The coronavirus pandemic will change the current world order, an astonishing assertion for some observers. They are quick to disown that a virus imperceptible to the naked eye will turn the world upside down.
Historical changes have always followed major events, from world wars to major international treaties. This is historically true. But this judgment sounds rather hasty. We have to look at the big picture, focusing not only on the causes but also on the implications.
We must also remember that some big moments and profound transformations have been set in motion by simple incidents whose consequences no one foresaw at the outset.
To get a clearer picture, two points deserve particular attention. First, the coronavirus pandemic is not a plain sailing event, as evidenced by all the human, economic and strategic losses it has brought about and the virtually utter disruption of all the mechanisms of international cooperation and exchange on various fronts.
Economists estimate the magnitude of the losses that the coronavirus pandemic could wreak on the global economy at $5 trillion. Worse, the world is going through the greatest peacetime economic recession since the 1930s. Developed economies will not recover to pre-crisis levels until the third quarter of 2021, fear Morgan Stanley bank experts.
To put things into perspective, the IMF is estimating that the size of the global economic losses brought about by the virus outbreak is equivalent to the combined economies of Germany and Japan. The Great Lockdown, the Fund’s term for the current global recession, could cost the world economy about $2 trillion in two years. The recession is the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Such immense damage has the potential to reshape international relations in the light of the new normal. The crisis has changed the rules of the game, redefining the interests, relationships and priorities of countries and individuals.
National security priorities are taking a new focus on the health risks, threats and challenges resulting from epidemics, just as much as traditional conflicts, wars, cyber threats and ecological disasters.
Subsequently, and naturally in such circumstances, all countries should review their priorities, interests and structures of international relations commensurate with their performance in the crisis and degree of risk, but also with their own perception of the opportunities and challenges inherent in this crisis.
In this context, the world will inevitably look different from that of the pre-epidemic. It will not be the same, and matters will not be the same as they were before February 2020, which marks the beginning of the great global shutdown brought about by the outbreak of the virus.
In all fields, from medicine and health to economics, travel and aviation, new ground rules will apply, and the same goes for biological conflicts and unconventional weapons, which will be the theater of fierce competition between nations for their use as a deterrent to adversaries.
The US-China conflict over monopoly hegemony made headlines long before the coronavirus pandemic. After the crisis, the world will see the dawn of new balances, rules and norms that will define status, influence and dominance in the world order. Even this order is under the microscope.
Moreover, the UN’s ability to manage world affairs is also being questioned, as UN agencies are struggling to act and take the lead at the global level in such delicate circumstances.
There is also doubt about the effectiveness of some of its branches, such as the WHO, accused of siding with China and hiding facts from the world in the early stages of the crisis. Even if it is only a matter of doubts and accusations lacking evidence, the way in which the WHO is managing the global COVID-19 health risk has been criticized by many experts.
Post-coronavirus, international relations will take on a more complicated form. These dynamics will be reshaped by the facts and realities in many countries. Alliances and blocs will shift. The winds of change, even retreat and collapse, will blow on them in proportion to the damage and losses they have suffered in this sobering crisis.
China and Russia, which some countries call strategic adversaries, have been closer to them. Whereas the allies have appeared more indolent and have refused to help the sick and the victims for strategic reasons that the peoples do not understand in such critical situations.
Economic interests and vital ties will grow in relevance while ideologies, slogans and humanist language will gradually fade away. Globalization, interdependence and other theories that have long been seen as safeguards against disaster are being challenged by all and sundry.
In the end, talking about a changing world is not the fruit of fantasies and emotions stirred up by the coronavirus shock, but a simple reality that has not yet taken its full shape.
The crisis unfolds. We don’t yet know what it will lead to. Talking about change is just a sketch of what might actually happen on the ground if the impact of this crisis deepens and widens.
