Many times we have all heard words and concepts that are more or less vague, such as global security and stability or global threats. We have also heard in research centres and on talk shows about threat sources and risk scenarios. But no one really seriously discussed the risk of a global pandemic. Movies took a step ahead of the institutes and study centres in suggesting future scenarios for epidemics, wars, biological conflicts and other real and potential threats.
At a time when all of humanity is trying to fend off the coronavirus pandemic, research and media debates are being conducted on the possible repercussions of this epidemic, looking at the contours of the post-crisis era.
In both East and West, the global crisis has brought the world economy to a standstill, raising fears of a difficult future for most national economies. An objective discussion of global crisis management over the past two decades provides useful conclusions and lessons worth reflecting upon.
The most important one, in my view, is that the whole world seemed captivated by a single threat, viz. International terrorism, extremism and militancy under religious pretexts, a real thorn in the side of all countries. But this is not the ultimate threat.
It is not really helpful to focus scientific and academic discussion and efforts on the study of the dimensions of a single phenomenon, regardless of the magnitude of the threat. The issue has come down to a pile of repetitions, in conferences, seminars and all the discussions centred on terrorism and its networks.
Of course, it has not been at all wrong to widen the elitist and societal debate on the subject of terrorism. Rather, it was a question of broadening the sources of threat facing the world and incorporating more serious forms of danger, such as epidemics, into the global conversation.
According to one team of researchers, the outbreak of epidemics was well established as a source of threat. But until recently, it was thought to pose a danger to less developed countries and communities, that is, the Third World or the Global South. Epidemics are a symptom or complication of the syndrome of poverty, ignorance, lack of awareness and high population growth.
So, the developed countries paid little attention to this danger, except in the area of biological warfare. They took it into account. But it was at the military level, not at the healthcare one. They thought that their preventive and curative health systems and their great capacities in the field of health care are developed enough and that they would make proactive plans that will do it.
The world has not paid much attention to such epidemics on a large geographical scale, as was the case, for example, with West Africa’s Ebola outbreak a few years ago. At least 11,000 people died then. At the time, the world did not show enough solidarity to fight the dreadful epidemic.
The world did not perceive the fragility of health systems as an absolute disaster in the event of an epidemic and rapid transmission to individual countries, as was the case with the emergence of the coronavirus. In the first weeks of the outbreak in China, the world has sometimes sunk into conspiracy theories, and sometimes into an atmosphere of epicaricacy and expectation that this crisis would have consequences on the accelerated economic rise of China.
During the first weeks of this coronavirus epidemic, the mind of the world was absent. Political football dominated the scene until things got out of hand and the outbreaks moved westwards. So if there’s an important lesson here, it’s this: Outbreaks break geographic lines and pandemic can’t read maps.
