Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethbr0 | Hacker News Reader

Worldwide organizations operate across national boundaries via consensus and voluntary agreement.

Off the top of my head, the only forceful worldwide organization we have is the UN Security Council, which is finely calibrated. And historically predicated on ownership of nuclear arms.

Consequently, the job of every other worldwide organization is to (a) build political goodwill with nations & (b) spend that political goodwill to urge them to take actions, when the situation calls for it.

If those nations dig their heels in, it becomes a choice. Do you want to burn bridges because the current situation is that important? Or do you want to let things slide to maintain the relationship and preserve future goodwill?

Hint: There isn't an obvious right answer. Especially when you're looking forward at a novel, uncharacterized pathogen with unknown effects.

View on HN

> maintain the relationship and preserve future goodwill

If the relationship involves lies and cover ups that caused this pandemic to get out of control leading to millions of deaths and massive global disruption, what is the value of the relationship in the future?

Are you expecting a pandemic-less future?

If the relationship still involves lies and cover ups that caused a future pandemic to get out of control leading to millions of deaths and massive global disruption, what is the value of the relationship?

That it's still better than the no-worldwide coordination body alternative?

An optimal but impossible-to-implement world organization isn't a useful measuring stick for organizations that need exist in reality.

Nations exercise sovereignty within their borders. Nations have their own priorities. Those priorities often conflict with other nations'. Inconvenient in public health responses, but facts that must be dealt with.

And in a choice between (1) no WHO, (2) a WHO that spends time playing politics and is less effective than it could be, (3) a perfectly-efficient authoritarian WHO supported by a global police state... I'll take (2).

They are expecting a lie-less, and politic-less future. :)

> Off the top of my head, the only forceful worldwide organization we have is the UN Security Council, which is finely calibrated.

It is utterly and completely locked up and has been for years because the worst threats to international security (Russia and China) have been blocking anything against them or their interests.

It has not been "utterly and completely" locked up for years. Each member has been acting in its own interests, but even in times of poor international relationships, there is sometimes agreement by all on a particular matter.

https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/volumes-resolutio...

The key thing is, the UNSC was established to prevent nuclear war between the super powers.

While it has been successful on that front, it has utterly, utterly failed however in preventing a repeat of what happened between 1933-1945 in Germany, which was the reason for why the UN was founded:

- China is genociding off Tibetans and Uyghurs for many years and no one seems to be willing to put a stop on that. Not to mention Chinese fishing vessels illegally fishing as far as Africa or continuous Chinese imperialist aggression against its neighbor states.

- Russia... well, the current invasion in Ukraine speaks for itself, but there has been more. Alone the land grab of the Krim 2014 should have been more than enough to warrant intervention.

- Syria, where Assad (with a lot of assistance from Russia and its Wagner mercenaries) has liberally broken every red line the Western nations set. Barrel bombs against civilians, genocide, nerve gas, torture, and that's just the rough list.

- the collapse of Libya and its descent into civil war and chaos

- a boatload of other conflicts turning into ethnic cleansings and genocide across Africa

- a lot of nations in South America falling under the effective control of drug cartels

About the only horror stopped by the UNSC was the self-proclaimed Islamic State, and that was only because both Russia and China didn't want anything to fuel their local Islamist-extremist insurgent groups.

Funny how you’re bringing China, while completely ignoring the worlds most aggressive country: the US. You bring up the “genocide”, while again ignoring much worse situation in American prisons - two million victims, all kinds of systemic human rights violations and abuse, documented forced labor on mass scale. But sure, China bad.

I love how none of this mentions an illegal war based on lies. Feel like things are slightly biased.

I shed no tear for dictatorships.

Don't all permanent members do the same though?

It seems to me like that is the point of beingn a permanent member, above everyone else.

Otherwise, what's the point of being one if you won't block things that are against your interest?

Not saying I like, it but nuclear weapons tend to give a lot of leverage.

Calling Russia and China the worst threats to international security in times where the USA and NATO not only exist, but are a as active as ever, could be explained only by the complete unawareness of any major event of the post WW2 history.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com