World Health Organization: Big Brother -- Version 2.0?

The recent outbreak of Ebola in West Africa is alarming in itself, unfortunately leading to the loss of innocent lives, too. Yet what may be even more worrisome and most definitely if seen from a long-term perspective is the fact that apparently only one international organization is in control of advising governments on how to react and no longer elected governments themselves. I am referring to the United Nation's World Health Organization (WHO).

Let me first state the basics in the words of the WHO itself: "The WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends."

This catalogue of major issues sounds appropriate were it not for the very first point. On the one hand, "directing and coordinating" may be interpreted as sending welcome suggestions to UN member states' governments regarding how to treat a certain health problem (think bird flu as only one example).

On the other hand, though, it might be misconstrued as giving ultimate authority to WHO officials to not only publicly declare that a particular situation has emerged, but to actually demand countries affected by let's say a virus outbreak act according to the WHO's stipulations.

Only life is stranger than fiction, but from time to time it makes absolute sense to me to borrow ideas from fiction writers. One such book I recently read trying to break free from commenting about Turkish and European politics, at least for a weekend, is Dan Brown's "Inferno." In this gripping tale, a madman plans to reduce the world's population by a third not by killing anyone but by unleashing a virus that causes permanent infertility in every third person affected. You may be surprised to learn who actually took control of the situation and tried to stop him once the plot had been discovered: no one else other than the global director of the WHO!

In this book, governments are merely irrelevant actors supervised by the WHO. Its director is allowed to tell elected office holders exactly what to do and what they had better not do. In fact, she is able to override each and every decision made by local government or police as she sees fit. End of story: madman dead, but virus released. A very horrifying end of a summer read, so maybe after all I should stick with politics.

Ebola causes death and spreads rapidly. Although it was announced by that same WHO only this Friday that Ebola does not automatically travel airborne over long distances, the risk persists. And now picture this: What happens if the WHO decides that Ebola indeed travels airborne, that it survives as a virus either by itself, or in infected/partially infected people and spreads globally?

First, travel bans on certain countries or entire (regional) populations and peoples would be issued. Airport or seaport authorities would have no choice but to comply. Health checks would be carried out at each and every departure gate. Quarantine stations would be set up for sure and people could be detained without any chance to object.

As a consequence, businesspeople would no longer travel to affected foreign shores and, above all else, perhaps even manufactured goods or food or raw materials would no longer be allowed to be sold across borders.

And, what happens if an elected government leader is diagnosed positive, that is, as carrying a virus? I would prefer that our elected office holders -- with the knowledge and support of the WHO, of course -- decide about a disaster (prevention) roadmap instead of a small group of experts alone.

If I understand it correctly, it is not necessary for the UN General Assembly or the Security Council to hold a vote on any of the above Ebola and other epidemic and virus-related measures. Apparently, the mandate of the WHO has been adjusted accordingly.

The WHO is a worthwhile, important UN body. Yet I am asking for much improved General Assembly and/or Security Council supervision, though.

KLAUS JURGENS (Cihan/Today's Zaman)