The coronavirus outbreak is a wake-up reminder to all of us that states can’t deal with global challenges alone – and that global cooperation is crucial
By Vesko Garcevic*
With the surge of people infected by the COVID-19 virus, and the US leading the world in confirmed cases, I can’t but remember Steven Soderbergh’s chilling 2011 movie Contagion. Praised by scientists for its accuracy, it worries me with its grim story about the vulnerability of systems we trust, and lack of cooperation at the global level to address a pandemic thoroughly.
While we are nowhere near the end of this pandemic, with health officials and experts warning that, “We are in for a bumpy ride for the next 12 to 18 months”, there is no doubt that this year will become a lasting reference for decades to come. For years, we will refer to the world before and after corona. At schools and universities, it will be remembered as the “corona semester”.
But although the pandemic is causing human suffering, and is likely to instigate a severe economic decline, hopefully we can learn something from it. COVID-19 is a wake-up call to the world to modify the traditional, state-centric approaches we take to address global challenges.
Just as the Black Death followed trade routes and was a breeding ground for trade wars, the current pandemic is doing the same. It has tracked our globalizing world, following trade and tourist routes, leaving only distant and disconnected places untouched.
Technological progress has helped it travel faster. Instead of months or years, as pandemics used to take in the 14th century, it now takes only weeks to spread from one corner of the planet to another.
This crisis confirms how interdependent – and defenceless – we are. The virus does not recognize borders, and jumps easily over the walls and fences we’ve built to prevent migrants from coming to our homes. It exposes the vulnerability of the state-centric global system. We’ve created our defences to protect ourselves from humans, but not from the challenges of the future, which are mostly the results of our wrongdoings.
To address global challenges, we need to change our operational system. It needs an update fast. Take climate change. World leaders have spent years discussing how to harmonize national policies on the environment and reduce CO2 emissions but little has been done.
Climate change, energy, food and water management, and the fight against terrorism or global pandemics – none of these things can be addressed without a new type of global cooperation.
A potential food crisis is not just a gruesome science-fiction story, as it was in Contagion. It could happen in the foreseeable future, sooner than we believe. Our future collaboration, therefore, should go further from common narratives about what global threats are. It should include mutually supportive and coordinated policies, aimed at mitigating the consequences of any similar adversity.
What have we done to develop a global response to the pandemics?
EU commissioner Thierry Breton is calling COVID-19 a “crisis that knows no borders,” but as Europeans look out of the windows in their home confinement, borders are all they see. Every system shrinks in a time of crisis and reduces itself to essential functions to survive. It is obvious that travel restrictions and robust national policies are needed to curb the spread of the disease.
But while national solidarity is growing, it is not being followed by a genuine support to efforts of others. New restrictions, closed borders and insufficient cooperation between Atlantic partners are dividing nations, when the global challenge we all face should unite us more than ever.
State systems have become the epicentre of the response to COVID-19, not only in the US and Europe. Trust in state institutions is being put to the test. However, experience tells us that, no matter how technically advanced or wealthy it is, the state alone can’t successfully deal with a crisis of global proportions. Lack of medical supplies has prompted US President Donald Trump to invoke the Defense Protection Act to get General Motors to make more ventilators, and Boeing is to make face shields for medical professionals.
In the beginning, China concealed the severity of the new virus. It silenced whistleblowers. In the eyes of many, this cleared the way for the global pandemic. On the other hand, the West, and the US, didn’t take the virus seriously enough, and didn’t offer assistance to China at the early stage. It is just one example of how political calculations and national interests hindered a timely, multilateral and coordinated response.
It was only a few days ago that the G20 leaders even held a video-conference to discuss how to cope with the pandemic.Too little, too late. Surprisingly or not, there is not much official coordination on display, even in the EU. National governments have locked up their borders and have heightened barriers. Cynics may recall how EU generosity and solidarity were blunted also during the financial crisis. Some may say that the current measures are needed to flatten the “curve” of the pandemic – but closing borders should not mean the end of cooperation or support for those in the most critical condition.
At a time of national self-centrism, China seems to demonstrate global solidarity. It is using the opportunity to advance its agenda and show who the (future) leader of a globalizing world is.
Planes full of medical supplies – like desperately needed test kits and masks – are arriving from China. China’s assistance is often politicized by politicians in the Balkans on account of the EU. In Serbia, as Carl Bildt noticed, “when China sent an aircraft with help to Serbia, President Vucic made a great show of it. But when far more substantial EU aid arrives there is no fanfare and no President in sight”.
That is why Germany’s recent decision to take on some Italian and French patients has more than symbolic importance. This move reinforces the need for cross-border solidarity in a time of crisis.
The crisis is revealing both the strengths, like peoples’ solidarity and social cohesion, and the structural weaknesses in the Balkans. The region’s healthcare systems are not in a good shape. As we can see, even more advanced countries are having big problems fighting the virus, let alone the region’s decimated healthcare systems. And the problems are particularly obvious outside the main urban centres and the capitals.
The continuous outflow of trained medical personnel, which has affected even the region’s EU members, Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria, structural flaws, endemic corruption and technological backsliding, has all left these health systems vulnerable and incapable of providing the expected level of service over a longer period – which is what will be needed in this occasion. The crisis may become even more dire if trained medical workers also fall ill, which may well happen given how contagious COVID-19 is, and the inadequacy of the measures of protection in place.
An important point must also be made. Can we uphold human rights while protecting people’s lives? Speaking about democracy and human rights at time when people are fighting for their lives may sound odd, but it’s never a wrong time to demand respect for human dignity.
Democracy usually suffers in times of emergency . Instead of global cooperation, we may see the rise of authoritarianism as a lasting consequence of the pandemic. People are prone to praise the efficiency of strong leaders and autocrats who “know how to handle crises” and who mock democracies for making “things work slowly”.
The way states are handling the crisis and informing their populations varies, and speaks about their democratic capacities. Freedom of the media is one of the first victims in the global war against the pandemics. Some leaders, not only in the Balkans, see the crisis as an opportunity to expand executive power and rule by decree.
Why do some states deploy armed forces to assist citizens, while others use their armies to enforce lockdowns and demonstrate state power? Why do some states lock up their citizens in apartment for weeks or months, while others don’t use force, but instead appeal to their citizens to abide by new measures? Why do some people see no problem in any type of restrictive measures – including public lists of infected people, like in Montenegro – while in other places, they insist on their rights being respected, even in the time of emergency?
Whatever the pretext, the authorities should avoid measures that lead to discrimination, or are disproportionate to the aims pursued. (BIRN)
*Vesko Garcevic is a former Montenegrin Ambassador to NATO, the OSCE, and other international organizations. He is currently a professor at the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston University.
