vox--2020-05-29--How to fix the WHO, according to an expert

Share All sharing options for : How to fix the WHO , according to an expert “ The W.H.O .
really blew it , ” President Donald Trump tweeted on April 7 , referring to the World Health Organization .
“ For some reason , funded largely by the United States , yet very China centric .
We will be giving that a good look.
” Trump ’ s tweet , coincidentally , came on World Health Day , which honors health care workers around the world and celebrates the 1948 founding of the World Health Organization .
The global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War II world , based on the belief the planet had to work together to fight diseases and promote the health of all citizens .
And when a pandemic happens , it ’ s obvious why the world needs an institution to help coordinate resources and distribute information .
But the WHO has come under pressure for its handling of the coronavirus , including whether it was too slow to declare a global health emergency and too generous in its praise of China for its handling of the outbreak .
Whether or how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But President Trump , at least , has decided it failed to do enough , and on Friday , he announced his intention to withdraw from the agency completely .
Whether Trump has the power to do that unilaterally is still unclear , but if the US does pull out , it could cripple the organization .
The WHO is made up of member states , meaning it is only as effective as the countries that make up that body , and that definitely includes superpowers like the United States .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health governance at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia , Canada , said in April , you can ’ t blame the WHO for failing to act if you don ’ t empower it to begin with .
“ To say , ‘ WHO should do this , WHO should do that.
’ Well , WHO is the member states , ” Lee said .
“ So if you want WHO to do something , then the member states have to get together and say : ‘ Do this.
’ ” Lee studied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published a book on the organization , co-established the WHO Collaborating Centre on Global Change and Health , and has chaired the WHO Resource Group on Globalization , Trade and Health .
I spoke to her in April — after Trump threatened to withdraw funding to the agency — to get a better understanding of the WHO ’ s mission , why the WHO is facing criticism , how the organization got to this point — and , whether and how the World Health Organization ’ s shortcomings can be fixed before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been condensed and edited for clarity .
This is a very basic question , but what exactly is the World Health Organization ?
In a nutshell , it ’ s the United Nations ’ s specialized agency for health .
So the WHO is the coordinating body for international cooperation in the health sphere .
It was created in 1948 , after the Second World War .
It had predecessors ; it was formed by bringing together some of the regional bodies that existed .
There was a League of Nations organization for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the United States didn ’ t join , so they tried to make it more open and more member-state-oriented .
And what is the WHO ’ s role — or should be its role ?
It was created to balance those needs at the time , which were post-war outbreaks and trying to respond to humanitarian needs .
Over time , it ’ s evolved in different ways into an organization that provides both what they call “ normative functions ” — providing guidelines and technical advice , collecting data , statistics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think increasingly member states wanted it to take a more active role in advocating for specific health issues .
So it got involved in things like Health for All and all sorts of campaigns .
But essentially , if you look at the WHO ’ s constitution , it is a member-state organization .
It doesn ’ t have independent authority to do what it likes .
The World Health Assembly meets every year .
And that is sort of the legislative body of WHO , and the secretariat carries out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t mean [ they don ’ t ] have any powers , the secretariat and the director-general , but it really has to go through all the member states .
So the way I describe WHO is it ’ s the ultimate committee-designed organization .
You know , when you try and do something by committee , it can end up a bit of a mess .
The other way I describe the WHO is like if you go into a restaurant , it ’ s got everything on the menu .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ramsay moments where , “ You need to reduce this menu , you can ’ t do everything.
” And I think WHO has been like that because it ’ s had to respond to 194 countries .
So it has everything to do with health .
And I don ’ t think that ’ s tenable for any organization , especially when you have frozen resources .
And so you ’ re spread more and more thin , and you ’ re trying to do everything .
That ’ s the perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a restaurant with everything being on the menu is an interesting one .
Is that because , after the WHO was founded in 1948 , it just kept adding new priorities , and didn ’ t take anything off the menu ?
Why does it just have such a massive mandate ?
It is a very cumbersome organization , lots of different parts , the way it ’ s structured , with headquarters and then regional offices and country offices .
But I think it really reflects the starting point in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you look at the definition of health , it ’ s a very broad one .
It ’ s not just the absence of disease , but it ’ s all of these things like well-being and so on .
That interpretation , over time , has led to everything under the sun [ being placed ] under what health is .
In a way , it ’ s right .
It ’ s that tension between a disease focus and a more clinical look at what health is , and broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment , education , and so on .
So there ’ s always been that tension and almost philosophy about what health is , and what creates good health and well-being .
And you see this across the different countries even : the US versus some of the European countries .
That ’ s all played out at WHO .
WHO needs to accommodate all of these kind of philosophies about what health is and it ’ s responding to both high-income countries and low-income countries .
Trying to be everything to everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitution laid out .
So from the beginning , I think its design was almost impossible to fulfill , unless you had the right resources .
Priority setting has always been a problem , and it ’ s been an ongoing effort to reform the organization to be better at priority setting ; when everything ’ s a priority , nothing ’ s a priority .
I ’ ve been in so many reform meetings where , it ’ s like , “ What do we cut ?
Mental health ?
Or do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Everything is important .
It ’ s a Sophie ’ s Choice situation where , “ Which child do you give away ?
” Obviously when there ’ s an outbreak like this , of course , this is everybody ’ s immediate priority .
But these other issues are not less important , just because they ’ re chronic or long-term .
So how does the organization choose where to put its limited resources ?
And that ’ s been a real struggle .
With so many priorities , was the WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had so many priorities , that it also wasn ’ t really prepared or had the resources to deal with a pandemic ?
So , WHO doesn ’ t have any resources to be the action on the ground .
It ’ s always been very much an advisory body , recommending what a country should do .
It doesn ’ t have the UNICEF [ United Nations Children ’ s Fund ] mode of operation where it can go in and vaccinate children , for example .
WHO has never done that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role is supposed to be , to get into countries and be boots on the ground .
And people probably wanted that to happen .
“ Oh , why isn ’ t WHO sending in people into Wuhan ?
” That was never its role .
Its role was to do intelligence-gathering , and then alert countries , and countries are the ones that act .
So there ’ s that .
The other thing is , to say , “ WHO should do this , WHO should do that.
” Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you want WHO to do something , then the member-states have to get together and say , “ Do this.
” And that is the other problem .
Countries are very divided about what WHO should do .
So there ’ s a lot of difference of opinion .
Some people say some countries get their way more than others .
So there ’ s this kind of [ debate ] being played out : What is it that WHO should do ?
Countries are not agreeing , so then WHO ends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like part of the problem is not just WHO ’ s mandate , but the dynamic of member states , which is a reflection of how the world operates .
I imagine member states who have more leverage on the international stage , or who give more funds , have a lot to do with shaping that agenda .
Given the current debate , I ’ m specifically thinking of the United States , or China .
It ’ s ironic that the US is accusing WHO of being China-centric , when actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused of being very US-centric , if anything .
So it ’ s kind of interesting how it ’ s playing out , for sure .
The organization likes to be seen as scientific and medical , and that it ’ s trying to keep politics out .
What I ’ ve written in the past is that it ’ s inherently political .
But the thing is , you want to have good politics , you want to have all countries being able to express their views .
Yes , we all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair process , allocating resources or priorities accordingly , not having one or certain parties dominate .
When you have bad politics , when there ’ s unfairness and there ’ s a lack of transparency and accountability , that ’ s when problems happen .
It ’ s not like we can take politics out of WHO .
But what we want to do is take bad politics out of WHO .
And that ’ s the challenge .
And for an organization where the funding is so skewed toward voluntary contributions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whoever pays the piper , plays the tune ” type thing .
You have all these vested interests buying , basically , what WHO does .
It ’ s a very difficult situation .
But I imagine this difficult situation has not happened in a year , or two .
Can you point to a period in time when these politics really began to interfere in WHO ’ s mandate , and put it in the position it is today ?
Definitely , we have to take a historical perspective .
So this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turning point was probably the late 1970s , when there was a historical movement for low- and middle-income countries , the New International Economic Order movement .
And they tried to challenge the world economy and how the United Nations system worked .
There were a lot of accusations at that time that the UN system was becoming politicized , and organizations like WHO were starting to recognize that it needed to address the developing world ’ s needs more effectively with the health for all movement and then the essential drugs list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ milk substitutes guidelines that were adopted .
Those all upset certain interests , largely the US and big companies , which didn ’ t like WHO to stray beyond disease-control programs : things like smallpox eradication , which was uncontroversial .
But the US thought that this was straying into territories where WHO shouldn ’ t be , asking for regulation of the industry , whether it ’ s food or pharma or so on .
So the US and some other countries — which were shifting to the right at that point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — they started to freeze WHO ’ s budget on the assessed contribution side .
And so you see the voluntary contributions growing from that point .
This is where WHO didn ’ t have a choice , it had to take more voluntary contributions .
By the 1990s , which is when I come onto the scene and start to analyze this with my colleagues , we did this big study in the mid-90s about financing the WHO and it was about 50-50 at that time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that , in itself , was alarming .
We said that had to stop .
We had to make sure the WHO could set the priorities , not all of these countries and donors , and that ’ s actually gotten worse .
I think it ’ s now up to 80 to 85 percent voluntary , and it just continued .
So you could see this upward trend .
Also , other organizations were created at the time ; the Global Fund .
Gates came onto the scene , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money elsewhere , away from WHO .
And WHO said , “ We need to be the coordinating body .
There ’ s too many other players out there.
” It became a very fragmented , uncoordinated space for action .
So we have this crazy , market-driven global health environment , where donors put their money where they want , and create other competing initiatives .
It ’ s [ been ] a long time happening , and so what we ’ re seeing now is , we want the WHO to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it the coordinating body for decades .
So , it ’ s very difficult to then step in and get everybody to work together .
It sounds like this distrust has been building for some time with the WHO , which would make it harder for the WHO to inspire cooperation and marshal resources to fight a pandemic .
How much does this distrust play into why the WHO is floundering a bit — or at least is perceived to be by some ?
WHO has its faults , but I hesitate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done this , it hasn ’ t done that .
It ’ s really been like a ship in the stormy seas — with all the changes politically going on , it ’ s been just buffeted about .
It ’ s tried to cling onto the fact that it is a scientific organization .
They ’ ve got to wise up .
Clinging to this myth that somehow health is not political , it ’ s actually a losing game .
And if we got rid of WHO now , what do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to rebuild WHO or some global health organization .
And the question now is , what would that look like ?
How would that not be designed by committee , or who would be in charge ?
Who would have the authority ?
What would you want it to do ?
Then , the politics start again .
I ’ m finding it really a little bit worrying that we come out of this outbreak and we destroy WHO , and we have nothing for the next time .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is just a warmup .
I ’ m very concerned that we don ’ t destroy what little we already have .
Instead , go the other way , let ’ s see what we can do to build up WHO and make it the organization we need it to be .
It might be tough to rebuild the WHO in the middle of the pandemic .
But how can WHO be fixed ?
This is something I ’ ve been teaching all term actually , so it ’ s great that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students this slide , which has four pictures on it .
The first one is an old computer that basically doesn ’ t work anymore , and you just need to replace it .
That ’ s retiring WHO : in this case , it can ’ t be fixed , you ’ ve got to throw it away .
That ’ s , I guess , what President Trump wants to do .
The second one is to keep putting in new peripherals , so you ’ re plugging in the old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these new programs plugged into an old laptop , and eventually , it can ’ t run all these things .
It ’ s overwhelmed .
That , to me , doesn ’ t work because you have just too much demand on an old infrastructure .
The third option is to look at what we have , which is a lot of different players out there , and create some sort of network .
Somebody has to be in the middle to coordinate , and we have to then strengthen that middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do best , what ’ s their functions , what are their spheres of expertise — and there are big gaps — so we ’ d have to create new organizations that do that , but a network model .
And then the other is , if you could imagine an iPad , for example , it ’ s an innovative idea .
Integrate it all into a new product .
This picture of the iPad really helped because it ’ s about creating a new organization where it ’ s not networked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but you think of something very , very different from what the postwar period had .
The postwar period was very much about states , and we still are going to live in a system of individual states that ’ s not going away .
But states alone are not the only important source of authority .
So creating something that shares authority in the world and recognizes that the world is changing .
It ’ s very interconnected .
It ’ s a kind of Star Trek model : we all think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes together and you have this different governance system .
I suspect we ’ re somewhere in between .
We ’ re still trying to figure out which is the best model to reform global health governance .
What might be a model for a new WHO ?
I would say that one of the things that WHO could benefit from — and people are thinking about this — is think about what the world values .
We created institutions , gave them power , according to what we value .
Over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen , we ’ ve created the World Trade Organization because countries recognize that trade benefits , at least the powerful countries .
And probably most countries now want trade to happen in an organized , legal framework .
So WTO was created , and then we have various treaties that countries abide by .
If they don ’ t abide by them , there are sanctions .
There are countermeasures that WTO has the power to enforce .
If you treat somebody unfairly , your country can go to WTO , make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have either these extra tariffs , or you might not be able to export your goods .
There are these countermeasures .
Now , we ’ re coming out of a pandemic .
I think we all value health .
We ’ re recognizing , “ Yeah , we ’ ve ignored this , but health is really important because the world can ’ t function like this.
” This is just insane , is what we ’ ve realized .
We will all shut down if we don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So what powers do we need to give to this new organization — or reformed organization — to ensure that every country doesn ’ t go through this again ?
That means giving up some power at the state level , like the WTO , which has some supranational authority .
What do we need to give WHO or something like it to enforce its requirements , and we all benefit from it ?
This is what the debate is .
What are we willing to give up to get security back ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some countries don ’ t want to give up anything .
Others are like , “ Yes , we would want to buy into this.
” But nobody ’ s escaping from this .
We all suffer because we are all interconnected as a global economy .
I think even the private companies would get on board with this .
They see they can ’ t operate in a world where there ’ s no global health security .
But this sounds like it can only exist in a perfect world — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things will be different , and people will reevaluate priorities .
But I think even the example of the WTO shows the problems with this type of model : we had a global trade war , and the US has bucked its authority , refusing to appoint judges , which renders it ineffective .
Basically , it just sounds very idealistic .
And that ’ s why I say , it ’ s called a Star Trek kind of scenario .
We ’ re just not there yet .
I think it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we ’ re not going to jump to something where we have a universal government .
What we do need to do is think about what do we value in this world ?
What keeps us all working and moving around the world ?
What ’ s the infrastructure we need , and all of us have an interest in buying into ?
The global health security system has been underfunded , ignored , despite repeated warnings that we need this .
Just like we haven ’ t invested enough in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t done that globally .
And I think it ’ s going to be a combination of carrots and sticks , to be honest .
It ’ s not just going to be a WHO with enforcement powers to punish .
I think we have to create incentives , as well .
Whether it ’ s financial assistance , technical support , public shaming , I don ’ t know .
Just a real range of things .
But certainly , there ’ s no use accusing WHO of not doing enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The organization has no teeth .
It ’ s just pointless .
It ’ s a balance that seems hard to strike .
This is what we ’ re all thinking about .
What is it going to look like ?
How would you do that ?
You ’ d need legal expertise , and what international law would offer .
You need diplomatic expertise , what could we negotiate ?
Russia is not going to just exactly jump on board , or China , or the US , either .
These three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiercely , are not going to want the rest of the world to tell them what to do .
But there are other countries who are more willing and might go ahead of these three countries .
It ’ s not going to be all or nothing .
I think we ’ re going to have to get like-minded countries together .
I think Canada will be one of them , to move and to have a multilateral approach .
It feels a bit as if the coronavirus pandemic has put the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more inward , or , more hopefully , they might start looking outward and revive global cooperation .
It sort of seems like there ’ s two ways to go right now .
That ’ s how I read it as well .
There ’ s a real tension , and I don ’ t know which way it ’ s going to go .
I ’ m concerned , and I give these interviews because I want people to go the international route .
I really feel that that is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right .
Some countries may decide that , no , we ’ re going to retreat into our castles .
It ’ s kind of a medieval analogy .
And obviously that didn ’ t work when the black plague came along .
Essentially , we ’ ll learn all the wrong lessons from this pandemic .
You can ’ t hide from these kinds of outbreaks .
This is the thing .
People thinking that they can somehow quarantine themselves from these risks is really a dream .
So , countries might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to retreat from globalization .
We ’ re just going to disconnect and become national economies.
” And that , of course , is not going to happen .
The global economy has moved so much .
We are interconnected .
We can ’ t dial it back .
But we have to recognize that we need to invest , as much as we ’ ve invested in markets , we need investing in strong government and strong multilateral capacity .
So , we are definitely at a crossroads .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history , I think , where the world has never been as interconnected as it is now .
And so the institutions that we built after the Second World War are really out of date .
I talked to my students about being obsolete , like the Maginot line during the Second World War , when the French thought they could stop Germany from invading and built these fortifications .
Now we ’ re having that same Maginot line moment .
We need to think more forward-looking .
Does humanity have this in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
We certainly did after the Second World War .
There was nothing like the United Nations .
There was the League of Nations , which didn ’ t really work .
So they designed the UN system .
It wasn ’ t perfect , but it got us through a period of crisis .
It generally was a good thing that it was created .
Now , we ’ re at that historic moment .
Do we need another global conference ?
I think we need leadership .
Whatever countries are doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have good leadership .
This is such a test .
You mentioned the WTO , but are there any other models or proposals — even on a smaller scale — that could be a good model for this new , iPad version of the WHO ?
I wish I did .
And if I did , I ’ d probably be very famous .
I think there are parts of different organizations that might be kind of ideas .
Like the International Labor Organization brings in non-state actors and state actors within its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to think beyond states .
I don ’ t mean by bringing in just big companies .
I mean civil society .
We have to see , okay , “ how do we politically organize our world and who has authority ?
” There have been ideas put forward over the last few years about how to adapt WHO .
But what I think what will happen is that some countries will get together and plug the financial hole for WHO , and it ’ ll just continue to lumber on .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic , about , hopefully , a different model .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Share All sharing options for: How to fix the WHO, according to an expert
“The W.H.O. really blew it,” President Donald Trump tweeted on April 7, referring to the World Health Organization. “For some reason, funded largely by the United States, yet very China centric. We will be giving that a good look.”
Trump’s tweet, coincidentally, came on World Health Day, which honors health care workers around the world and celebrates the 1948 founding of the World Health Organization. The global health institution was created in a post-World War II world, based on the belief the planet had to work together to fight diseases and promote the health of all citizens.
And when a pandemic happens, it’s obvious why the world needs an institution to help coordinate resources and distribute information.
But the WHO has come under pressure for its handling of the coronavirus, including whether it was too slow to declare a global health emergency and too generous in its praise of China for its handling of the outbreak.
Whether or how the WHO misstepped is up for debate. But President Trump, at least, has decided it failed to do enough, and on Friday, he announced his intention to withdraw from the agency completely.
Whether Trump has the power to do that unilaterally is still unclear, but if the US does pull out, it could cripple the organization. The WHO is made up of member states, meaning it is only as effective as the countries that make up that body, and that definitely includes superpowers like the United States. As Kelley Lee, research chair in global health governance at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, said in April, you can’t blame the WHO for failing to act if you don’t empower it to begin with.
“To say, ‘WHO should do this, WHO should do that.’ Well, WHO is the member states,” Lee said. “So if you want WHO to do something, then the member states have to get together and say: ‘Do this.’”
Lee studied WHO reform efforts in the 1990s, published a book on the organization, co-established the WHO Collaborating Centre on Global Change and Health, and has chaired the WHO Resource Group on Globalization, Trade and Health.
I spoke to her in April — after Trump threatened to withdraw funding to the agency — to get a better understanding of the WHO’s mission, why the WHO is facing criticism, how the organization got to this point — and, whether and how the World Health Organization’s shortcomings can be fixed before the next pandemic hits.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Jen Kirby
This is a very basic question, but what exactly is the World Health Organization?
Kelley Lee
In a nutshell, it’s the United Nations’s specialized agency for health. So the WHO is the coordinating body for international cooperation in the health sphere.
It was created in 1948, after the Second World War. It had predecessors; it was formed by bringing together some of the regional bodies that existed. There was a League of Nations organization for health that didn’t go anywhere because the United States didn’t join, so they tried to make it more open and more member-state-oriented.
Jen Kirby
And what is the WHO’s role — or should be its role?
Kelley Lee
It was created to balance those needs at the time, which were post-war outbreaks and trying to respond to humanitarian needs. Over time, it’s evolved in different ways into an organization that provides both what they call “normative functions” — providing guidelines and technical advice, collecting data, statistics, and so on. And then, I think increasingly member states wanted it to take a more active role in advocating for specific health issues. So it got involved in things like Health for All and all sorts of campaigns.
But essentially, if you look at the WHO’s constitution, it is a member-state organization. It doesn’t have independent authority to do what it likes. The World Health Assembly meets every year. And that is sort of the legislative body of WHO, and the secretariat carries out what is decided upon. It doesn’t mean [they don’t] have any powers, the secretariat and the director-general, but it really has to go through all the member states.
So the way I describe WHO is it’s the ultimate committee-designed organization. You know, when you try and do something by committee, it can end up a bit of a mess.
The other way I describe the WHO is like if you go into a restaurant, it’s got everything on the menu. It’s one of those Gordon Ramsay moments where, “You need to reduce this menu, you can’t do everything.” And I think WHO has been like that because it’s had to respond to 194 countries. So it has everything to do with health. And I don’t think that’s tenable for any organization, especially when you have frozen resources. And so you’re spread more and more thin, and you’re trying to do everything.
Jen Kirby
That’s the perfect overview, and this idea that it’s a restaurant with everything being on the menu is an interesting one. Is that because, after the WHO was founded in 1948, it just kept adding new priorities, and didn’t take anything off the menu? Why does it just have such a massive mandate?
Kelley Lee
It is a very cumbersome organization, lots of different parts, the way it’s structured, with headquarters and then regional offices and country offices. But I think it really reflects the starting point in the organization, its constitution. And if you look at the definition of health, it’s a very broad one. It’s not just the absence of disease, but it’s all of these things like well-being and so on. That interpretation, over time, has led to everything under the sun [being placed] under what health is.
In a way, it’s right. It’s that tension between a disease focus and a more clinical look at what health is, and broader, social determinants of health — the environment, education, and so on. So there’s always been that tension and almost philosophy about what health is, and what creates good health and well-being.
And you see this across the different countries even: the US versus some of the European countries. That’s all played out at WHO. WHO needs to accommodate all of these kind of philosophies about what health is and it’s responding to both high-income countries and low-income countries. Trying to be everything to everyone, and that’s what the constitution laid out.
So from the beginning, I think its design was almost impossible to fulfill, unless you had the right resources. Priority setting has always been a problem, and it’s been an ongoing effort to reform the organization to be better at priority setting; when everything’s a priority, nothing’s a priority.
I’ve been in so many reform meetings where, it’s like, “What do we cut? Mental health? Or do we cut road traffic accidents?” Everything is important. It’s a Sophie’s Choice situation where, “Which child do you give away?”
Obviously when there’s an outbreak like this, of course, this is everybody’s immediate priority. But these other issues are not less important, just because they’re chronic or long-term. So how does the organization choose where to put its limited resources? And that’s been a real struggle.
Jen Kirby
With so many priorities, was the WHO caught in a similar situation where it had so many priorities, that it also wasn’t really prepared or had the resources to deal with a pandemic?
Kelley Lee
So, WHO doesn’t have any resources to be the action on the ground. It’s always been very much an advisory body, recommending what a country should do. It doesn’t have the UNICEF [United Nations Children’s Fund] mode of operation where it can go in and vaccinate children, for example.
WHO has never done that, that’s not what its role is supposed to be, to get into countries and be boots on the ground. And people probably wanted that to happen. “Oh, why isn’t WHO sending in people into Wuhan?” That was never its role. Its role was to do intelligence-gathering, and then alert countries, and countries are the ones that act. So there’s that.
The other thing is, to say, “WHO should do this, WHO should do that.” Well, WHO is the member states. So if you want WHO to do something, then the member-states have to get together and say, “Do this.”
And that is the other problem. Countries are very divided about what WHO should do. So there’s a lot of difference of opinion. Some people say some countries get their way more than others. So there’s this kind of [debate] being played out: What is it that WHO should do? Countries are not agreeing, so then WHO ends up doing everything.
Jen Kirby
So it sounds like part of the problem is not just WHO’s mandate, but the dynamic of member states, which is a reflection of how the world operates. I imagine member states who have more leverage on the international stage, or who give more funds, have a lot to do with shaping that agenda. Given the current debate, I’m specifically thinking of the United States, or China.
Kelley Lee
It’s ironic that the US is accusing WHO of being China-centric, when actually for decades, it’s been accused of being very US-centric, if anything. So it’s kind of interesting how it’s playing out, for sure.
The organization likes to be seen as scientific and medical, and that it’s trying to keep politics out. What I’ve written in the past is that it’s inherently political. But the thing is, you want to have good politics, you want to have all countries being able to express their views. Yes, we all have different interests. But have a fair process, allocating resources or priorities accordingly, not having one or certain parties dominate.
When you have bad politics, when there’s unfairness and there’s a lack of transparency and accountability, that’s when problems happen. It’s not like we can take politics out of WHO. But what we want to do is take bad politics out of WHO. And that’s the challenge.
And for an organization where the funding is so skewed toward voluntary contributions, this is the problem. “Whoever pays the piper, plays the tune” type thing. You have all these vested interests buying, basically, what WHO does. It’s a very difficult situation.
Jen Kirby
But I imagine this difficult situation has not happened in a year, or two. Can you point to a period in time when these politics really began to interfere in WHO’s mandate, and put it in the position it is today?
Kelley Lee
Definitely, we have to take a historical perspective. So this has been unfolding over decades. The turning point was probably the late 1970s, when there was a historical movement for low- and middle-income countries, the New International Economic Order movement. And they tried to challenge the world economy and how the United Nations system worked. There were a lot of accusations at that time that the UN system was becoming politicized, and organizations like WHO were starting to recognize that it needed to address the developing world’s needs more effectively with the health for all movement and then the essential drugs list. And then there were the breast milk substitutes guidelines that were adopted.
Those all upset certain interests, largely the US and big companies, which didn’t like WHO to stray beyond disease-control programs: things like smallpox eradication, which was uncontroversial. But the US thought that this was straying into territories where WHO shouldn’t be, asking for regulation of the industry, whether it’s food or pharma or so on.
So the US and some other countries — which were shifting to the right at that point under leaders like US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — they started to freeze WHO’s budget on the assessed contribution side. And so you see the voluntary contributions growing from that point. This is where WHO didn’t have a choice, it had to take more voluntary contributions.
By the 1990s, which is when I come onto the scene and start to analyze this with my colleagues, we did this big study in the mid-90s about financing the WHO and it was about 50-50 at that time, between assessed and voluntary contributions. And that, in itself, was alarming. We said that had to stop. We had to make sure the WHO could set the priorities, not all of these countries and donors, and that’s actually gotten worse.
I think it’s now up to 80 to 85 percent voluntary, and it just continued. So you could see this upward trend. Also, other organizations were created at the time; the Global Fund. Gates came onto the scene, and so there’s been donors putting their money elsewhere, away from WHO.
And WHO said, “We need to be the coordinating body. There’s too many other players out there.” It became a very fragmented, uncoordinated space for action. So we have this crazy, market-driven global health environment, where donors put their money where they want, and create other competing initiatives.
It’s [been] a long time happening, and so what we’re seeing now is, we want the WHO to coordinate, but we haven’t made it the coordinating body for decades. So, it’s very difficult to then step in and get everybody to work together.
Jen Kirby
It sounds like this distrust has been building for some time with the WHO, which would make it harder for the WHO to inspire cooperation and marshal resources to fight a pandemic. How much does this distrust play into why the WHO is floundering a bit — or at least is perceived to be by some?
Kelley Lee
WHO has its faults, but I hesitate to say, WHO hasn’t done this, it hasn’t done that. It’s really been like a ship in the stormy seas — with all the changes politically going on, it’s been just buffeted about.
It’s tried to cling onto the fact that it is a scientific organization. They’ve got to wise up. Clinging to this myth that somehow health is not political, it’s actually a losing game.
And if we got rid of WHO now, what do we have instead?
We’d have to rebuild WHO or some global health organization. And the question now is, what would that look like? How would that not be designed by committee, or who would be in charge? Who would have the authority? What would you want it to do?
Then, the politics start again. I’m finding it really a little bit worrying that we come out of this outbreak and we destroy WHO, and we have nothing for the next time. There’s going to be a next time. This is just a warmup.
I’m very concerned that we don’t destroy what little we already have. Instead, go the other way, let’s see what we can do to build up WHO and make it the organization we need it to be.
Jen Kirby
It might be tough to rebuild the WHO in the middle of the pandemic. But how can WHO be fixed?
Kelley Lee
This is something I’ve been teaching all term actually, so it’s great that you asked that. I give my students this slide, which has four pictures on it. The first one is an old computer that basically doesn’t work anymore, and you just need to replace it. That’s retiring WHO: in this case, it can’t be fixed, you’ve got to throw it away. That’s, I guess, what President Trump wants to do.
The second one is to keep putting in new peripherals, so you’re plugging in the old extra hard drives. WHO gets all these new programs plugged into an old laptop, and eventually, it can’t run all these things. It’s overwhelmed. That, to me, doesn’t work because you have just too much demand on an old infrastructure.
The third option is to look at what we have, which is a lot of different players out there, and create some sort of network. Somebody has to be in the middle to coordinate, and we have to then strengthen that middle. But to see what other organizations do best, what’s their functions, what are their spheres of expertise — and there are big gaps — so we’d have to create new organizations that do that, but a network model.
And then the other is, if you could imagine an iPad, for example, it’s an innovative idea. Integrate it all into a new product. This picture of the iPad really helped because it’s about creating a new organization where it’s not networked, everything is under one roof, but you think of something very, very different from what the postwar period had.
The postwar period was very much about states, and we still are going to live in a system of individual states that’s not going away. But states alone are not the only important source of authority. So creating something that shares authority in the world and recognizes that the world is changing.
It’s very interconnected. It’s a kind of Star Trek model: we all think of this wonderful world where the world comes together and you have this different governance system. I suspect we’re somewhere in between. We’re still trying to figure out which is the best model to reform global health governance.
Jen Kirby
What might be a model for a new WHO?
Kelley Lee
I would say that one of the things that WHO could benefit from — and people are thinking about this — is think about what the world values. We created institutions, gave them power, according to what we value. Over the last 20 years, you’ve seen, we’ve created the World Trade Organization because countries recognize that trade benefits, at least the powerful countries. And probably most countries now want trade to happen in an organized, legal framework.
So WTO was created, and then we have various treaties that countries abide by. If they don’t abide by them, there are sanctions. There are countermeasures that WTO has the power to enforce. If you treat somebody unfairly, your country can go to WTO, make a complaint, if they win, you have either these extra tariffs, or you might not be able to export your goods. There are these countermeasures.
Now, we’re coming out of a pandemic. I think we all value health. We’re recognizing, “Yeah, we’ve ignored this, but health is really important because the world can’t function like this.” This is just insane, is what we’ve realized. We will all shut down if we don’t have a good global health security system.
So what powers do we need to give to this new organization — or reformed organization — to ensure that every country doesn’t go through this again? That means giving up some power at the state level, like the WTO, which has some supranational authority. What do we need to give WHO or something like it to enforce its requirements, and we all benefit from it?
This is what the debate is. What are we willing to give up to get security back? Some are more willing than others. Some countries don’t want to give up anything. Others are like, “Yes, we would want to buy into this.”
But nobody’s escaping from this. We all suffer because we are all interconnected as a global economy. I think even the private companies would get on board with this. They see they can’t operate in a world where there’s no global health security.
Jen Kirby
But this sounds like it can only exist in a perfect world — and maybe, in a post-pandemic society, things will be different, and people will reevaluate priorities. But I think even the example of the WTO shows the problems with this type of model: we had a global trade war, and the US has bucked its authority, refusing to appoint judges, which renders it ineffective. Basically, it just sounds very idealistic.
Kelley Lee
And that’s why I say, it’s called a Star Trek kind of scenario. We’re just not there yet. I think it’s going to be an incremental path, and we’re not going to jump to something where we have a universal government.
What we do need to do is think about what do we value in this world? What keeps us all working and moving around the world? What’s the infrastructure we need, and all of us have an interest in buying into?
The global health security system has been underfunded, ignored, despite repeated warnings that we need this. Just like we haven’t invested enough in public health systems nationally, we haven’t done that globally.
And I think it’s going to be a combination of carrots and sticks, to be honest. It’s not just going to be a WHO with enforcement powers to punish. I think we have to create incentives, as well. Whether it’s financial assistance, technical support, public shaming, I don’t know. Just a real range of things.
But certainly, there’s no use accusing WHO of not doing enough. There’s no teeth. The organization has no teeth. It’s just pointless.
Jen Kirby
It’s a balance that seems hard to strike.
Kelley Lee
This is what we’re all thinking about. What is it going to look like? How would you do that? You’d need legal expertise, and what international law would offer. You need diplomatic expertise, what could we negotiate?
Russia is not going to just exactly jump on board, or China, or the US, either. These three countries, who are protecting their sovereignty fiercely, are not going to want the rest of the world to tell them what to do.
But there are other countries who are more willing and might go ahead of these three countries. It’s not going to be all or nothing. I think we’re going to have to get like-minded countries together. I think Canada will be one of them, to move and to have a multilateral approach.
Jen Kirby
It feels a bit as if the coronavirus pandemic has put the world at a crossroads. Countries could turn even more inward, or, more hopefully, they might start looking outward and revive global cooperation. It sort of seems like there’s two ways to go right now.
Kelley Lee
That’s how I read it as well. There’s a real tension, and I don’t know which way it’s going to go. I’m concerned, and I give these interviews because I want people to go the international route. I really feel that that is the way forward.
But you’re right. Some countries may decide that, no, we’re going to retreat into our castles. It’s kind of a medieval analogy. And obviously that didn’t work when the black plague came along.
Jen Kirby
Essentially, we’ll learn all the wrong lessons from this pandemic.
Kelley Lee
You can’t hide from these kinds of outbreaks. This is the thing. People thinking that they can somehow quarantine themselves from these risks is really a dream. So, countries might say, “Okay, we’re going to retreat from globalization. We’re just going to disconnect and become national economies.” And that, of course, is not going to happen.
The global economy has moved so much. We are interconnected. We can’t dial it back. But we have to recognize that we need to invest, as much as we’ve invested in markets, we need investing in strong government and strong multilateral capacity.
So, we are definitely at a crossroads. We’re also at a point in history, I think, where the world has never been as interconnected as it is now. And so the institutions that we built after the Second World War are really out of date.
I talked to my students about being obsolete, like the Maginot line during the Second World War, when the French thought they could stop Germany from invading and built these fortifications.
Now we’re having that same Maginot line moment. We need to think more forward-looking. Does humanity have this in our brains to design something very different? We certainly did after the Second World War. There was nothing like the United Nations. There was the League of Nations, which didn’t really work. So they designed the UN system. It wasn’t perfect, but it got us through a period of crisis. It generally was a good thing that it was created.
Now, we’re at that historic moment. Do we need another global conference? I think we need leadership. Whatever countries are doing well, it’s because they have good leadership. This is such a test.
Jen Kirby
You mentioned the WTO, but are there any other models or proposals — even on a smaller scale — that could be a good model for this new, iPad version of the WHO?
Kelley Lee
I wish I did. And if I did, I’d probably be very famous. I think there are parts of different organizations that might be kind of ideas. Like the International Labor Organization brings in non-state actors and state actors within its decision-making body.
I think we do need to think beyond states. I don’t mean by bringing in just big companies. I mean civil society. We have to see, okay, “how do we politically organize our world and who has authority?”
There have been ideas put forward over the last few years about how to adapt WHO. But what I think what will happen is that some countries will get together and plug the financial hole for WHO, and it’ll just continue to lumber on.
But we need to think, after the pandemic, about, hopefully, a different model.


vox--2020-05-29--What we’re missing when we condemn “violence” at protests

A pandemic has taken the lives of more than 100,000 Americans and put more than 30 million out of work , and to top it off , there has been an almost 30-day , caught-on-tape spree of police and vigilante violence against black people .
For some , it may feel like the nation is on the brink of near-biblical levels of chaos .
The responses across the nation , whether you call them riots ( and you shouldn ’ t ) or whether you call them protests , uprisings , unrest , or rebellions , are being covered by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As a journalism professor who has studied and experienced media coverage of protests for years , I have watched repeatedly how poorly these events are conveyed by the media and understood by the public .
Here ’ s what people watching the news must understand in order to get what ’ s truly going on , and keep your faith in America nominally intact in the process .
First , it ’ s important to understand the mandate of the news , and that is to get eyeballs on the screen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the one in your hands .
Networks focus on spectacle : fires , people crying , and broken windows , instead of the larger story .
In most cases ( such as with the Ferguson , Missouri , and Baltimore , Maryland , protests a few years ago ) , property damage and fires are limited to a small area , and even during those times many people are just milling about , but shaking camera angles and tight shots want you to believe that every reporter is an extra in Saving Private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ No Church in the Wild ” video .
In reality , these protests are usually not completely consumed with chaos .
Nighttime coverage will seldom show a full city map demonstrating that , two blocks over from a street that looks like a “ city engulfed in flames , ” there ’ s a CVS still open for business .
The press flocking to dramatic images as a protest metaphor is not a new phenomenon .
Further , much of the property damage attributed to protesters is often the result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face of lawful public behavior , something I ’ ve witnessed from Ferguson to the far-right protests in Charlottesville , Virginia .
Tear gas canisters can still burn your hand hours after they ’ ve been launched by police , flares are thrown by riot response teams with reckless abandon , let alone live munitions and flash grenades .
Sometimes buried at the end of post-protest reports by local authorities is the fact that police munitions often start fires at protests , but this is seldom reported by the press , and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arson relative to the fires that erupted during the unrest .
Which is more likely to set row houses ablaze , three teenagers in face masks with “ No Justice , No Peace ” signs or two smoldering tear gas shells sitting on a pile of dry leaves and newspaper for two hours ?
This is not to suggest that some protesters don ’ t cause violence or property damage , but observers , let alone journalists , should be making distinctions between the various actors that are actually on the scene during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police who are armed .
Then you have chaos agents and anarchists who infiltrate peaceful protests with their own agenda .
This isn ’ t conspiracy theory ; in Minneapolis alone , videos have emerged of strangely dressed people just engaging in wanton property destruction .
No one knows who they are , but it seems unlikely that they are protesters .
Then you have your run-of-the-mill opportunistic criminals .
When the police are so occupied harassing and corralling peaceful protesters and the streets are filled with smoke , it ’ s pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a beauty shop , or a grocery store and take what you want .
These people are often conflated with actual revolutionaries , who are protesters that target actual structures and symbols of abuse and oppression .
For protesters who are angry about violent , unaccountable police in Minneapolis , overtaking and burning down the Third Police Precinct is a specific act of revolt .
This is a fundamentally different action than using the chaos from two blocks over to raid a liquor store .
And , of course , none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of men and women peacefully protesting who are usually subjected to violent reprisals by police .
Which is why “ they ’ re burning their own community ” narratives are so misleading and dangerous .
It ’ s irresponsible to not distinguish which “ they ” is being talked about .
Which brings us to perhaps the most important thing to understand about how to watch protests : the context of what kind of protest garners police response .
Over the past three months , the 24-hour cable networks have extensively covered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police and politicians at state capitols across the nation over coronavirus lockdown policies .
How often have you seen police in riot gear ?
In fact , police seldom use force or even present in force ( protest shields , black helmets , etc . )
when conservative or right-wing groups protest .
When is the last time you saw a group of anti-abortion activists get tear-gassed ?
Yet left-leaning groups , and especially groups of minorities , their protests are often met with shows of force .
Right-wing groups spit in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan , while SWAT teams show up like Storm Troopers to chanting teens in Minneapolis .
This lack of context is even more corrosive when national press coverage chooses one staging area of protest over another .
People are marching in Phoenix , Arizona ; Columbus , Ohio ; and New York City in solidarity with George Floyd , and in Brunswick , Georgia , for Ahmaud Arbery , and in Louisville , Kentucky , for Breonna Taylor .
Seven people were shot during the Louisville protests , but 24-hour news coverage is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minneapolis as if that ’ s the default of protests instead of the outlier .
So what should be your main takeaway as an American concerned about the future of the country ?
Protests are not simply stories of “ good guys ” and “ bad guys ” no matter where you fall on the political spectrum .
There are actors all operating simultaneously , and all too often local and even national reporting only covers the story of the local politicians and police who have a vested interest in presenting themselves as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and incendiary .
Former Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin , who pinned George Floyd by placing his knee on the man ’ s neck for almost nine minutes , has been arrested and charged with murder and manslaughter by local authorities .
By all accounts , whether it ’ s Minneapolis ( or Louisville or Brunswick ) , if the police and vigilantes who committed these acts of violence were consistently arrested and charged , it ’ s highly likely that these protests would be less volatile .
More importantly , the focus and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives that sparked unrest to begin with is a reflection of the press ’ s ghoulishly misplaced priorities .
As a news consumer , you don ’ t have to feed the beast .
You can choose to follow men and women on the ground covering events as concerned citizens .
You can sift through the dross of hot-taking moralizing pundits and pay attention to the data on the ground about what causes protests .
( This was all but predicted five years ago . )
You can refuse to submit to goodthink @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest , and resistance interchangeably .
In other words , you can be a sincere , informed American citizen , and recognize that your fellow Americans are hurting and expressing their pain .
It does not have to be filtered and sanitized through the state or the press to be legitimized .
Jason Johnson is a professor of politics and journalism at Morgan State University in Baltimore ; a political contributor at MSNBC , the Grio , and Sirius XM ; and the author of the book Political Consultants and Campaigns : One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him at @ DrjasonJohnson .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

A pandemic has taken the lives of more than 100,000 Americans and put more than 30 million out of work, and to top it off, there has been an almost 30-day, caught-on-tape spree of police and vigilante violence against black people. For some, it may feel like the nation is on the brink of near-biblical levels of chaos.
The responses across the nation, whether you call them riots (and you shouldn’t) or whether you call them protests, uprisings, unrest, or rebellions, are being covered by local and national news and social media. As a journalism professor who has studied and experienced media coverage of protests for years, I have watched repeatedly how poorly these events are conveyed by the media and understood by the public. Here’s what people watching the news must understand in order to get what’s truly going on, and keep your faith in America nominally intact in the process.
First, it’s important to understand the mandate of the news, and that is to get eyeballs on the screen, whether that is your television screen or the one in your hands. Networks focus on spectacle: fires, people crying, and broken windows, instead of the larger story. In most cases (such as with the Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, protests a few years ago), property damage and fires are limited to a small area, and even during those times many people are just milling about, but shaking camera angles and tight shots want you to believe that every reporter is an extra in Saving Private Ryan and every protest looks like Kanye’s “No Church in the Wild” video.
In reality, these protests are usually not completely consumed with chaos. Nighttime coverage will seldom show a full city map demonstrating that, two blocks over from a street that looks like a “city engulfed in flames,” there’s a CVS still open for business. The press flocking to dramatic images as a protest metaphor is not a new phenomenon.
Grasping for Metaphor, Reporters Flock to Burning DC Garbage Canhttps://t.co/g65ZrW2Qdv pic.twitter.com/dDMoLVOSHr — Washingtonian (@washingtonian) January 20, 2017
Further, much of the property damage attributed to protesters is often the result of police action or inaction in the face of lawful public behavior, something I’ve witnessed from Ferguson to the far-right protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. Tear gas canisters can still burn your hand hours after they’ve been launched by police, flares are thrown by riot response teams with reckless abandon, let alone live munitions and flash grenades.
Sometimes buried at the end of post-protest reports by local authorities is the fact that police munitions often start fires at protests, but this is seldom reported by the press, and there have been surprisingly few protesters arrested for arson relative to the fires that erupted during the unrest. Which is more likely to set row houses ablaze, three teenagers in face masks with “No Justice, No Peace” signs or two smoldering tear gas shells sitting on a pile of dry leaves and newspaper for two hours?
This is not to suggest that some protesters don’t cause violence or property damage, but observers, let alone journalists, should be making distinctions between the various actors that are actually on the scene during civil unrest. You have the aforementioned police who are armed. Then you have chaos agents and anarchists who infiltrate peaceful protests with their own agenda. This isn’t conspiracy theory; in Minneapolis alone, videos have emerged of strangely dressed people just engaging in wanton property destruction. No one knows who they are, but it seems unlikely that they are protesters.
Then you have your run-of-the-mill opportunistic criminals. When the police are so occupied harassing and corralling peaceful protesters and the streets are filled with smoke, it’s pretty easy to break into a Verizon store, a beauty shop, or a grocery store and take what you want. These people are often conflated with actual revolutionaries, who are protesters that target actual structures and symbols of abuse and oppression. For protesters who are angry about violent, unaccountable police in Minneapolis, overtaking and burning down the Third Police Precinct is a specific act of revolt. This is a fundamentally different action than using the chaos from two blocks over to raid a liquor store.
And, of course, none of these actors should be confused with the hundreds of men and women peacefully protesting who are usually subjected to violent reprisals by police. Which is why “they’re burning their own community” narratives are so misleading and dangerous. It’s irresponsible to not distinguish which “they” is being talked about.
Which brings us to perhaps the most important thing to understand about how to watch protests: the context of what kind of protest garners police response. Over the past three months, the 24-hour cable networks have extensively covered mostly white armed men and women threatening police and politicians at state capitols across the nation over coronavirus lockdown policies.
How often have you seen police in riot gear? In fact, police seldom use force or even present in force (protest shields, black helmets, etc.) when conservative or right-wing groups protest. When is the last time you saw a group of anti-abortion activists get tear-gassed? Yet with left-leaning groups, and especially groups of minorities, their protests are often met with shows of force. Right-wing groups spit in the faces of police in regular gear in Michigan, while SWAT teams show up like Storm Troopers for chanting teens in Minneapolis.
Watching these side-by-side makes me sick. pic.twitter.com/NjS3ilTMJl — Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) May 27, 2020
This lack of context is even more corrosive when national press coverage chooses one staging area of protest over another. People are marching in Phoenix, Arizona; Columbus, Ohio; and New York City in solidarity with George Floyd, and in Brunswick, Georgia, for Ahmaud Arbery, and in Louisville, Kentucky, for Breonna Taylor. Seven people were shot during the Louisville protests, but 24-hour news coverage is blanketed with images of burning buildings in Minneapolis as if that’s the default of protests instead of the outlier.
So what should be your main takeaway as an American concerned about the future of the country? Protests are not simply stories of “good guys” and “bad guys” no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. There are actors all operating simultaneously, and all too often local and even national reporting only covers the story of the local politicians and police who have a vested interest in presenting themselves as overwhelmed and beleaguered as opposed to negligent and incendiary.
Former Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin, who pinned George Floyd by placing his knee on the man’s neck for almost nine minutes, has been arrested and charged with murder and manslaughter by local authorities. By all accounts, whether it’s Minneapolis (or Louisville or Brunswick), if the police and vigilantes who committed these acts of violence were consistently arrested and charged, it’s highly likely that these protests would be less volatile.
More importantly, the focus and amplification of property damage over the lost lives that sparked unrest to begin with is a reflection of the press’s ghoulishly misplaced priorities. As a news consumer, you don’t have to feed the beast. You can choose to follow men and women on the ground covering events as concerned citizens. You can sift through the dross of hot-taking, moralizing pundits and pay attention to the data on the ground about what causes protests. (This was all but predicted five years ago.) You can refuse to submit to goodthink and stop using words like riot, protest, and resistance interchangeably.
In other words, you can be a sincere, informed American citizen, and recognize that your fellow Americans are hurting and expressing their pain. It does not have to be filtered and sanitized through the state or the press to be legitimized.
Jason Johnson is a professor of politics and journalism at Morgan State University in Baltimore; a political contributor at MSNBC, the Grio, and Sirius XM; and the author of the book Political Consultants and Campaigns: One Day to Sell. You can follow him at @DrJasonJohnson.


vox--2020-05-29--Trump says he will revoke Hong Kong’s special trade status

President Donald Trump said Friday that his administration would begin the process of revoking Hong Kong ’ s special trade status , a day after China approved a national security law that threatens Hong Kong ’ s autonomy .
“ China has replaced its promised formula of one country , two systems , with one country , one system , ” Trump announced Friday from the White House Rose Garden .
“ Therefore , I am directing my administration to begin the process of eliminating policy exemptions that give Hong Kong different and special treatment.
” Trump said this would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the US has with Hong Kong , including the extradition treaty between the US and Hong Kong , and the end of export controls for the territory .
“ We will take action to revoke Hong Kong ’ s preferential treatment as a separate customs and travel territory from the rest of China , ” the president added .
Trump ’ s announcement is the most dramatic action his administration has taken yet against China ’ s intervention in Hong Kong .
Earlier this week , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo decertified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ no reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy from China , given facts on the ground.
” Pompeo cited Beijing ’ s new national security law , which , if broadly interpreted , could severely restrict freedom of speech and dissent in Hong Kong .
Western governments and pro-democracy advocates have decried this as a direct threat to the territory ’ s semi-autonomous status , which Beijing is bound to preserve until 2047 under a treaty between Britain and China .
The secretary of state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action , but Trump ’ s announcement on Friday suggests his administration is willing to consider a range of options .
In addition to reevaluating Hong Kong ’ s special status — which treats the territory differently than mainland China for trade and customs rules — Trump said the State Department will review its travel advisory for Hong Kong “ to reflect the increased danger of surveillance and punishment by the Chinese state security apparatus.
” Trump also said the US would “ take steps ” to sanction Chinese and Hong Kong officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in eroding Hong Kong ’ s autonomy.
” This was a forceful declaration from the president who , in the past , has been somewhat reluctant to weigh in on the turmoil in Hong Kong , which is now coming up on a year of pro-democracy protests .
At the same time , the consequences of Trump ’ s statement are still unclear .
Along with its rule of law and relative freedoms , Hong Kong ’ s preferential treatment from the US helped it become a global financial capital .
If the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exemptions , it could jeopardize Hong Kong ’ s international standing .
That could backfire , too .
If Hong Kong loses its reputation as a financial hub — becoming just another city in China — Beijing may have even less reason to pretend it doesn ’ t want the territory fully under its control .
Trump also did not give specifics on when , or how , such policy changes might be implemented .
( Vox reached out to the White House for more details , and will update if we hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Hong Kong came as protests are raging across America over the death of George Floyd , yet the president did not acknowledge the unrest at home .
Instead , he focused on China , announcing policy plans to “ rigorously defend our national interests.
” “ These plain facts can not be overlooked or swept aside , the world is now suffering as a result of the malfeasance of the Chinese government , ” Trump said , referring to the coronavirus pandemic .
( Trump also announced Friday that the US would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) China has gradually been eroding Hong Kong ’ s freedoms , though this national security law is undeniably a huge escalation in its attempts to bring the territory closer under its control .
Yet Trump ’ s speech looked to be a larger warning shot against China , which could revive fears that Hong Kong and its pro-democracy movement are now caught in the middle of a great-powers conflict .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump said Friday that his administration would begin the process of revoking Hong Kong’s special trade status, a day after China approved a national security law that threatens Hong Kong’s autonomy.
“China has replaced its promised formula of one country, two systems, with one country, one system,” Trump announced Friday from the White House Rose Garden. “Therefore, I am directing my administration to begin the process of eliminating policy exemptions that give Hong Kong different and special treatment.”
Trump said this would include the “full range of agreements” the US has with Hong Kong, including the extradition treaty between the US and Hong Kong, and the end of export controls for the territory.
“We will take action to revoke Hong Kong’s preferential treatment as a separate customs and travel territory from the rest of China,” the president added.
Trump’s announcement is the most dramatic action his administration has taken yet against China’s intervention in Hong Kong. Earlier this week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo decertified Hong Kong’s autonomy, saying “no reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy from China, given facts on the ground.”
Pompeo cited Beijing’s new national security law, which, if broadly interpreted, could severely restrict freedom of speech and dissent in Hong Kong. Western governments and pro-democracy advocates have decried this as a direct threat to the territory’s semi-autonomous status, which Beijing is bound to preserve until 2047 under a treaty between Britain and China.
The secretary of state’s decision itself did not force action, but Trump’s announcement on Friday suggests his administration is willing to consider a range of options. In addition to reevaluating Hong Kong’s special status — which treats the territory differently than mainland China for trade and customs rules — Trump said the State Department will review its travel advisory for Hong Kong “to reflect the increased danger of surveillance and punishment by the Chinese state security apparatus.”
Trump also said the US would “take steps” to sanction Chinese and Hong Kong officials who were directly or indirectly “involved in eroding Hong Kong’s autonomy.”
This was a forceful declaration from the president who, in the past, has been somewhat reluctant to weigh in on the turmoil in Hong Kong, which is now coming up on a year of pro-democracy protests.
At the same time, the consequences of Trump’s statement are still unclear. Along with its rule of law and relative freedoms, Hong Kong’s preferential treatment from the US helped it become a global financial capital. If the territory loses some of those benefits and exemptions, it could jeopardize Hong Kong’s international standing.
That could backfire, too. If Hong Kong loses its reputation as a financial hub — becoming just another city in China — Beijing may have even less reason to pretend it doesn’t want the territory fully under its control.
Trump also did not give specifics on when, or how, such policy changes might be implemented. (Vox reached out to the White House for more details, and will update if we hear back.)
Trump’s announcement on Hong Kong came as protests are raging across America over the death of George Floyd, yet the president did not acknowledge the unrest at home. Instead, he focused on China, announcing policy plans to “rigorously defend our national interests.”
“These plain facts cannot be overlooked or swept aside, the world is now suffering as a result of the malfeasance of the Chinese government,” Trump said, referring to the coronavirus pandemic. (Trump also announced Friday that the US would withdraw from the World Health Organization.)
China has gradually been eroding Hong Kong’s freedoms, though this national security law is undeniably a huge escalation in its attempts to bring the territory closer under its control.
Yet Trump’s speech looked to be a larger warning shot against China, which could revive fears that Hong Kong and its pro-democracy movement are now caught in the middle of a great-powers conflict.


vox--2020-05-29--Trump announced US withdrawal from the WHO. It’s unclear if he can do that.

President Donald Trump just announced that the United States will withdraw from the World Health Organization , a decision that will likely harm the top international health body in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic .
Speaking on Friday afternoon from the Rose Garden , Trump repeated his accusation that the organization had failed to warn the world of the coronavirus ’ s dangers in a timely manner due to pressure from Beijing .
Because the president claims the global body is now beholden to China — a somewhat dubious claim — he said it ’ s no longer worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO member .
“ China has total control over the World Health Organization , ” the president said .
For that reason , the US “ will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization.
” Trump is right to note that the WHO did make some mistakes early on in the pandemic , such as not pushing China to allow international inspectors into the country as the coronavirus outbreak grew , and falsely asserting in January that “ Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission ” of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far cry from proof of some special WHO-China conspiracy , and serves as a convenient excuse to distract from Trump ’ s lacking coronavirus response in the US — including ignoring months of US intelligence warning of an imminent threat to the country from the virus .
Which makes Trump ’ s WHO decision more an act of political theater than a smart foreign policy move , which is partly what has global health experts upset .
“ It is a sad day when the US abdicates its leadership on global health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step amid a deadly pandemic in which the WHO is coordinating the international response , ” Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Thomas Bollyky told me .
It ’ s unclear why Trump made this decision now After hearing the announcement , two major questions remain unanswered .
The first is whether Trump can singlehandedly withdraw the US from the WHO .
A senior White House official told me it was “ doubtful ” he could , but it ’ s possible he could indefinitely freeze money to the body and leave it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the president ’ s staunchest congressional critics , such as Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy , have already lambasted his decision , though Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz — a key Trump ally — told me he supports Trump ’ s action .
The law here also is tricky .
Under US law , Bollyky told me Trump , as president , has the right to withdraw the country from any treaties he wants .
In international law , however , there ’ s no provision in the WHO ’ s constitution for leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to give 12 months ’ notice before the US can officially leave , per the joint Congressional resolution that got the US into the body in the first place , as well as a successful dues payment in the fiscal year .
At the end of the day , some experts say , though , it seems Trump ’ s action will come down to American politics and if anyone will hold him accountable .
“ No one is going keep us in if the US doesn ’ t want to be , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is why Trump made this announcement now .
On May 18 , Trump sent a letter to the WHO ’ s chief outlining the US ’ s grievances about the body ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic and its ties to China , warning , “ If the WHO does not commit to major substantive improvements within the next 30 days , ” the US would “ reconsider our membership.
” Trump at the time said the administration was working in concert with the WHO to make such reforms , though he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just 11 days later , he ’ s giving the WHO no more time to make changes .
“ We have detailed the reforms that [ the WHO ] must make and engaged with them directly , but they have refused to act , ” Trump said during his announcement .
The White House didn ’ t respond to an immediate request for comment about why Trump withdrew weeks before the 30-day deadline .
“ If there is a problem , the United States should name it and fix it , rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ table , ” said Amanda Glassman , the executive vice president of the Center for Global Development .
What is clear is the president ’ s decision will be a major blow to the WHO .
America ’ s withdrawal means the health body will lose nearly $ 900 million in US contributions every two years , by far the most the body receives from any nation .
Trump had already frozen about $ 400 million of that money last month when he first froze funding during a review of US-WHO relations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ those funds to other worldwide and deserving urgent global public health needs , ” Trump said , without naming what those might be .
In one fell swoop , Trump is making the global coronavirus response harder to coordinate , has possibly ignited a congressional firestorm , and almost surely worsened the world ’ s perceptions of America .
Quite the trifecta .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

President Donald Trump just announced that the United States will withdraw from the World Health Organization, a decision that will likely harm the top international health body in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic.
Speaking on Friday afternoon from the Rose Garden, Trump repeated his accusation that the organization had failed to warn the world of the coronavirus’s dangers in a timely manner due to pressure from Beijing. Because the president claims the global body is now beholden to China — a somewhat dubious claim — he said it’s no longer worth it for the US to remain a WHO member.
“China has total control over the World Health Organization,” the president said. For that reason, the US “will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization.”
Trump is right to note that the WHO did make some mistakes early on in the pandemic, such as not pushing China to allow international inspectors into the country as the coronavirus outbreak grew, and falsely asserting in January that “Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission” of Covid-19.
But that’s a far cry from proof of some special WHO-China conspiracy, and serves as a convenient excuse to distract from Trump’s lacking coronavirus response in the US — including ignoring months of US intelligence warning of an imminent threat to the country from the virus.
Which makes Trump’s WHO decision more an act of political theater than a smart foreign policy move, which is partly what has global health experts upset. “It is a sad day when the US abdicates its leadership on global health and unconscionable that the president would take this step amid a deadly pandemic in which the WHO is coordinating the international response,” Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Thomas Bollyky told me.
It’s unclear why Trump made this decision now
After hearing the announcement, two major questions remain unanswered.
The first is whether Trump can singlehandedly withdraw the US from the WHO. A senior White House official told me it was “doubtful” he could, but it’s possible he could indefinitely freeze money to the body and leave it to Congress to force contributions.
Some of the president’s staunchest congressional critics, such as Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, have already lambasted his decision, though Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz — a key Trump ally — told me he supports Trump’s action.
It was never about reforming the WHO. That was all lies. It was always about distraction and scapegoating.
Leaving castrates our ability to stop future pandemics and elevates China as the world's go-to power on global health.
What a nightmare. — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) May 29, 2020
The law here also is tricky.
Under US law, Bollyky told me Trump, as president, has the right to withdraw the country from any treaties he wants. In international law, however, there’s no provision in the WHO’s constitution for leaving the body. That may require Trump to give 12 months’ notice before the US can officially leave, per the joint Congressional resolution that got the US into the body in the first place, as well as a successful dues payment in the fiscal year.
At the end of the day, some experts say, though, it seems Trump’s action will come down to American politics and if anyone will hold him accountable. “No one is going keep us in if the US doesn’t want to be,” said Bollyky.
The second question is why Trump made this announcement now.
On May 18, Trump sent a letter to the WHO’s chief outlining the US’s grievances about the body’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic and its ties to China, warning, “If the WHO does not commit to major substantive improvements within the next 30 days,” the US would “reconsider our membership.”
Trump at the time said the administration was working in concert with the WHO to make such reforms, though he never specified what they were. Now, just 11 days later, he’s giving the WHO no more time to make changes. “We have detailed the reforms that [the WHO] must make and engaged with them directly, but they have refused to act,” Trump said during his announcement.
The White House didn’t respond to an immediate request for comment about why Trump withdrew weeks before the 30-day deadline.
“If there is a problem, the United States should name it and fix it, rather than giving up its seat at the table,” said Amanda Glassman, the executive vice president of the Center for Global Development.
What is clear is the president’s decision will be a major blow to the WHO. America’s withdrawal means the health body will lose nearly $900 million in US contributions every two years, by far the most the body receives from any nation. Trump had already frozen about $400 million of that money last month when he first froze funding during a review of US-WHO relations.
The US will now be “redirecting those funds to other worldwide and deserving urgent global public health needs,” Trump said, without naming what those might be.
In one fell swoop, Trump is making the global coronavirus response harder to coordinate, has possibly ignited a congressional firestorm, and almost surely worsened the world’s perceptions of America. Quite the trifecta.


vox--2020-05-29--A third of Americans report anxiety or depression symptoms during the pandemic

How are Americans coping with the crushing realities of the pandemic and the economic crisis forming in its wake ?
Not well , according to a new survey from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Nationally , around a third of Americans have reported recent symptoms of anxiety and depression since late April .
For comparison , in the first three months of 2019 , just 11 percent of Americans reported these symptoms on a similar survey .
It ’ s a sign that along with all the sickness and death , the social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the deteriorating economy , we ’ re facing a severe mental health crisis , too .
To be clear : The report isn ’ t saying a third of Americans have clinical depression or an anxiety disorder .
But the survey — which was conducted to better understand the impacts of the pandemic on the American public — did include four questions taken from common depression and anxiety screening tools .
More than 260,000 people responded to questions like : Answers to screening questions that signal possible anxiety or depression would normally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provider for diagnosis .
The CDC and Census Bureau data also show some groups of people are suffering more than others .
Namely : women , the young , and the less educated .
Some ethnic minority groups are also reporting greater mental health strain .
The trend is most striking among the youngest people in the CDC survey .
Upward of 46 percent of people ages 18-29 are feeling these mental health strains ( the highest of any group in the survey ) .
Each successive older age group is less burdened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ younger people , while not most heavily impacted by the illness , are facing extreme financial uncertainty and missed opportunities from the economic crisis that could shadow them for decades , as the Atlantic ’ s Annie Lowrey writes .
There are similar splits between people of differing levels of educational attainment .
Forty-five percent of people without a high school diploma reported depression or anxiety symptoms the last week of April — contrasted with 30 percent of people who have bachelor degrees and higher .
Latinos , black people , and people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher levels of mental stress compared to whites in the survey .
There ’ s also a big gender split .
Thirty-one percent of men reported the symptoms , whereas nearly 41 percent of women did .
The pandemic is not over .
The virus still has a great potential to infect millions more .
It ’ s unclear what ’ s going to happen next , especially as different communities enact different precautions and as federal officials and ordinary citizens grow fatigued with pandemic life .
The uncertainty of this era is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the nation .
As the pandemic wears on into the summer , some people may grow resilient to the grim reality they face , others may see their mental health deteriorate more .
What ’ s also concerning is that , even pre-pandemic , there were already huge gaps in mental health care in America .
Clinicians have been in short supply , many do not take insurance , and it can be hard to tell the difference between a clinician who uses evidence-based treatments and one who does not .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help , know there are free online mental health resources that can be a good place to start .
( Clinical psychologist Kathryn Gordon lists 11 of them on her website . )
The Covid-19 pandemic has a knack for exacerbating underlying problems in the United States .
The infection is hitting the poor and communities of color harder than white communities .
And that ’ s also reflected here in the data on mental health strain .
As the pandemic continues , it will be important to recognize the growing mental health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans — and to uncover who is being disproportionately impacted .
Hospitalizations and infection rates are critical to note .
But the mental health fallout — from not just the virus but from all of its ramifications — will be essential to keep tracking , too .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

How are Americans coping with the crushing realities of the pandemic and the economic crisis forming in its wake? Not well, according to a new survey from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Nationally, around a third of Americans have reported recent symptoms of anxiety and depression since late April. For comparison, in the first three months of 2019, just 11 percent of Americans reported these symptoms on a similar survey.
It’s a sign that along with all the sickness and death, the social distancing restrictions, separation from families, and the deteriorating economy, Americans are facing a severe mental health crisis, too.
To be clear: The report isn’t saying a third of Americans have clinical depression or an anxiety disorder. But the survey — which was conducted to better understand the impacts of the pandemic on the American public — did include four questions taken from common depression and anxiety screening tools.
More than 260,000 people responded to questions like:
Over the last 7 days, how often have you been bothered by … having little interest or pleasure in doing things? Would you say not at all, several days, more than half the days, or nearly every day? Select only one answer.
Answers to screening questions that signal possible anxiety or depression would normally require follow-up with a mental health care provider for diagnosis.
The CDC and Census Bureau data also show some groups of people are suffering more than others. Namely: women, the young, and the less educated. Some ethnic minority groups are also reporting greater mental health strain.
The trend is most striking among the youngest people in the CDC survey. Upward of 46 percent of people ages 18-29 are feeling these mental health strains (the highest of any group in the survey). Each successive older age group is less burdened, according to the data.
These younger people, while not most heavily impacted by the illness itself, are facing extreme financial uncertainty and missed opportunities from the economic crisis that could shadow them for decades, as the Atlantic’s Annie Lowrey writes.
There are similar splits between people of differing levels of educational attainment. Forty-five percent of people without a high school diploma reported depression or anxiety symptoms the last week of April — contrasted with 30 percent of people who have bachelor degrees and higher. Latinos, black people, and people of multiple or other ethnicities also reported higher levels of mental stress compared to white people in the survey.
There’s also a big gender split. Thirty-one percent of men reported the symptoms, whereas nearly 41 percent of women did.
The pandemic is not over. The virus still has a great potential to infect millions more. It’s unclear what’s going to happen next, especially as different communities enact different precautions and as federal officials and ordinary citizens grow fatigued with pandemic life.
The uncertainty of this era is likely contributing to the mental health strain on the nation. As the pandemic wears on into the summer, some people may grow resilient to the grim reality they face, while others may see their mental health deteriorate more.
What’s also concerning is that, even pre-pandemic, there were already huge gaps in mental health care in America. Clinicians have been in short supply, many do not take insurance, and it can be hard to tell the difference between a clinician who uses evidence-based treatments and one who does not.
If you’re reading this and need help, know there are free online mental health resources that can be a good place to start. (Clinical psychologist Kathryn Gordon lists 11 of them on her website.)
The Covid-19 pandemic has a knack for exacerbating underlying problems in the United States. The disease is hitting the poor and communities of color harder than white communities. And that’s also reflected here in the data on mental health strain.
As the pandemic continues, it will be important to recognize the growing mental health impacts for such a large portion of Americans — and to uncover who is being disproportionately impacted. Hospitalizations and infection rates are critical to note. But the mental health fallout — from not just the virus but from all of its ramifications — will be essential to keep tracking, too.