Read on Twitter
I often get criticised for not being more cynical about the UN system, whose flaws and limitations are in perpetual and full display. But whatever interest comes in wanting the system to work and work better comes from spending time in places where government is absent.
Look at this COVID-19 situation. A few weeks ago GoK told Kenyans hospitals are struggling and they were pushing home care and home quarantine instead. But that was it. No guidelines. No follow up. Basically "you're on your own".
So the only thing we have to go on that has a measure of authority and guidance are things like these WHO guidelines. And Kenya isn't even the worst off in the global sense. Who does public health guidance in CAR or South Sudan or Myanmar or Venezuela?
Global politics looks very different when your central referrent object isn't powerful or pseudo-powerful countries jostling for an illusory sense of superiority. Global cooperation looks hella necessary when the country at the centre of your calculation is struggling for basics.
The UN system is not inevitable, it's only about 60 years old and a product of specific historical forces. New historical forces might necessitate a new system - maybe even a radical system built on citizens rather than states. But in practical terms, what do we do while we wait?
Like anyone else I desperately wish the UN system was better. But my cynicism is tempered by practical considerations of what certain places will do while we wait for better to come. What does an alternative framework for global solidarity look like? This, to me, is the question.
