions against China “can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma, with little public health benefit,” he said.

“Where such measures have been implemented, we urge that they are short in duration, proportionate to the public health risks, and are reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves,” he continued.

Although some experts have argued that Ghebreyesus followed correct procedure, Trump capitalized on the Director-General’s advice not to close borders. On April 19, the Washington Post revealed that, despite Trump’s assertions that he was misled by the WHO, there were more than a dozen American government officials, many of them from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, working in the Geneva headquarters of the WHO, who communicated real-time information of the outbreak in China to Trump.

Furthermore, Trump himself has refused to openly criticize Chinese leader Xi Jinping, with whom he has a personal relationship. In late January, he tweeted: “It will all work out well. On behalf of the American people, I want to thank President Xi.” The United States’ President had also recently thanked China for “their efforts and transparency” in dealing with the pandemic.

‘Get That Vaccine’

Trump’s criticisms against the WHO are hypocritical and self-serving, but they illuminate deep political and financial discrepancies within the international body.

In an interview with CNN last week global business magnate and Microsoft founder Bill Gates was adamant that “China did a lot of things right at the beginning.”

“Like any country where a virus first shows up, they can look back and see where they missed some things,” he continued, while adding that “some countries did respond very quickly and get their testing in place and they avoided the incredible economic pain, and its sad that even the US, that you would have expected to do this well, did it particularly poorly.”

The multibillionaire concluded by asking nations to “to take the great science we have, the fact that we’re in this together, fix testing and treatments and get that vaccine.”

After the United States, Bill Gates is the WHO’s biggest funder. Through three organisations created or funded by Gates: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS and the GAVI Vaccine Alliance, the WHO received more than $474 million in 2017, in contrast to the $401 million provided by the US in the same year.

But Gates is not the only big-source funder of the WHO. Other vaccine-creators and Big Pharma groups funded the WHO this year, including Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novovax and Nosocomial Vaccine Company.

The precedent was set during the aftermath of the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic when an investigation into the WHO revealed that many scientific experts who had advised the then-WHO Director-General, Dr. Margaret Chan to prematurely declare the H1N1 outbreak a pandemic were funded by Big Pharma and major vaccine-makers. Chan’s decision would lead to billions of premature governmental spending on vaccines that were not needed, because of minimal global infections.

All PHEIC-ed Up

While health officials and scientists continue to debate whether an earlier declaration of a global pandemic would have made a difference to the management of the outbreak, they are adamant that the WHO’s guidelines on declaring a pandemic be overhauled. After the H1N1 pandemic fiasco, the WHO revamped its guidelines, using instead a PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) method.

The WHO would not label the coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic until March 11, causing confusion among government and health officials worldwide. In response to using the PHEIC label, WHO spokeperson, Tarik Jasaveric said on January 30: “There is no official category (for a pandemic).

“WHO does not use the old system of 6 phases — that ranged from phase 1 (no reports of animal influenza causing human infections) to phase 6 (a pandemic) — that some people may be familiar with from H1N1 in 2009.”

After an emergency committee meeting on January 22, 8 days before the PHEIC declatation, another WHO spokesperson had said: “at the time of the first meeting not all members of the committee felt that there was adequate evidence/information to support recommending declaration of a PHEIC”.

Is Criticism of the WHO Legitimate?

The WHO’s inability to make a definitive declaration on the coronavirus was widely criticized by scientists and health officials. Health officials accused the WHO of misleading them, and misleading the public. Others questioned the political motivations behind the WHO’s lack of transparency.

David Heyman, who worked for the WHO for 22 years told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in February that the form and nature of the PHEIC needs to be reconsidered.

“There’s confusion around the world about the declaration. “What does it really mean and why does it always appear to be delayed rather than on time?”

A recent internal audit also portrayed the organization in a negative light. The audit stated that the WHO’s Health Emergencies Program, the division responsible for the global coronavirus outbreak, is chronically underfunded. The program, the audit recounts, has repeatedly posed “severe” and unacceptable” hazard levels to the organisation as a whole.

As of May, 2019, 59 out of 90 recommendations given by internal auditors were uncompleted, including 38 “high-significance” reforms, some of which were accused of suffering “low implementation efforts”.

Even worse, the audit warned of a rise in allegations of internal corruption, detecting multiple schemes aimed at defrauding the organisation of large sums of money.

Can We Still Trust the WHO?

The biggest problem the World Health Organisation faces are corruption and lack of transparency. Dr. Kamradt-Scott, in a recent British Medical Journal article, called for greater transparency in how the WHO decides to what constitutes a public health emergency.

“Until there is increased transparency around [emergency committee] deliberations, questions about irrelevant considerations, undue influence and political interference will continue to arise,” he wrote.

“The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition,” the WHO’s Constitution reads. Yet, political and financial motivations have left the World Health Organisation unwilling to follow its own constitution. As such, we the people, can no longer trust that the WHO has our best interests in mind.

L'articolo Can We the People Still Trust the WHO? proviene da InsideOver.

The World Health Organization (WHO) finally described the new Coronavirus (COVID-19), a pandemic following the widespread of the virus with symptoms that resemble SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrom) to 118 countries.

WHO Chief: ‘All Countries Can Still Change the Course of this Pandemic’

“All countries can still change the course of this pandemic. If countries detect, test, treat, isolate, trace, and mobilize their people in the response. We are deeply concerned by the alarming levels of spread and severity and by the alarming levels of inaction,” WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Wednesday.

Pandemic comes from the Greek word “Pandemos,” referring to the belief that an infection or an illness can infect the world’s population. Pandemic is the next step up from an epidemic which describes an outbreak that spreads limited to certain parts of the world.

To decide whether the illness should be called a pandemic or not, it must fulfill three general requirements; the virus can cause severe illness or death, the virus’ human-to-human transmission continues uncontrollably, and the virus infects the global population.

WHO Previously Warned of Coronavirus’ Pandemic Potential

Previously, the WHO tended to refrain from calling the outbreak a pandemic, citing that the decision (to call it a pandemic) would be based on the assessment on how uncontrollable the disease was. However, the WHO also admitted that the virus had a pandemic potential, warning people to prepare for the pandemic possibility de to the quick widespread of the virus.

“Does this virus have pandemic potential? Absolutely it has. Are we there yet? From our assessment, not yet,” Ghebreyesus stated during the briefing in Geneva at the end of February.

Is the Pandemic Declaration Too Late?

The WHO’s decision is considered too late by some such as Brazil’s Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta who argues that if the Geneva-based organization had declared a pandemic earlier, the numbers of fatalities would have been reduced.

“Now, in a manner that is even late, the WHO agrees with the Brazilian assessment that we are facing a pandemic,” Mandetta said.

Brazil has confirmed 52 COVID-19 cases with no fatalities at all (most are in Sao Paolo). The virus has forced three countries in Central and Latin America (El Salvador, Peru, and Panama) to shut down schools. On Saturday, March 7, Argentina also confirmed its first coronavirus death.

The WHO’s Cautious Approach

The WHO was cautious as it did not want to spark panic. In 2009, when it called the H1N1 (swine flu) a pandemic, the outbreak turned out to be mild, sparking criticism from pharmaceutical firms that were rushing to develop the vaccines, as Skynews reported.

The WHO also did not call the SARS outbreak in 2003 a pandemic despite its high mortality rate (60 percent) compared to the COVID-19 (3.4 percent) as only certain countries were severely affected, such as Hong Kong, China, and Singapore.

What’s Next?

The WHO called on all countries to activate and increase emergency response mechanisms, communicate the risk of the virus and prevention measures to the public, and discover, split, test, and cure each COVID-19 case and trace every related contact.

The pandemic declaration will not change anything much given most countries are preparing in advance to mitigate the spread of the COVID-19. They have imposed travel bans, suspended outdoor activities, prepared facilities for hospitals appointed to treat such an infectious disease, distributed masks for free (like what is happening in Singapore) and so on.

The COVID-19 has spread to 118 countries and killed more than 4,000 globally. The number of confirmed cases outside China has tended to rise. As of Sunday, March 8, the virus had killed 463 in Italy. The new Coronavirus has also forced the Italian govenrment to impose lockdown and suspend all the sporting competitions.

L'articolo Will the WHO’s Pandemic Declaration Change Anything? proviene da InsideOver.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has reinforced the UN’s role as “guardians” of international law in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Speaking last week at a press conference on UN work priorities in 2020, Guterres said: “We are totally committed to the two-state solution. And we are totally committed to supporting Israelis and Palestinians to come to a peace process for a two-state with the two-state solution based on international law, based on Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and based on the borders of 1967.”

Guterres: ‘We are the Guardians’

“Our position is very clear. We are the guardians of the UN resolutions and international law in relation to the policy in question,” the secretary-general added. “We have not changed our position.”

In the same conference—as the United Nations marks its 75th anniversary this year—Guterres warned that “a wind of madness is sweeping the globe.”

“As economies falter, poverty remains entrenched. As future prospects look bleak, populist and ethnic nationalist narratives gain appeal. As instability rises, investment dries up, and development cycles down. When armed conflicts persist, societies reach perilous tipping points. And as governance grows weak, terrorists get stronger, seizing on the vacuum.”

International Law Has Always Been ‘Questioned’

Global geopolitical wars and ethnonationalistic sentiments have emboldened governments to dismiss international law and foreign policy. Or, so it seems. Inderjeet Parmar, Professor of International Politics at the City University of London’s Department of International Politics said that the situation is much more complex than that.

International law has always been “questioned” within international politics, Parmar said. He argues that the Westernization of international organizations have left the West able to “impose” a liberal international order on less powerful, developing nations.

“The laws themselves have not been followed by the states which developed the liberal international order in the first place. In the last few years, there has been a growth of nationalism and greater level of rivalry between nationalisms which has a tendency to undermine international agreements, international institutions, and so on.

“It probably has intensified over the last few years,” continued Parmar, “but this isn’t the first time international law has been violated.”

“A very good example is the Korean War between 1950 and 1953, which occurred at the very beginning of the so-called international liberal order. The way in which weapons were used against civilians, how prisoners of war were treated, whether or not the war was conducted through the United Nations properly, and whether it followed the UN constitution process, as well as the American constitution process were all fought right outside of all the newly-formed international laws that governed the new order.

‘International Law is Really a Reflection of Who Has Power’

“International law is really a reflection of who has power. Law and power are fundamentally connected,” Parmar said.

Barring international wars of the past century, one major symptom of the twenty-first century breakdown of international law is the plight of journalists worldwide. On October 2, 2018, one of the most prominent and outspoken journalists in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world, Jamal Khashoggi, disappeared after walking into the Turkish consulate in Istanbul. He was there to retrieve documents legalizing his marriage to his Turkish fiancée. Saudi Arabia would later admit to his murder and dismemberment.

Khashoggi faced the plight of many journalists worldwide from Somalia, Nigeria, Brazil and China to the US, Malta, and many other locations, who are persecuted, imprisoned, disappeared and murdered outside the jurisdiction of international law, without international intervention calling for justice and protection.

Upholding International Law is Still Vital

Parmar insists that international law, when followed, is “necessary.”

“The air we breathe, the transport we use, the food we eat, and everything else are so closely integrated now. There has to be some kind of international laws just to have a normal life. Therefore, international bodies have developed,” Parmar said, adding that “at the same time, the power distributions determines which laws are followed by whom. Usually, this serves the interest of the most powerful.”

“If you look at the history of the laws of war, which goes back a long way, but particularly back to the nineteenth century, international rules were to govern the behaviour of military forces in wars between civilized states. Civilized states were considered to be the Western states. For the rest of the world, there were no rules protecting them. In a lot of ways, that imperialist, racialized position, is what pertains today as well: that is, international law can be violated in weak states where there are a lot of non-Western people who are casualties.

The Big Conundrum of International Law

“Protection from power is supposed to be through law, but the people who enforce the law are the ones with the power. That is the big conundrum of international law,” Parmar explained.

Another significant challenge to the breakdown of international law is the difficult nature of its enforcement. Parmar, who recently published an article titled: ‘Transnational Elite Knowledge Networks: Managing American Hegemony in Turbulent Times‘ contends that powerful nations cannot be made subject to international law unless there is a “world government” with enough militarized power to enforce the law.

Even then, it must be noted that a world government with such a powerful military presence would not be immune to abuses of power on a global level, neither would it be immune from global political problems either.

“The liberal international order is a product of imperial powers. They were former colonial powers. Even during the period of the formation of the United Nations in 1945, colonial powers continued to govern globally. The liberal international order was simply a replacement for what could not be tolerated any longer by most people in the world, either at home or abroad, which was colonial domination,” Parmar said.

“In effect, those powers trying to manage that change at the time were the ones establishing the new order, and they embedded their own powers into that order. These ex-colonial imperial powers set up international bodies in order to maintain their power, but without the colonial label. Colonialism and racism have been fundamental to the international system for five hundred years now.”

In another article, ‘Global Power Shifts, Diversity and Hierarchy in International Politics‘, Parmar examines that demand for greater diversity within international relations and in the representation of emerging global powers in international institutions.

Greater representation and engagement with developing nations within international institutions could effectively counteract the imperialist ethos of those institutions. But the nature of power and international law means that this would likely never be enough.

L'articolo The Liberal Myth of the Decline of International Law proviene da InsideOver.