The world is reeling from the current Coronavirus pandemic! It is the single most deadly infection in recent memory and has the potential to become the deadliest in history. Governments are scurrying left, right and centre to find a solution and keep their population safe. Word wide infections and deaths are expected to rise exponentially especially with no plausible end in sight!
It is a foregone conclusion that international leadership has been very poor in providing an appropriate policy response to this outbreak. The question is why? The answer lies somewhere between lack of appreciation of the severity of the Coronavirus and opting a for a policy of isolationism over that of internationalism!
But first to recap, earlier opinion pieces in this series have stated policy to be guidance that is directive or instructive; i.e. it is clear in stating what is to be accomplished. It is also treated as a galvanizing vision that describes a preferred end state. Now, consider the following hypothesis.
When the outbreak started in Wuhan at the bottom of 2019, most of the world was oblivious to the potential threat emerging from China. Even other countries in Asia took this development in their stride! The notion was, ‘that which is away from our doorstep doesn’t impact us’. This thinking is not new but has been gaining momentum with isolationist political parties gaining influence around the globe. To quote but a few examples, the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats (SD) making significant gains in the 2018 general election and winning about 18% of the vote in Sweden. The ultra-conservative Freedom Party (FPÖ) becoming a junior partner in a coalition with the conservative government in Austria. The anti-establishment Five Star Movement and right-wing League increasing influence in Italy. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) entering the federal parliament for the first time in Germany. The current political landscape also lends itself well to the ‘us vs them’ debate! Even in the US and in the UK, isolationist tendencies are the going currency nowadays!
Although highly difficult to fathom but if there ever was a silver lining to the COVID-19 spread, it is this: a policy of isolationism can’t be fair game in this era of globalisation! No country can be an island and expect to get away scot-free just by closing borders and raising walls. Walls may keep out visible threats but not invisible ones!
Had world leaders abandoned their isolationist views and paid heed to the global threat, maybe the spread could have been restricted to Wuhan. Had political governments opted for a policy of internationalism and helped curtail the original outbreak, the scenario may not be as dire as it is today. Had head of states acted in the interest of the world, they would have been able to see that global citizenship demands that all and sundry be helped and treated equally. Had people listened to the World Health Organisation (WHO) harping on about global ramifications, the crisis may not have reached tipping point.
Alas, that wasn’t meant to be! Which means that now everyone is scrambling for a response. This is akin to closing the stable doors after the horses have bolted! Borders are shut, travel is restricted, flights are grounded, majority of the world population is in lockdown, essential items are scarce, front line workers are under pressure and no plausible end seems to be in sight! Hindsight is a dangerous thing but maybe some of this could have been avoided if internationalism ruled the roost and the world acted in unison earlier rather than standing as a bystander to the unfolding disaster!
The folly lies at the policy level – protecting one’s own patch in a connected world is not a solution to global problems!
Now the COVID-19 pandemic is being compared to the Spanish Flu and other catastrophic infections in the past. Though the world should have been better prepared because of modern medicine, new technologies, better awareness and more historic patterns to bank on. The folly lies at the policy level – protecting one’s own patch in a connected world is not a solution to global problems! The Brookings Institution also corroborates this view by saying that “unfortunately, this crisis occurs in a dark political climate, more similar to that of the early ’30s, when many governments pursued nationalist, beggar-thy-neighbor policies such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, and international cooperation was very limited. Over the past decade, the world has grown more authoritarian, nationalistic, xenophobic, unilateralist, anti-establishment, and anti-expertise. The current state of politics and geopolitics has exacerbated, not stabilized, the crisis”.
President Truman once said, “all will concede that in order to have good neighbours, we must also be good neighbours. That applies in every field of human endeavour”. He couldn’t be further from the truth! Every one of us should look inward and ask these questions. Have we been good and helping neighbours to our global brethren especially at the start of this crisis? Did we only start to wake up and assist when the contagion hit our shores? If we don’t answer these questions, we may just be delaying the inevitable – a world where everyone only looks out for themselves! Humanity? What humanity?
The writer is Director Programmes for an international ICT organization based in the UK and writes on corporate strategy, socio-economic and geopolitical issues