In his new article, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, argues that coronavirus disease (COVID-19) will reshape our world. In the article entitled “The coronavirus pandemic and the new world it is creating,” Borrell writes: “We can be sure that when this happens, our world will be completely different.”
But, of course, the difference between the present and the future in international relations is largely due to the decisions taken by international institutions and blocs, their options, alternatives and support plans that can strengthen the sense of unity and solidarity.
In the context of identifying the effects and repercussions of the coronavirus on regional and international organisations and unions, many are engaged in talks and studies on the future of blocs such as the UN and the EU and UN bodies such as the WHO. These issues also include many other regional organizations and blocs that have not yet made their voices heard. They have not invested in responding to the crisis and addressing its ongoing fallout.
But the most heated debate is about the UN and its institutions and the EU.
For some in Europe, the European project is well and truly obsolete. Yet I am convinced that the seven decades that have passed since the birth of the project have produced deep forms of economic interconnectedness between member countries that make the break-up of the Union less likely.
In the coronavirus crisis, the drawer of institutional performance of the blocs and regional organisations is blocked by a serious problem: slowness, lack of efficiency and serious plans for dealing with potential threats.
European officials have admitted that EU leaders underestimated the risk of coronavirus at the outset. They did not act with the needed speed, as happened with the US. Likewise, the UN has not acted as expected and with the momentum required at a time of acute crisis that has ravaged the bedrock of global stability.
The management of this crisis by one of its most prominent institutions, the WHO, was hotly debated worldwide after coming under severe attack from the US President. Donald Trump said he would reconsider American funding of the UN, accusing it of bias against China and criticizing the way it has handled the global epidemic crisis.
The US is recognised as one of the largest voluntary funders of the organisation. According to data from the World Health Organization, the US contributes 15% of its total budget. In 2019, the US’ contribution to the WHO was over $400 million, and China’s contribution over $44 million. As a result, US accusations against the organization are likely to muddy the waters and raise eyebrows around the world. The international community did react.
France, through President Macron, voiced refusal to see the World Health Organization “locked in this war between China and the US,” giving clear support to the organization for its management of the crisis. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stressed that it was not yet time to draw lessons about the WHO’s handling of the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic, calling for “unity.”
It is clear that part of this debate is politically motivated. Clearly, President Trump is accused of being slow to respond to the crisis. These accusations may negatively affect his chances of winning a second presidential term. So, by this political tactic, he seeks to draw attention to a third party by questioning the WHO’s response to the epidemic and accusing it of idling.
But I can see that he chose the worst possible moment to talk about simply rethinking the US funding for the organization. The world is now only interested in how the crisis is unfolding and how to deal with it. As a result, these accusations could lead to more criticism and accusations against the US, accusations of undermining the international organization’s ability to respond to the epidemic. Moreover, the decision of the Security Council to hold the first emergency session on the new virus comes more than two months after the outbreak of the epidemic around the world.
The Dominican Republic, chairing the Council this month, has asked the UN Secretary-General to brief the Council on UN policies aimed at curbing the spread and limiting the impact of the outbreak. It is true that accusations, allegations and rumours are spreading about the role of international organizations in the response to the coronavirus pandemic.
But we must stress that the role of those organizations, especially those concerned with international security and stability, is essentially to address the traditional threats that fuel wars, conflicts and military clashes. The UN Charter refers to concepts such as human security in the broader sense.
Such security is therefore the prerogative of the organization and its institutions and agencies as a whole, not just the WHO.
The global health threat, as is currently the case with the coronavirus, has economic, security and social ramifications that require the mobilization of all UN agencies. In the past, the Cold War led to the disruption of some international organizations, including UNESCO, among others. It is our hope that other organizations will not suffer the wrath of a new Cold War looming on the horizon between China and the US.
