WHO owes Canada honest answers
The reasons Dr. Bruce Aylward, who co- led the World Health Organization’s ( WHO) mission to China on the coronavirus, should heed the call to appear before a Canadian parliamentary health committee are numerous and compelling.
First and foremost, Aylward is a Canadian, and more than 4,000 Canadians have been killed by COVID-19.
Second, Aylward is almost certainly the best- informed Canadian on the efforts the WHO is taking to battle the outbreak.
Third, while Aylward joined the WHO in 1992 and has risen to a top position in the Geneva- based organization, his first responsibility is to his country and its needs, as opposed to his employer and its preferences.
That’s not the whole of it, of course. The evident reluctance of the WHO to make Aylward available, and its sniffy reaction to repeated requests from Ottawa for an hour or so of the doctor’s time, speak far more to politics than to scheduling issues or the demands of the pandemic. The WHO exists on the financial support of member countries, and Canada is among those. The organization has an overriding obligation to its members — all of them, not just the touchiest or most assertive — and in putting politics ahead of that responsibility the organization risks undermining the support that is fundamental to its labours.
This being Canada, the members of the committee seeking to pose questions to Aylward have been both polite and patient. He was supposed to testify early in April but cancelled on short notice. Members of the committee then sent off a second invitation, only to be told by a lawyer for the WHO that he wouldn’t show. Committee members were told they could submit written questions, which the organization would, presumably, answer as it saw fit. That was a bit much even for courteous Canadians, so, last week, in a third try, the committee took the rare step of voting to issue a summons for Aylward to appear, if and when he steps foot on Canadian soil. The vote was unanimous.
“Canada is a member of the WHO and I think the WHO ought to operate with accountability and transparency to its members,” said New Democratic Party health critic Don Davies, reasonably enough.
Even in flexing a bit of muscle, the committee strove to be reasonable. Conservative member Matt Jeneroux suggested members were still open to alternatives. There is, after all, a pandemic underway.
Note the difference between this judicious approach and that of China, whose thin skin and delicate temperament are believed to be behind the WHO’S fear of unmuzzling Aylward. Questions about Beijing’s handling of the outbreak have been met with the usual outburst of threats and insults. In response to Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s observation that an investigation into the origins of the virus would be “entirely reasonable and sensible,” China’s state- run Global Times declared that Australia was “gum stuck to the bottom of China’s shoe,” coupled with a warning that business ties between the two could suffer as a result.
There are very real and critical reasons MPS should want to hear from Aylward. As the head of a WHO team sent to China to investigate the outbreak, he has unique and valuable insight. The information garnered from that investigation is evidently of great interest to governments seeking to toughen their defences against future crises. Committee members have indicated they’re interested in comments Aylward made in media interviews in which he praised China’s handling of the outbreak and reacted awkwardly when asked a question about Taiwan, which China refuses to accept as a member of the WHO for political reasons. But they have shown no sign of interest in witch hunts or political grandstanding, as is going on in some other jurisdictions. Nor have they given any reason to believe their aim is in pointing fingers or assigning blame.
“To me this is not about politics,” said Davies. “I am not there to delve into the politics of the WHO. I am purely interested in their information and the way they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.”
In putting up such a staunch fight to silence Aylward, the WHO is feeding the very suspicions it hopes to deflect. In rejecting the committee’s second invitation, the WHO lawyer noted that, “WHO or its officials do not normally participate in hearings held by parliamentary bodies of its member states nor take part in inquiries held by them.” But this is hardly a normal circumstance, and the WHO’S preferred practices should hardly take precedence over legitimate concerns of democratic governments confronting matters of life or death. In attempting to bat Canada aside, the organization looks suspiciously like it’s bending over backwards to avoid upsetting Beijing, preferring to deal with the relatively mild response anticipated from Ottawa rather than risk being identified as gum on China’s shoe, and perhaps having an official or two kidnapped and placed in isolation in a Chinese cell.
That fear of Beijing’s wrath should so obviously affect the operations of a global organization as important as the WHO lends new credence to distrust of China and its increasingly ugly aggressiveness. The more it tries to throw its weight around, even in such relatively small matters as a Canadian health committee hearing, the more compelling the case for a post- COVID world to recognize Beijing for the danger it has become and start treating it as such, rather than pretending it is a respectable member of a responsible world order.
CRITICAL REASONS MPS SHOULD WANT TO HEAR FROM AYLWARD.