>I think it speaks more to the unwillingness of a world health organisation to even discuss politically dangerous topics.

Which is perfectly reasonable if you understand that these questions are looked at through the lens of international diplomacy and these people don't just wing geopolitical questions because every single answer can cause an international shitstorm (not just in regards to China, but every territorial conflict really). This may look awkward to the ordinary viewer but it's not really.

The WHO has a fairly strong interest in staying out of politics and being a health organisation, so whatever diplomatic position they take is mostly just going to be whatever the status quo is. If you think the non-recognition of Taiwan is unethical then you should take that up with your respective government, a guy speaking for the WHO isn't really in any position to make incindiary political commentary.

Its not that it is unethical

But it does support the statement that "The WHO is a political organization with medical leanings".

Personally I think that statement puts it a bit too strongly. It would be like saying "PyCon is a feminist organization with technical leanings."

I’m curious what possible behavior by the WHO you would consider not to indicate that it’s a political organization.

Why not view it as a medical organization with political constraints?

The WHO has such a strong interest in staying diplomatic that sometimes you might need to rely on a local body to protect your interests.

It's not international diplomacy when WHO ignored Taiwan's warning emails from December and went with China's lies instead.

Here's a short clip of the interview for those who haven't seen it yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCFPFWsIPmM

But that's besides the point. I don't look at WHO for geopolitical opinion. I look at it for health advice. And there's where it failed.

Could you give specific examples of where the WHO failed to give the best advice possible at the time?

Or even any cases where they were wilfully blind?

The mandate of the WHO is to improve world health. Thus avoiding politically sensitive issues is correct if that helps the organization to reach its goals.

I saw that video and was shocked that a representative from WHO would behave that way, pretending not to hear the question and hanging up... utterly childish behaviour. I mean, how the hell am I supposed to take an organisation like that seriously?

Politics are a fact of international relations. It's childish to think an international organization that depends on its member countries for funding can just completely ignore that or blow it off, rather than eat shit occasionally in order to work around it.

Sure, they can make a bold impassioned speech about how science is far beyond petty concerns like national sovereignty and so on, but this isn't a movie where a great speech suddenly brings everyone to their senses. In reality the WHO works through public health departments in nearly 200 countries and also gets its funding from governments, so if they spit int he face of sovereignty, they'll cease to exist in any meaningful way and aggregate health outcomes will definitely be worse.

Straw man - you're making an argument against a point I didn't make or even insinuate.

I didn't say organisations can or should ignore politics - of course, politics affect every organisation, especially those that work across borders.

My entire comment was about the childish behaviour of the WHO represenatative when asked about Taiwan[0] - he was literally one step away from putting his fingers in his ears and shouting "na na na na na!".

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCFPFWsIPmM