What about the WHO?

The multi-theoretical analysis of the WHO’s creation, evolution, design, decision making process, modus operandi of institutional interactions, is evaluated in the context of the current Coronavirus epidemic. To what extent has the WHO been successful in finding solutions to eradicating the virus and to what degree has the WHO facilitated the states’ ability to deal with this crisis are the two main questions addressed in this section. The epidemic has created particular conditions for cooperation amongst states. First of all, all states seek to eradicate the virus. Secondly, all states are affected by the virus. Thirdly, it is in the interest of each state that the virus is eradicated in neighboring and any other states, as the success in eradicating this virus globally affects the ability to eradicate the virus domestically. Yet, the American withdrawal from the WHO demonstrates realist theory and practice at work, as well as, domestic politics considerations trumping international relations considerations.

Source: munichre.com

From the perspective of rational institutionalism, following the WHO directives to stop the spread of the virus, identify its point of origin and its current epicenters, motivates complying with the WHO directives about quarantines and closing the borders. It is a win win situation to eradicate the virus in all countries and all circumstances; therefore state cooperation is fundamental for state survival. Addressing and cooperating in eradicating the virus maximizes state security. In this case, human security is directly state security, and not an intermediately explanation that socio economic human security is necessary for peace and security in the country. The survival of the population, the leadership and the armed forces, results from cooperation with other states. The realists and institutionalists arguments coincide. How the states are to cooperate, the rules by which the states are to introduce measures depend on human ingenuity, just as, the effectiveness of the institutions for dealing with these crises depends on the effort, the knowledge, education and preparation of its employees. The efforts should be into preparing doctors and the populations, stimulating efficiency, finding vaccines, producing ventilating machines, disinfecting living areas, providing masks and gloves, nationally and globally.

However, states may claim that the effectiveness of the International Organization does not serving state interest, then funding to the organization will cease or be reduced, until the organization answers to the state interests and is ineffective in resolving policy interests. In this case, certain states may pass the blame of national ineffectiveness in eradicating the virus, limiting the number of deaths to the ineffectiveness of international organizations, such as, the WHO. None-the-less, it still remains in the state’s interest to improve the international organization and not to stop funding to the organization. In part, stopping funding is to help the national health budget and also to request improvement in the state behavior, but it also shows a certain point of view of regarding national health services, the availability of universal health care, and the support for international organizations that address universal health matters. The regimes of certain states may be convinced and represent the opinions of groups of citizens, that health is a matter to be secured by the individual and not the state. Yet, in the case of a global epidemic, it is necessary that all are healthy for the individual to be healthy. Thus, the circumstances require state intervention and state cooperation. Just as during the Second World War, it is necessary to re-organize production to manufacture the equipment to address and resolve the health crisis and also to provide revenue and subsistence of citizens. In this respect, the circumstances require a reform of state behavior and new norms that will transform state and citizen behavior across the world. This is constructivism at work, as well as, the interaction of domestic politics and identity with global needs and international organizations. Even the Secretary General of the United Nations called for the cessation of conflicts enabling resolving this health crisis. Regular realists state behavior of states needs to be transformed into rationalist institutionalists behavior for state survival, as the international health crisis could spread anarchy inside states. Overcoming international anarchy becomes a means for maintaining the rational legal states, as a contract between citizens and the state in place, and preventing reverting to a state of war against all, within state boundaries as well as internationally.

God forbid that the world should face bioterrorism or a genocide attempt by any group through use of chemical weapons. It is high time the global health treaty was negotiated signed and ratified as a complement and in conjunction with Convention to Ban Biological (the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) weapons. While domestically, it may be the welfare state that can win over the coronavirus epidemic. In any event the vaccines should be made available to all inhabitants of the planet free of charge, while the property rights to the vaccines should be universal.