As experts and politicians around the world grapple with the aftermath of the coronavirus crisis, Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state and national security adviser under President Nixon, in a recent Wall Street Journal article, warned that the coronavirus pandemic will change the world order forever.
Its negative impact on public health may be fleeting, but its political and economic blow will be felt for generations to come.
The words of Mr. Kissinger and his expert counterparts, who had witnessed major global crises, must be taken seriously. These experts have been instrumental in tackling them and in developing strategic assessments, insights and alternatives on how to deal with them. His views are well worthy of analysis and debate. His article made some particularly relevant points.
First of all, there is the centrality of trust between governments and peoples. This trust is the basis for the management of such crises, based on societies’ confidence in the ability of their governments and bodies to handle and reduce risks and bring back stability.
It goes without saying, therefore, that governments should wait for an assessment of their effectiveness and capacity to manage the crisis once it has come to an end. In this context, a crucial question arises as to the final outcome, which will be the decisive factor in forging public opinion in favour of or against the way the crisis is being managed.
The determinant remains the ability of governments to follow the course of the crisis in all its dimensions and to reduce its impact, as well as to ensure public confidence by mitigating risks and aligning public interests: the health of citizens, minimising economic losses, maintaining the proper functioning of institutions to ensure recovery from the crisis, and finally, safeguarding mental health and social cohesion.
Kissinger adds another important point for managing the coronavirus crisis at the global level. He stresses that the world is dealing with the crisis on a national level, while the social, health and economic impact of the virus goes beyond that.
The urgent task for world leaders then becomes to launch a parallel project to move to the post-coronavirus system. For me, the first part of this point is of great significance. Competition has clearly overshadowed cooperation in the face of the crisis, to the extent that mutual accusations of responsibility for the spread of the virus eclipse political positions on the world stage.
The crisis has turned into an opportunity to settle political and strategic accounts. Conspiracy theories have prevailed among some leaders.
Under these conditions, it will be difficult to cooperate and create rapid international mechanisms for mutual support, at least with regard to the exchange of experiences and information, even to discover vaccines or treatments needed to stop the spread of the virus.
On the contrary, countries are vying with each other to discover vaccine or cures first, thus revealing one of the worst faces of globalisation and the tyranny of unbridled capitalism.
In terms of looking into a global system for post-pandemic transition, I do not see a chance for a global dialogue on this. The current interactions and tensions, however, speak to a progress towards creating a basis for a future global dialogue on the restructuring of the post-pandemic global system. More specifically, the tension between China and the US at this stage is part of the parties’ pursuit of certain strategic objectives related to post-coronavirus management. Perhaps this struggle is a bit like preparing the ground for what is to come.
It also matters to appreciate Kissinger’s perspective about the limits of states’ ability to respond to the threat of the virus. He recognizes that no country, not even the US, can defeat the virus single-handedly. A global vision and a protocol of cooperation are required for dealing with it. To fail to do so would have serious consequences for the entire world, he warned. What we see around us does not bode well for the chances of finding a global cooperation arrangement, at least for the time being. Beijing and Washington keep shifting the blame. On top of that, some states keep acting resolutely selfish. Some countries, such as Turkey, have even pirated medical supplies for European countries in a way that is unbecoming of civility and human values.
Kissinger’s article set off a warning signal to the American political mind. It reflected the eagerness of the USA to maintain its leading position in the current world order. Kissinger, a seasoned strategist, writes of a desire to push US Policymakers to build a deeper and broader view of the crisis and to use it as an opportunity to strengthen the US Global position. That is why he calls for the urgent development of a Marshall Plan that commits his country to work on three tracks.
The first was to support global efforts to combat infectious diseases and support practical research, underscoring the urgency of developing new infection control techniques and providing appropriate vaccines to large populations.
The second axis focuses on responding to the impact of the crisis on the global economy.
He stressed that the current economic crisis is more complex than the financial crisis of 2008. The rapid emergence of the coronavirus has led to a global recession unprecedented in history. These effects call for swift action programmes in the face of imminent chaos threatening the world’s population.
The third axis is that of protecting the principles of the liberal world order by rethinking the protectionism of modern governments, totally at odds with the realities of the global economy, trade, transport, travel and tourism, which have brought prosperity to economies by removing barriers and borders and facilitating free movement and trade.
But here is the rub: most Kissingerian ideas are not compatible with the policies of the current US Administration, particularly as regards the rejection of protectionism and adherence to the liberal values that are at the heart of the leadership of the US and the West in general in the world. Abandoning these principles would imply for the West to abandon leadership and seek other foundations that might be available in competing theories and political regimes, such as China.
Kissinger’s vision therefore starts from the fact that the crisis is above all a challenge to liberal values and principles. He therefore urges the world’s democracies to defend and preserve modern values, warning that if the balance tips against legitimacy towards authority, the social contract will disintegrate at the national and international level.
The problem is that the West of which Kissinger speaks is no longer a single bloc. These same liberal values can be questioned by some Western politicians. Indeed, some view the Chinese system of government with admiration. Everyone knows that President Trump’s policies tend to be largely isolationist and protectionist. The Democratic Party itself is moving to the left, and its presidential candidates are opposed, among other things, to free trade agreements.
