By Noah Rothman
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
Simple storytelling often involves clearly defined good
guys and bad guys, and there’s nothing politicians love more than a simple
story. The narratives Donald Trump weaves often include unambiguous
protagonists and antagonists. The tales preferred by his political enemies and
many in the press employ similar contrasts. The roles change, often with
dizzying alacrity, but the story remains the same.
Thus, a familiar dance commenced again on Tuesday evening
when the president announced that he would withhold U.S. contributions to the
World Health Organization’s budget as a response to its failure to adequately
prepare the world for this pandemic. All at once, the WHO—which the president
had praised for its actions just weeks ago—became the nefarious villain.
Simultaneously, the criticism heaped on this organization in the press
evaporated, and the institution was hailed as both a necessity and a scapegoat
for a flailing president. It’s all so exhausting.
The truth in the narrative is somewhat more nuanced, but
not so much so that there are no black hats in the story. The Chinese Communist
Party is largely to blame for the present state of affairs. And while the WHO
is by no means faultless, it was a mere accomplice to this heinous act. The
president has shifted his focus and the world’s away from what should be his
core geostrategic objective: countering Chinese propaganda, undermining its
influence among foreign governments, and weakening its hold on international
institutions.
The case against the WHO is sound. The public health arm
of the United Nations served as a microphone to disseminate the flawed and
falsified information about this disease in the earliest stages of the outbreak
that led governments around the world to let their guards down. The obsequious
coddling of China’s Communist government by the WHO’s political leadership
during this period was sickening. And yet, given the extent to which this
president (and governments around the world) also participated in such
displays, it can be chalked up to the diplomatic demands made by the Chinese
government. Indeed, Beijing’s insecurity contributed mightily to this crisis.
As documents obtained by the Associated Press attest,
Chinese public officials were aware of the potential scope of the disaster
incubating under their noses well before the public and international
institutions were informed. Local observers who dared to blow the whistle on
this brewing crisis were reprimanded and silenced. As the New York Times
put it, China “put secrecy and order ahead of openly confronting the growing
crisis to avoid public alarm and political embarrassment.” This same paranoia
has led China to attach strings to the distribution of aid around the world
that compels international governments to publicly profess gratitude for
Beijing’s beneficence. This same fragility leads the People’s Republic to force
the NBA to admonish its players who speak up in defense of liberty in Hong
Kong, coerce Disney to insert the controversial “nine-dash line” in its
cartoons, make foreign air carriers erase Taiwan from the map, and compel
Marriott to fire employees who click “like” on the wrong Facebook post.
These are signs of weakness, not strength. China has
evaded any serious challenges to its authority over the years because access to
its market is a lucrative proposition. But that inducement has lost much of its
appeal amid the global suspension of much conventional commerce. This is a
unique opportunity to impose costs on Beijing for its reckless actions and
totalitarian governance. Rarely does a political narrative have such an
unambiguous heavy, which is why it’s so bizarre to see the president not only
take his eye off the ball but engage in misdirection.
By shifting focus onto the WHO, the president has allowed
European governments, which are already prone to spineless equivocation, to
protest the martyrdom of an international institution that does serve a
vital purpose amid a global pandemic. By failing to make a distinction between
the WHO’s medical mission and its political leadership, Trump has muddied the
case against the institution and thrown China’s reflexive defenders a lifeline.
By threatening the WHO’s funding—which is appropriated by Congress and
disbursed primarily through grants—he’s plunged the nation into a largely
superficial debate over consequences that are unlikely to fully materialize.
And by withdrawing American support for this organization, even just
rhetorically, he’s only likely strengthened its reliance on revisionist powers
like China.
As a catharsis, it’s understandable why the president
would want to bury the WHO in opprobrium. The organization deserves it. But as
a matter of policy, it lacks a strategic rationale and could undermine what
should be America’s long-term goal: indelibly branding the Chinese Communist
Party an international pariah.
No comments:
Post a Comment