By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
The leadership of the World Health Organization is
awfully eager to please the junta in Beijing. Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.)
writes in National Review:
In December, the WHO refused to act
on or publicize Taiwan’s warning that the new respiratory infection emerging in
China could pass from human to human. In mid January, despite accumulating
evidence of patients contracting what we now know as COVID-19 from other
people, the organization repeated the [Chinese Communist Party’s] lie that
there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. In January the WHO, at
Beijing’s behest, also blocked Taiwan from participating in critical meetings
to coordinate responses to the coronavirus and even reportedly provided wrong
information about the virus’s spread in Taiwan. These actions are unacceptable
and should not be allowed to continue.
National Review editor Rich Lowry writes:
Without China’s deceit and WHO’s solicitude
for Beijing, the outbreak might have been more limited, and the world at the
very least would have had more time to react. China committed unforgivable sins
of commission, affirmatively lying about the outbreak and punishing doctors and
disappearing journalists who told the truth, whereas the WHO committed sins of
omission — it lacked independence and courage at a moment of great consequence.
All true. What to do?
The Trump administration is calling for cuts to U.S.
support for WHO. This is typical not only of the Trump administration but of
the U.S. temperament in general when it comes to multinational organizations —
and it is especially true when our policies are informed by the populist
sensibility. And it is not going to produce the results we want.
The populist Right has long been contemptuous of the
United Nations and its affiliates — and not without good reason. (The populist
Left is less a bit less hostile, focusing its anti-globalist energies on an
enemy it holds in common with the populist Right: multilateral trade accords,
trade organizations, and affiliated agencies.) The UN is generally ineffectual
and frequently corrupt. Some of its agencies are nakedly left-wing political
projects designed to oppose the United States and its allies (e.g., UNRWA),
others are centers of boutique radicalism (UNICEF), abortion mania (Commission
on the Status of Women), etc. Conservatives
cheered when John Bolton declared that we could take the top ten stories
off the UN building in Manhattan without its making any difference to the
world.
But instead of pursuing a program of genuine robust
reform, we have pursued a program of passive aggression — heavy on the passive.
When it comes to the United Nations or the World Trade
Organization, there are basically three possible avenues of progress.
We could simply declare these organizations beyond
redemption, pull out, and go it alone. Conservatives have long dreamed of
abandoning the UN. President Trump has spoken often of his desire to pull the
United States out of the WTO. The calculation there is that the United Nations
needs the United States more than the United States needs the United Nations,
and that the same goes for the WTO — and that without the United States, these
organizations would become incoherent and, eventually, inactive. The United
States, this argument goes, would be in a better position to pursue its own
interests unilaterally. Those are some pretty big assumptions; but, in any
case, the United States has never shown any convincing willingness to pursue
reform through exit.
We could work to reform these organizations. That
would mean engagement with a level of energy, intelligence, and capacity for
sustained long-term action that our federal government has not shown in some
time. That would also mean weathering the populist passions on both sides of
the aisle in the pursuit of an agenda that is the one thing our so-called nationalists
cannot abide: authentically national, meaning a consensus program
defined by genuine broad national interests and not by our desire to hand out
favors to special political constituencies (e.g., zombie firms such as General
Motors) or to use the international stage to act out dramas rooted in domestic
tribal rivalries.
We could abandon these organizations and attempt to
replace them with new ones, preferably in alliances of liberal-democratic
countries with a shared commitment to basic principles including procedural
democracy, freedom of speech, property rights, the rule of law, minority
rights, etc. One immediate challenge would be forging an American consensus on
freedom of speech, property rights, trade, etc., which has at least partly
unraveled. This, too, would demand of us a level of activity and commitment
that the U.S. government may not be able to muster.
Or we could go with none of the above.
Instead of one of those options, we bitch and moan and
complain, we make toothless threats, and we sometimes dickey around with tariffs,
as though that were going to bring Beijing to heel. That’s a joke: The Trump
administration, whose trade warriors present themselves as the tough guys when
it comes to China, got bought off, and cheap, with some easily broken
promises about increasing U.S. exports to China in the future.
Getting real reform out of Beijing would take something
else entirely. It would be nice to have, say, a leading voice in an
Asia-Pacific economic bloc that includes every major economic power in the
region except China, one that was designed specifically to counteract the
outsized influence Beijing has in the area — which is exactly what the
Trans-Pacific Partnership was supposed to be. That instrument was scuttled by
so-called nationalists who couldn’t figure out which end of that shotgun
to point at the target.
If we really want to see change in China — and don’t want
to go to war in pursuit of “regime change” — then we have to be willing to use
the tools that will actually get that job done, which isn’t a national sales
tax on imported flip-flops. And it isn’t the United States threatening to leave
the WTO: It is the United States, Canada, Mexico, the European Union, the
United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia threatening to expel China from the WTO
and impose economic sanctions on the Beijing government, and doing so with a
united diplomatic front. “Globalism” is precisely the instrument with which to
bring Beijing to heel. Unilateralist tough-guy talk (and we’ve been hearing
that since Bill Clinton in the 1990s — remember the “Butchers of Beijing”?) has
got us nowhere and will get us nowhere.
Complaining is not going to get it done. Neither is
cutting our contribution to this or that international agency — do you really
think that Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus et al. are going to start flying coach if
we short them a few hundred million, or do you think that money will come out
of actual operations? We already know the answer to that.
If you want to be treated like a superpower, then act
like a superpower.
No comments:
Post a Comment