There was controversy in public health circles on the weekend after the head of the World Health Organisation Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu proudly announced last week that Zimbabwean thug and kleptocrat Robert Mugabe would be a “goodwill ambassador” for the body. Mugabe has presided over a health disaster in Zimbabwe — lifespan fell catastrophically in the 1980s and despite recovering in recent years remains below its early 1980s level. After a backlash, Tedros first said he was reconsidering the appointment, then overnight announced Mugabe was being dumped.
Thing is, though, it’s not inappropriate for the WHO to appoint a tyrant as a “goodwill ambassador” (whatever that is). Tedros himself was a protege of Ethiopian dictator Meles Zenawi. WHO is riddled with corruption: its staff spend over $200 million a year on luxury travel, according to internal documents — nearly three times what it spends on AIDS and hepatitis — and a recent UN audit found a surge in misconduct such as fraud and sexual harassment within WHO in 2015. There’s also the Organisation’s habit of banning the public and the media from its meetings. Corruption, misuse of resources, lack of transparency — no wonder Tedros thought Mugabe would be a perfect fit in WHO.
Another country, another job for the boys, no matter who they are or what they’ve done.
What you say may well be true at high levels – I’ve no idea. But at lower levels, WHO folk work very hard, under difficult circumstances, carefully husbanding resources, to change health practices across the world. I know some of them. They are dedicated, committed people. All the more reason I guess to be horrified at the proposed appointment of Mugabe and raise issues of corruption at the top. But let’s recognise the contributions the organisation has made too.
I wonder if I have (or indeed anyone else has) a right to be surprised that Mr Keane could marshal only two paragraphs on either topic; viz., on the proceedings of Mugabe (if only in summary from 1979) or indeed the WHO (from about the year 2000). As to corruption within the African continent it is unfortunate, for the edification of the students at least, that the correlation between grants/loans from the IMF, WHO etc. with subsequent luxury travel of entourages numbering close to one hundred in some cases (but seldom under fifty) isn’t illustrated in textbooks concerning economic development.
However, we all know that exposing systemic corruption among so called “developing countries” is not a rule of the game so, perhaps, Mr Keane may be excused, along with everyone else, for a lip-service report. By way of comparison, a South African politician, Ms Helen Zille, pointed out in March this year that “for those claiming the legacy of colonialism was ONLY negative, think of our independent judiciary, transport infrastructure, piped water etc.” was, apparently, an accurate statement that suffered from the deficiency of not being politically correct.
[Although she is now Governor of West Cape Provence, forty
years ago she was a reporter and one of the few who investigated
the integration and subsequent death of Steve Biko – which is
unlikely to mean much to anyone under 55]
With the exception of Singapore and to a lesser degree Indonesia and Vietnam every former colonial country (not necessary British) is worse off now {reference standard economic indicators} that it was 50 years ago (or more) when independence was extended by first world countries from the end of WWII to circa 1970. About a decade ago, a sociological study was undertaken in former British colonies such as Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, India, Pakistan etc. with the question (obviously directed to those in their 60s+) : which was better – then or now ? According to the study there wasn’t a lot of “fence-sitting” – particularly in Kenya and Jamaica.
Lastly, the Nobel Committee, responsible for most of the selecting of Nobel Prize laureates put Barack Obama at the top of the list over Morgan Tsvangirai for a reason no other than that Obama was USA President-elect. With regard to Tsvangirai, quoting from Wikipedia, “He later contested the first round of the 2008 presidential election … taking 47.8% of the vote according to official results, placing him ahead of Mugabe, who received 43.2%. Tsvangirai claimed to have won a majority and said that the results could have been altered in the month between the election and the reporting of official results.
Tsvangirai initially planned to run in the second round against Mugabe, but withdrew shortly before it was held, arguing that the election would not be free and fair due to widespread violence and intimidation by government supporters that led to the deaths of 200 people.”
I think it is fair to claim that Tsvangirai did rather more for peace than did any president of the USA but be that as it may. Last week another contributor pointed out in these pages that if a report doesn’t “shock” it is unlikely to be printed; in this regard Crikey is as guilty as its opposition
One despot . . . or another is meaningless. It is a design; funded from public purse; unaccountable; opaque systems populated by carpetbaggers of every description under the sun, controlling, manipulating to their own ends worth . . . that threaten.
Their infrastructure is invasive, powerful and, exists throughout every society. Sport, politics, bureaucracy, religion, commerce, media . . . . and like all infections they wax and wane according to tolerance of the populace. Is that my trough, or your trough mate?
The UN, what is it good for? Just ask the Tutsi’s. As a slightly aside issue, do a search on Jose Manuel Barroso a former Portuguese Pm and President of the European Commission and the Christopher Story article.
Just checked out your lead Syd . . . even if one quarter true; the utter depravity, inhumanity of those that hide in full view exceeds belief. It seems the further our species evolves the greater threat to all surrounds . . .