WHO Struggles to Find Suitable Discussion Topic
The World Health Organization and its members are no strangers to international media attention. Statistics and the constant stream of cable news coverage would suggest that there is no other UN committee which receives such negative attention from the media worldwide. But the WHO has always risen above this, scarcely addressing criticism publically and even less often to individual agencies who request a response.
It is easy to accuse this committee and the larger organization behind it of being corrupt, placing them in the category of unreachable bureaucrats who speak of reform but remain in a perpetual state of inaction. To accuse the WHO of this might suggest to myself and others that perhaps, you are not really listening.
In observing this committee during the early stages of its session, it is apparent that addressing this set of topics, ranging from the health crisis in Syria to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, is particularly urgent. Careful attention is paid to setting a topic for discussion, and each delegation has a certain major stake set in this stage of committee. The delegation from Iran seems most passionate in setting the discussion to the Syrian health crisis, asking an array of questions which seems to move but not shake the stance surrounding delegates.
The delegate asks, “Have the members of this committee forgotten the growing struggle in Syria since its roots have been shifted elsewhere?” and, “Do the people of Syria not deserve the same care and concern shown to others across this globe?” Each delegation, to be sure, was asking itself a similar question. Whether that question was addressing Syria remained to be seen.
The first round of delegates, from Jordan, Iraq, and Spain agree on setting the first topic of discussion to the health crisis in Syria. That is until the delegation from the Czech Republic argues in favor of setting the topic to the Ebola outbreak saying it is “the most immediate threat to all of our countries’ present national health situation”. This statement seems to skew the delegation’s opinion in their favor, but not enough votes were achieved in order to set the topic. And so, the rolling list of speakers resumes. The delegations of Pakistan, Macedonia and France all rise to give the reasons for their preferred choice. In any case, each delegation since voting procedure seems firmly set against setting the topic to the Ebola crisis.
In the midst of the cycle, though, something strange occurs: between the passing of notes and the shifting in demeanor among the crowd, it became clear that the West African Ebola crisis would be the first issue discussed. The topic was officially set after its passing with twenty-three votes.
There is a feeling of optimism which spreads across the room. Each country seemed to be eager to discuss this topic, and work had soon begun on early resolution drafts in the form of working papers. Judging by the length or the intimal voting, it remains to be seen which theory on WHO productivity is proven correct.
It is easy to accuse this committee and the larger organization behind it of being corrupt, placing them in the category of unreachable bureaucrats who speak of reform but remain in a perpetual state of inaction. To accuse the WHO of this might suggest to myself and others that perhaps, you are not really listening.
In observing this committee during the early stages of its session, it is apparent that addressing this set of topics, ranging from the health crisis in Syria to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, is particularly urgent. Careful attention is paid to setting a topic for discussion, and each delegation has a certain major stake set in this stage of committee. The delegation from Iran seems most passionate in setting the discussion to the Syrian health crisis, asking an array of questions which seems to move but not shake the stance surrounding delegates.
The delegate asks, “Have the members of this committee forgotten the growing struggle in Syria since its roots have been shifted elsewhere?” and, “Do the people of Syria not deserve the same care and concern shown to others across this globe?” Each delegation, to be sure, was asking itself a similar question. Whether that question was addressing Syria remained to be seen.
The first round of delegates, from Jordan, Iraq, and Spain agree on setting the first topic of discussion to the health crisis in Syria. That is until the delegation from the Czech Republic argues in favor of setting the topic to the Ebola outbreak saying it is “the most immediate threat to all of our countries’ present national health situation”. This statement seems to skew the delegation’s opinion in their favor, but not enough votes were achieved in order to set the topic. And so, the rolling list of speakers resumes. The delegations of Pakistan, Macedonia and France all rise to give the reasons for their preferred choice. In any case, each delegation since voting procedure seems firmly set against setting the topic to the Ebola crisis.
In the midst of the cycle, though, something strange occurs: between the passing of notes and the shifting in demeanor among the crowd, it became clear that the West African Ebola crisis would be the first issue discussed. The topic was officially set after its passing with twenty-three votes.
There is a feeling of optimism which spreads across the room. Each country seemed to be eager to discuss this topic, and work had soon begun on early resolution drafts in the form of working papers. Judging by the length or the intimal voting, it remains to be seen which theory on WHO productivity is proven correct.