Coronavirus can only be defeated with global coordination

By now it must seem that every question that can possibly be asked about coronavirus has been asked. Many times. We still don’t have all the detailed answers, but we know about the importance of testing, of making sure the NHS has enough equipment, of flattening the outbreak. We have watched the role of the UK government and others change beyond all recognition, to actively running large parts of everyday life in the country as per wartime.

But that’s all national, and this is a pandemic, affecting the world. So here are some questions we hardly ask about coronavirus. Is there enough personal protective equipment (PPE) manufacture globally to cope with a pandemic? Can we release our country from lockdown if the neighbouring country is struggling to contain the outbreak? If a treatment or vaccine is declared safe in one country will it need to go through a further testing procedure of several months to be declared safe in another? If a country restricts exports how will it pay for the imports of what it doesn’t produce? Who is coordinating the global response?

The answer to the last question unlocks the reason for lacking answers to the others. Nobody. There is no comprehensive global coordination of the fight against coronavirus. So even though this is a global outbreak, requiring similar measures and ultimately similar solutions in all countries, there is no structure in place to help achieve this.

We see fleeting instances of global cooperation. Chinese and Cuban doctors in Italy, donations of equipment from Taiwan, China and even Russia, medical researchers working together, companies coming together to make much-needed equipment, the EU striving to keep trade flowing between members. More significant may be that we are reading of what is happening in other countries and demanding best practice in our own.

But at an institutional level, none have the power to coordinate the global response to Covid-19. The World Health Organisation (WHO) provides some leadership and information dissemination on the directly health-related aspects, but this appears to be limited. There have been G20 meetings at leader and trade minister levels, leading to warm statements but no actual significant intervention. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is a member-led body and does not have power to prevent trade restrictions without members raising an individual case, a time-consuming process.

All of these bodies are also weakened by international political power games. Some are long-standing, like tensions over Taiwan meaning it is not a member of the WHO. Others are more recent, in particular President Trump’s pronounced antipathy to global bodies and particularly the WTO, and China’s increased national assertiveness under President Xi. In this context the UK’s departure from the EU also weakens the European voice.

In the absence of effective global cooperation countries are putting in place measures which are likely to hinder the global battle against coronavirus. Measures which restrict trade are recorded by Global Trade Alert based in Switzerland, which noted that “As of 21st March 2020, a total of 54 governments have implemented some type of export curb on medical supplies.” These included the UK, for critical medicines such as insulin, morphine and paracetamol. Some countries have restricted exports of food, including Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, all major cereal exporters. Meanwhile there is growing concern within the EU about the policies of France, where supermarkets are reported to be replacing foreign suppliers with French produce.

National measures will make things tougher in other countries. We already hear about potential global shortages of coronavirus tests. Until a vaccine is developed and deployed, which is bound to require global cooperation, or a reliable cure found, a similarly global effort, lifting control measures without regional and global cooperation is likely to mean repeated outbreaks, especially if some countries cannot get the required equipment. So far global food supply chains have largely held up, but more widespread restrictions might threaten this, meaning further instability. The truth is that no single country is safe from the Covid-19 outbreak, even Turkmenistan, known for its eccentric presidents, which has banned the word.

It isn’t enough to have statements of warm words from groups of countries. This is a global fight, and as many have said, there have been previous warnings and could easily be future outbreaks. What we need, to borrow the term of US trade think tanker Simon Lester, is global pandemic cooperation. It doesn’t have to be a new global organisation, but perhaps at the very least an experienced leader appointed under the aegis of the United Nations, building a network of experts in all affected countries who can start to provide an accurate global picture, and as where possible identify crucial issues which are obstructing progress.

There is of course nothing that can force countries to work together if they don’t wish to do so. Insofar as I can tell the UK could not lose from joining EU protective equipment procurement efforts, but chose not to do so as we don’t want to work with the EU. Clearly President Trump’s first priority in his own re-election campaign, just like that of the Chinese Communist Party, is regime survival. There are reasons why global efforts have been unsuccessful so far. National efforts are much simpler than international cooperation. But only the latter will eradicate the threat of coronavirus. It is time for all leaders to recognise this, and then act accordingly.