So it wouldn't be political if they did recognise Taiwan? No one on Earth besides a few Caribbean islands recognises the ROC and yet somehow the WHO has no credibility for doing the same.
Very much making the GP's point for them without even realising here.
Mugagbe is a perfect illustration of that. They were trying to tackle non-communicable diseases in Zimbabwe, getting him on board and giving him a meaningless title was their plan. Instead of seeing it as a boon for the poor in the country, people decided to make it political and demanded he not get the worthless honor. Either outcome had absolutely zero effect on the people screaming the loudest about it.
Put the politics aside for a moment and ask yourself the question: Would health outcomes for the poorest Zimbabweans be better or worse if Mugabe had kept the title?
The fact is, the Republic of China exists and is independent of the People's Republic of China. They have a military and a government that doesn't answer to Beijing, and have maintained that government in Taipei for 70 years.
That's reality.
Recognizing reality need not be political, but refusing to recognize reality for political reasons definitely is.
But the main point is that politics, not medicine or science, is dictating the WHO's decision here. Would health outcomes for the Taiwanese be better if the WHO included Taiwan?
As for Mugabe, you're arguing that it was good politics by some measure, and it may very well have been, but it also erodes faith in the organization from people who don't think it was good politics.
> Would health outcomes for the poorest Zimbabweans be better or worse if Mugabe had kept the title?
If we assume that outcomes would have been better, that implies that listening to the WHO does improve health, and therefore we should also assume that other people who would have lost faith in the organization would have had worse health outcomes as a result. I don't know how it would all balance out, but again, the point is merely that it's a political decision, not a scientific one.
> Recognizing reality need not be political, but refusing to recognize reality for political reasons definitely is.
Getting China offside means 1 in 5 people on Earth would no longer get WHO advice and state media would undermine them at every turn.
Getting Taiwan on side means appeasing political activists in the West and having little if any measurable positive health outcomes, the Taiwanese are used to this state of affairs and have more than competent doctors and lawmakers, they are one of the smartest countries on Earth.
Despite the closeness and affection between my own country and them, when their foreign minister visits they don't go near parliament or meet elected officials in public, they go to trade shows and meet with industry.
As much as it might pain some to accept, compromises are the best outcome for all here, the WHO is being realistic about the position they are in. Hopefully more sideline commentators can be too.
> Getting China offside means 1 in 5 people on Earth would no longer get WHO advice and state media would undermine them at every turn.
Basically you're saying the same thing I'm saying. Authoritarian nations are allowed to dictate WHO policy in order to keep them "onside".
You're just arguing that it's necessary, and I'm inclined to agree, but it's also the reason the WHO is not an impartial or trustworthy source of information. And it's probably impossible for any such organization to be so at this time.
So it wouldn't be political if they did recognise Taiwan? No one on Earth besides a few Caribbean islands recognises the ROC and yet somehow the WHO has no credibility for doing the same.
Very much making the GP's point for them without even realising here.
Mugagbe is a perfect illustration of that. They were trying to tackle non-communicable diseases in Zimbabwe, getting him on board and giving him a meaningless title was their plan. Instead of seeing it as a boon for the poor in the country, people decided to make it political and demanded he not get the worthless honor. Either outcome had absolutely zero effect on the people screaming the loudest about it.
Put the politics aside for a moment and ask yourself the question: Would health outcomes for the poorest Zimbabweans be better or worse if Mugabe had kept the title?