Around a month ago I focussed on someinternational relations aspects of COVID-19 in these columns. At that stage theWorld Health Organisation (WHO) had characterised it as a “public healthemergency of international concern”. A few short weeks later, on March 11, theWHO declared it to be a pandemic. By then COVID-19 had spread to 114 countries,infected 1,18,000 and killed 4291 people. (As I write these lines it is nowpresent in 176 countries killed 8969 andinfected 2,20,000 people). While declaring COVID-19 as a pandemic WHODirector-General noted “Pandemic is not a word to be used lightly or carelessly”.He justified its use because of the “alarming levels” of its “spread andseverity”. The Director-General made two other important points. This was thefirst pandemic “caused by a coronavirus”; earlier coronavirus epidemics such asSARS that led to 800 deaths in many countries did not ‘qualify’ as pandemics.The other significant assertion was that COVID-19 could be “controlled”.
COVID-19’s control is dependent on twofactors. The first is that each country takes decisive and sustained action andthe second through global cooperation. As each country’s situation differs theprecise nature of national control policies would obviously vary but will haveto be within a basic format dictated by the nature of the virus. As the healthsystems of many countries are not equipped to know the precise nature of thevirus they have to rely on other countries and most of all look to the WHO forguidance. Most countries will also have to tweak the WHO advice to their owncircumstances and resources though ideally all countries should have theresources to follow common practice. It is here that international cooperationis really needed. India has done well to offer both technical and financialhelp to its neighbours. Admittedly this would be limited but it does point theway in which the advanced countries should move even if they are presentlystretched to the limit in combatting COVID-19 within their own territories.
Almost all countries are seeking to atleast hamper its ingress into their territories currently by either completelystopping or severely restricting the entry of persons from the most effectedcountries. These barriers are justified and are a part of common global action.As COVID-19 has spread to European countries and is leading to large scale infectionsand thousands of deaths, especially in Italy and France, Europe is simplylocking down. China had locked down the Hubei province and its capital Wuhan.Its drastic measures yielded good results in helping control the COVID-19’s.Now other countries are doing the same for this according to health experts isthe right way to proceed. The United States is following the European examplethough not as completely at present. The international community is acceptingthese measures though they will have very adverse consequences for the globaleconomy. Naturally the first priority has always to be the preservation oflife.
At this time when international cooperationis needed to battle COVID-19 should major world powers seek to score points andindulge in propaganda? The obvious answer, as I had indirectly submitted in myearlier column on COVID-19, is no. It is therefore irresponsible for the US andChina to blame each other for COVID-19. The Chinese foreign ministryspokesperson’s suggestion that the US military may have brought the virus intoWuhan is absurd. Knowing that such a vicious and contagious virus would haveworld-wide effect would anyone deliberately seek to unleash it? It is equallydisingenuous for Chinese scientists to seek to distinguish between thediscovery of the virus in Wuhan and its origin elsewhere. Till a hundred yearsago when the world was not as wired as it is today such distinctions could bemade but not today. If China is seeking to divert attention from its role inCOVID-19 the US President is seeking to pin the blame on it by repeatedlycalling it the China virus. This is puerile especially as the urgent need isfor scientists world-wide to pool resources to find effective medical responsesagainst the virus and such point-scoring will detract from such efforts.
The history of virus pandemics over thepast century shows that there were four: The Spanish flu of 1918-20, theAsiatic flu of 1957, the Hong Kong flu of 1968 and the Swine flu of 2009-1010.While all these infected millions upon millions of people the most devastatingwas the Spanish flu. In a then human population of around 1.8 billion it causedmore than 50 million deaths. However, in the past hundred years medical sciencehas made astonishing progress and therefore the world is better prepared tohandle such pandemics. The question is if it is adequately prepared.
It is true that pharmaceutical responses tonew viruses can be developed only after they appear. Hence, internationalcooperation has to focus on attempts at draining the reservoirs which enablesuch viruses to appear. One such area are the live animal markets of China andsouth-east Asia. These markets are fed by international criminal groups thattraffic exotic and endangered species. National and international action istherefore needed to stop these markets. Cultural practice cannot be an alibifor their continuance. In addition to preventive actions rapid andcomprehensive monitoring and containment mechanisms have to be put in place.All this may detract from traditional notions of nationalsovereignty. But so be it.