coronavirus vaccine
By Nives Dolsak, Aseem Prakash, and Nicolas Wittstock
Climate change and Coronavirus are global problems. The former encouraged global cooperation (although the U.S. has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement) while the latter seems to create "us" versus "them" dynamics among countries. Would Corona-nationalism undermine global cooperation in the future?
One might wonder why this focus on global cooperation. Are national governments not doing their jobs? In recent years, many countries have been running away from globalization. Isn't this the lesson of Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and the rise of "America First," and the impressive electoral performance of populist parties in Europe? Even Bernie Sanders is skeptical of trade agreements, which represent global cooperation on trade.
If countries had no global connections, the "go-it-alone" approach might have worked. But, alas, the world is connected by cross-border movement of products, capital, ideas, and people along with pollutants and germs.
Cross-border movements change the governance game. Countries recognize that some of these flows bring prosperity and reduce harm. But if not managed well, these flows can bring misery and create domestic discord. The dilemma for governments is that while they want to retain control over their borders, they cannot manage international flows unilaterally, at least not for long periods of time. If a country does get into a "North Korea" mode of shunning international connections, it suffers an economic and political penalty.
To manage these flows, countries establish international regimes and organizations which are staffed by experts. These regimes create rules, outline best practices, share resources, and provide mechanisms to make sure that countries are living up to their commitments. But creating a regime is not easy because of power, jealousy, and mistrust among countries. After all, why would a country give up its autonomy to make rules and hand over the power to an international actor? This is where the presence of a powerful country—a hegemon—could be helpful. After all, you need someone to herd the cats together — through bribe, bullying, or simply exercising moral authority.
Global cooperation on climate issues was helped by the leadership of the European Union (E.U.), and increasingly, China. In contrast, no country or organization seems to have emerged as a global public health leader. If anything, there is discord among great powers such as the U.S. and China. Worse still, while major international climate bodies have a reputation of independence and technical competence (the International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, even got the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize), the World Health Organization (WHO), the premier organization in public health, faces a credibility crisis.
Coronavirus Geopolitics: A rise of "us" versus "them"
Climate change is a problem of the overuse of a global common, the atmosphere. Because countries cannot unilaterally solve the climate problem, international cooperation is required. In 1992, climate cooperation began with the formation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). With the 1998 Kyoto Protocol, global climate cooperation was formalized. Every year national leaders meet at the Conference of Parties (C.O.P.) meeting. Scientists work together as an international team in the IPCC.
Coronavirus pandemic is affecting every country. It has disrupted global supply chains. Social distancing has caused a worldwide economic recession. Unlike climate change, the globality of Coronavirus has not bred global cooperation. Instead, it has sparked "us" versus "them" fights in several ways.
First, countries have closed borders to non-nationals even before initiating domestic lockdowns. The U.S. unilaterally banned travel from 26 European Countries, subsequently including the U.K. and Ireland as well.
Second, Coronavirus initiated a blame game among countries on who caused it. The U.S. blames China while China blames American soldiers who visited Wuhan in October 2019. For the U.S., the prevalence of unregulated "wet markets" in China allowed the virus to jump from bats to human beings. The U.S. further alleges that China played down the severity of the problem and did not share data in time with the global community. This anti-China rhetoric has led to the racially-motivated attacks on Asians in the US, Britain, and Australia.
While this sort of finger-pointing takes place in climate change as well, especially between "old" polluters" and "emerging polluters," countries have found ways to address these issues. For example, the UNFCCC has adopted the principle of "shared but differentiated responsibility," which puts greater responsibility for climate mitigation on "old" polluters.
Third, Coronavirus is encouraging countries to disrupt trade cooperation. Many governments, 69 according to the University of St. Gallen study, have blocked exports of medical supplies by refusing export licenses. The United States has demanded that 3M Corporation sends N95 masks exclusively to the U.S., even when they are produced abroad. India initially banned (but has now relented) the export of 26 pharmaceuticals, including Hydroxychloroquine, which is touted as a possible cure for Coronavirus.
Even worse, export restrictions are now accompanied by domestic procurement policies. Just like steel jobs, the United States wants to bring the pharmaceutical industry back home. For reference, the U.S. has a staggering level of dependence on China for pharmaceuticals: 97 percent of U.S. antibiotics are sourced from China. President Trump wants the U.S. government to purchase medical equipment and drugs from US-based manufacturers only.
Interestingly, import dependence has not encouraged "America First" policy on climate issues. The U.S. imports most of its solar panels and wind turbines. It completely relies on China for the imports of "rare earths" which are critical for electric cars.
Fourth, the Coronavirus is instigating an R&D war among countries. The Trump administration attempted to buy a German biotech company, CureVac, allegedly to corner the market for a potential vaccine. The company ultimately declined the offer. This incident was met with condemnation and outcries of national pride across German newspapers and social media.
Fifth, unlike climate policy, the Coronavirus has strained the relationship among E.U countries, pitting the "frugal four" (Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland) against the less frugal South on the issue of Coronabonds. This got France's President Macron so worried that he issued a public statement: "If we do not show solidarity, Italy, Spain or others would be able to say to their European partners: Where have you been when we were on the front line? I do not want this selfish and divided Europe."
For the time being, however, the crisis has abated as the E.U. finance ministers have agreed on a $590 billion plan to support health care costs associated with Coronavirus. But E.U. policy remains very inward looking and the E.U. shows no inclination to take on global leadership on this subject.
Sixth, international cooperation is helped when international bodies play a leadership role. Unlike the IPCC, which is the source of global scientific and policy information on climate change, the WHO, is struggling to stay relevant in the Corona crisis. Even the global field trials for drugs to treat Coronavirus via the WHO's Solidarity project are getting scant attention.
The WHO probably undermined its reputation for independence by praising China's response even when China seemed to silence whistleblowers and undercount Coronavirus cases. Taro Aso, Japan's Deputy Prime Minister, has suggested that the World Health Organization should be renamed the "China Health Organization."
Other U.N. bodies also do not seem up to the task of leading the Corona charge. In the past, U.N. Secretary-Generals, such as Dag Hammarskjöld played an important role in resolving major crises. But the current Secretary-General, António Guterres, lacks that sort of political power. Even the United Nations Security Council seems almost out of the picture, although the Coronavirus has grave implications for global security.
Future Ahead: More Global Cooperation or Less?
Will the "go-it-alone" mentality fostered by Coronavirus undermine global cooperation in other issue areas? For instance, could the distrust of China on Coronavirus undermine its emerging leadership (post-Paris Agreement) in climate change? Or, if the global policy focus shifts to pandemics and economic recovery, would climate cooperation suffer?
An issue could probably remain salient if has support from powerful interest groups and institutions. Because climate cooperation has its own political and institutional history, it will probably remain insulated from Coronavirus politics. The E.U., which has emerged as its anchor, remains firmly committed to climate issues. Even China, which competes with E.U. for global leadership, will probably continue on its decarbonization trajectory.
But Corona-nationalism could affect other issue areas where global cooperation is less firmly anchored. The reason is that the U.S. might have incentives to start a new Cold War with an aggressive anti-China focus. Take the case of telecommunication. The Trump Administration wants to revoke the license of China Telecom Americas. The Federal Communications Commission has already prohibited China Mobile from operating in the U.S., and the Commerce Department has blacklisted Huawei Technologies. A ratcheting up of the US-China trade war does not bode well for international cooperation in any issue.
Is there a way forward? It is possible that after November 2020 elections, the U.S. might re-engage with the world. But one should not depend only on this political event; a more durable institutional solution is required.
International cooperation survives when there is "deep" institutionalization. For public health, this requires that the focal international organization, the WHO, make sure that it appears to be an independent body.
Public health cooperation could be facilitated if there is a forum where national leaders regularly meet. The annual Conferences of Parties to address climate issues play an important role for climate cooperation. Another example is the annual meeting of I.M.F. and World Bank Governors, central bankers, and finance ministers, which allows for a regular high-level dialogue on economic issues. If global cooperation on pandemics is to be strengthened, a platform is probably required to facilitate an annual meeting of heads of states, or at least health ministers. The WHO is probably running low on legitimacy to organize this event. Perhaps the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust together could organize an annual World Health Forum, akin to the World Economic Forum in Davos, to create a platform for this purpose.
