COVID-19: A Global Response Needed to Counter a Global Menace

by S. Mushfiq Murshed

Recent numbers indicate that in at least 185 countries hit by COVID-19 there have been over 1.8 million people infected and more than 113,000 deaths. These numbers would have drastically increased by the time this article is online. Flattening the curve, therefore, remains the primary global objective for 2020. While the world waits for a vaccine, humanity remains in various levels of indefinite lock downs, economies come to a grinding stop, unemployment rates reach all-time highs, health care systems -of even the most developed countries – are overwhelmed, psychological illnesses escalate, domestic violence rates increase, etc. Global socio-economic dynamics and paradigms are, therefore, shifting drastically and may never reset to pre-COVID-19 days.

The virus seems to be ‘dictating’ and the world is reacting as it tries to understand the true nature and identity of this pandemic. One attribute of the virus is, however, apparent – its genetic code has enabled it to infect in and spread through all hemispheres, thereby, making it global in nature. The strategies developed and implemented, till a cure has surfaced, should mirror this attribute – they should also be global in nature.

Unfortunately, global cooperation is on a decline. Accusations and conspiracy theories – a natural byproduct of the fear of the unknown – are on a rise. The initial knee-jerk reaction of countries with significant resources dealing with this novel virus was that of stockpiling essential lifesaving equipment and kits. Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman wrote in an article titled “Will the Coronavirus End Globalization as we know it?” for Foreign Affairs¹:

“As the new virus spreads, some governments are giving in to their worst instincts. Even before the COVID-19 outbreak began, Chinese manufacturers made half of the world’s medical masks. These manufacturers ramped up production as a result of the crisis, but the Chinese government effectively bought up the country’s entire supply of masks, while also importing large quantities of masks and respirators from abroad. China certainly needed them, but the result of its buying spree was a supply crunch that hobbled other countries’ response to the disease.

“European countries didn’t behave much better. Russia and Turkey prohibited the export of medical masks and respirators. Germany did the same, even though it is a member of the European Union, which is supposed to have a “single market” with unrestricted free trade among its member states. The French government took the simpler step of seizing all available masks. EU officials complained that such actions undermined solidarity and prevented the EU from adopting a common approach to combating the new virus, but they were simply ignored.”

India too, “the world’s largest producer of hydroxychloroquine”²– an anti-malaria drug that some claim (despite the lack of medical evidence) is a treatment for Coronavirus – has placed a temporary export ban on it. After President Trump pressured Prime Minister Modi, India agreed to export limited stock of this drug to the United States.

Countries hunkering down within their borders is not a solution. Global coordination is required. Massive input and analysis of global data is needed – initially for risk stratification – to efficiently use limited resources, i.e. not everyone infected needs to be in the ICU. Countries that have been able to flatten the curve need to share best practices of testing, social distancing, contact tracing, etc.

In addition, and most importantly, resources need to be shared with vulnerable developing countries where governments do not have the capacity to recover from a state of complete and indefinite lock down as millions will fall below the poverty line unless there is some economic activity. Such countries also cannot afford an exponential increase in infections as their healthcare facilities, in many cases, are not even capable to cater to pre-COVID-19 healthcare requirements.

A case in point is that of Pakistan. Prime Minister Imran Khan explained in a televised national address that approximately 25% of the population in the country lived below the poverty line and could barely afford two meals a day. An additional 20% were hovering just above the poverty line. A slight jolt would bring the latter below the line and the number of people in this stratum could reach as high as 80 to 90 million. This forecast is fast becoming a reality as partial and complete lockdowns across the country have shut, amongst others, medium, small and micro enterprises operating within the informal economy. This informal economy (according to some estimates) employs more than 70% of the labor of the country. Pakistan simply does not have the capacity and resources to cater to the needs of such large numbers.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) states in its updated estimates and analysis of 7 April 2020: “Particularly in low- and middle-income countries, hard-hit sectors have a high proportion of workers in informal employment and workers with limited access to health services and social protection. Without appropriate policy measures, workers face a high risk of falling into poverty and will experience greater challenges in regaining their livelihoods during the recovery period.”³

An Oxfam media briefing on 9 April 2020 mentioned: “New analysis shows the economic crisis caused by coronavirus could push over half a billion people into poverty unless urgent and dramatic action is taken.” Furthermore, Oxfam stated: “Living day to day, the poorest people do not have the ability to take time off work, or to stockpile provisions. Across the world, millions of workers are being sent home as businesses close. Two billion people work in the informal sector, with no access to sick pay.⁴ Informal work accounts for 90% of employment in developing (low-income) countries, 67% in emerging (upper-middle- income and lower-middle-income) countries and 18% in developed (high-income) countries.⁵ According to the ILO, the informality rate in Latin America and the Caribbean is 53%, which means that nearly 140 million workers are employed under informal conditions. ”

Unemployment, hunger, the indefinite nature of this crisis, the incapacity of governments to provide relief and healthcare, etc. in “small and medium income countries” can contribute to chaotic and anarchic conditions that will create further instability in an already fragile world. Such conditions are ideal for criminal mafias, drug lords and terrorist organizations to operate, recruit and proliferate in. As we are well aware, these menaces, like the COVID-19 virus, spill across borders and continents as well.

If such countries lack the capacity and resources to help the marginalized within their borders, then the responsibility falls on the wealthier countries to provide the necessary support in the form of humanitarian assistance, financial packages, technical expertise, provision of medical equipment, protective gear and test kits, etc. The G20, IMF, the World Bank, etc. also need to provide debt relief to developing countries with high external debt/debt servicing-to-GDP ratios. This will provide temporary financial space for the latter to allocate more of their resources towards the wellbeing of their most vulnerable communities.^6 7

Jose Maria Vera, Oxfam International Interim Executive Director, has, therefore, rightly said: “G20 Finance Ministers, the IMF and World Bank must give developing countries an immediate cash injection to help them bail out poor and vulnerable communities. They must cancel all developing country debt payments for 2020 and encourage other creditors to do the same, and issue at least US$1 trillion of Special Drawing Rights.”⁸

The argument for the lack of a coordinated international response has been that some of the wealthier countries are the hardest hit by this virus, e.g. USA, Spain, Italy, UK, France, Germany. Their healthcare facilities have been overwhelmed. In addition, their economies have been hit hard. In the USA, for example, “6.6 million people filed jobless claims in the week ending 4 April”⁹ bringing the total to more than 16 million.

ILO predicts: “as of 1 April 2020, the ILO’s new global estimates indicate that working hours will decline by 6.7 per cent in the second quarter of 2020, which is equivalent to 195 million full-time workers.”¹⁰ Furthermore, IMF Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, stated, “we now project that over 170 countries will experience negative per capita income growth this year.”¹¹

Unlike the wealthier nations of the world, however, small and medium income countries cannot inject trillions of dollars in their economies to revive industries or indefinitely provide necessary financial and humanitarian support for the most vulnerable. Prime Minister Imran Khan explained that countries like Pakistan have a choice of either preventing people from dying of the virus or preventing people from dying of hunger due to the lockdown.

The overall socio-economic conditions in some of these countries are so frail that even the slightest delay in global assistance can be devastating for their vulnerable communities. Unfortunately, the two countries that can lead this global effort are not stepping up.

The pre-COVID-19 world had already started witnessing nationalist and populist sentiments and actions that were reversing the globalization highs of the 1990’s. This virus has “accelerated the fragmentation” although this is a global menace that can only be defeated by a coordinated global response because as long as even a small neighborhood in the world remains infected, the fight against the virus will not be won.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–