While rare, holding a U.N. Security Council session on a health crisis is not without precedent; one was held on the Ebola crisis.
One possible reason no Security Council session has been called this time is the ongoing war of words over the virus between China and another permanent, veto-wielding member: the United States.
Chinese officials have been floating conspiracy theories alleging that the coronavirus may have originated outside their borders, possibly even at the hands of the U.S. military.
In response, Trump, Pompeo and some Republican lawmakers have been calling the illness the “Chinese virus” or similar terms, angering Beijing. U.S. officials also keep hammering China for its original lack of candor about the seriousness of the outbreak, though Trump has praised Xi personally for his handling of it.
At times, Trump has even appeared to welcome the pandemic’s rapidly mounting consequences for the world order, claiming he was happy to see Americans stay home and buy their goods from U.S. factories. There are few signs, however, that he is deeply engaged with cajoling or negotiating with other leaders to coordinate their plans for combating the virus.
At the United Nations, the main organization involved in a global response to the virus is the WHO. On other U.N. fronts, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs are trying to help relief groups navigate the viral terrain as they aid vulnerable populations such as refugees.
But these are largely technical bodies, not ones that can hammer out political agreements — or at least guidelines — on issues like medical supply lines, financial assistance and border policies.
When countries have come to agreements related to the virus, it’s often been bilateral — such as the Canada-U.S. decision to limit border crossings — or through regional blocs, such as the EU.
Source:politico.com