The only way to combat the pandemic is through global effort. Multilateralism, which is organically linked to globalisation, is on the decline, and yet without a multilateral framework in place, effective measures to combat the pandemic cannot be taken.
By Amb Kanwal Sibal
The unavoidable lockdown in China that has caused disruptions in the global supply chains will now motivate countries to cut reliance on China for critical supplies by building domestic capacities or moving production elsewhere.
The coronavirus pandemic is assuming nuclear dimensions. Billions have been impacted, pillars of the global order are in a state of full or partial lockdown, unable even with advanced technologies and proficient health care systems to protect their populations, exposing the vulnerabilities of the developing world.
The G-20 video conference indicates that an effort, albeit delayed, to address the pandemic collectively is beginning to take shape. The earlier G-7 meeting could not issue a joint statement because the Americans wanted a reference in it to the “Wuhan virus”, which the others opposed so as to retain the focus on international cooperation and not apportion blame. If the G-20 had failed to issue a communique for this reason, its own future as well as prospects of any coordinated international cooperation to combat the virus would have been jeopardised.
In their communique, the G-20 leaders promised to inject $5 trillion into the global economy to counteract the impact of the pandemic. Sectoral steps in public health, employment, technology, global supply chains, aid to developing countries, and those by the WHO, IMF and World Bank have been outlined. Prime Minister Narendra Modi appropriately focused on a new humanitarian approach to globalisation and multilateralism, building WHO’s capacity for early warning and development of effective vaccines, freely sharing the benefits of medical research and development and establishing new crisis management protocols.
Agreeing broadly on what is required to be done is one thing, doing it is another, especially as collective international action to deal with shared challenges is diminishing. Anti-globalisation sentiments have grown in the developed world, and many in these countries will view the current pandemic as a product of rampant globalisation. Yet, the only way to combat is through global effort. Multilateralism, which is organically linked to globalisation, is on the decline, and yet without a multilateral framework in place, effective measures to combat the pandemic cannot be taken.
Even under pressure of this pandemic, one cannot see the reversal of the trends against globalisation and multilateralism. China, already at the centre of anti-globalisation thinking in western circles, is seen as responsible for unleashing this crisis on the world by suppressing information about its emergence, losing critical weeks in not taking steps to control it.
The unavoidable lockdown in China that has caused disruptions in the global supply chains will now motivate countries to cut reliance on China for critical supplies by building domestic capacities or moving production elsewhere.
China has made things worse for itself and for global cooperation by self-righteously denying that it is the origin of the virus, even blaming the US military for planting it in Wuhan and the boorish behavior of its diplomats abroad against any local allusions to its Chinese origin. China’s effort to create a parallel narrative, to project itself now as a generous partner in handling the mega-crisis it has unleashed, using the constituencies it has created in numerous countries to support its cynical propaganda might not exact due costs immediately but grassroots sentiments against China in the West will be long-lasting, until and unless its political governance and information flows from the country become more transparent.
The author is former foreign secretary & member advisory council VIF
This article was first published by VIF and belongs to them
