Can G7 put an end to global chaos?
While it is premature to conduct post- mortems on the response to the coronavirus pandemic in the middle of the crisis, or to gauge the utility of the economic response, it is possible to render some preliminary judgments.
There has been an abysmal lack of international cohesion in combating the virus. It is “every nation for itself,” competing fiercely for essential supplies that were scarce from the outset — a scarcity stemming from a lack of preparation. These deficiencies reflect a lack of leadership compounded by institutional gridlock and, in some cases, sheer incompetence.
The UN has been essentially AWOL on the virus, mesmerized more by unfulfilled aspirations about the problem of tomorrow — climate change — than by the global crisis of the moment. Its key agency, the World Health Organization, seems more concerned about politics than health — sidestepping transgressions by China, where the virus originated, while snubbing Taiwan, one of the few global success stories. The fact that a Canadian at WHO was directly involved in the latter is frankly embarrassing.
Responses generally have been after the fact, shoring up deficiencies of essential medical equipment. New drugs and potential vaccines are being pushed through under accelerated timelines, all to try to contain the spread of the disease.
This does not disparage the valiant efforts of those in the front line of the pandemic — health workers who are coping courageously and doing their best to work around systemic shortages.
We are being inundated with data about the pandemic that is partial at best and distorted or confused at worst. Predictions on the fly based on incomplete data, along with sweeping mitigation measures aimed at containing the virus, are generating unprecedented panic and anxiety in our cities and communities, the longterm consequences of which could prove more devastating than the impact of the disease.
Hoarding of commodities, everything from toilet paper to basic foods and cleaning materials, reflects the dark side of human nature. Some merchants are blatantly fleecing their customers. Some producers are selling only to the highest bidder anywhere in the world. Fortunately, both groups are in the minority.
By using the Defense Production Act and higher bids in an attempt to divert supplies of masks from 3M away from allies like Canada and Germany to the U. S., the Trump administration was committing gross malpractice on basic trade rules.
The economic fallout is not getting the attention it merits. A plunging stock market, shuttered businesses and soaring unemployment rates have prompted helter- skelter injections of public funds that could trigger national bankruptcies and threaten the fabric of our democratic model of governance. As David Marcus wrote in the Federalist: “What we are sacrificing by a policy of total lockdown is the livelihood, the dignity and, in many ways, the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans.” He added: “We cannot base our public policy on a total fear of death.”
Paul Krugman compared actions to date as the “economic equivalent of a medically induced coma.” But will the patient recover? Draconian mitigation measures are potentially devastating, possibly irreversible. With little public input, basic rights are being abrogated to public health.
There needs to be a better balance. Precautions should be proportionate to the actual risk.
The greatest test of leadership is resilience in the face of unexpected adversity. If public trust is squandered that could provoke a grave political crisis and stimulate support for more radical, political alternatives. Public trust must be earned by confident leadership and bold, balanced initiatives in response to unforeseen challenges. It should never be taken for granted.
Authoritarian governments are not fettered by democratic principles or values. China was the source of the virus but failed initially to report it. Now China is profiting immensely by selling huge volumes of scarce medical gear. It needs to make a strong commitment to more honest and transparent reporting and to better public sanitation starting with the total closure of “wet” markets involving live animals. A voluntary boycott of Chinese products might get its attention.
We face a systemic crisis where initiatives meant to address global security continually fail because of the difficulty of gaining consensus from countries that have different ideologies and different global agendas. Too often we appear to be pumping air into chronically flat tires, like the UN. But democracies should not be consistently hobbled by institutional paralysis that is caused by profound differences on the method of governance. It may be time to shock the system with a radically different approach to international co-operation.
The G7 was founded among powerful global economies that shared basic democratic values to serve as a forum for consultation and co-ordination on major global economic issues. These summits need a major reset. Since the COVID-19 virus has consequences for both global security and the global economy, the G7 could fill the institutional vacuum and provide a leadership role ensuring that the world meets the current challenge and, more importantly, is better equipped to cope with future pandemics.
Perhaps fortuitously, the U. S. will chair the next G7 Summit this summer at Camp David. Donald Trump is not known to be a fan of any multi-national institution, but he just might rise to the occasion, orchestrating a more collective mitigation effort, one that does not smash the global economic order. As improbable as it may seem, if the U. S. does not lead, who will? The U. S. is vital to any semblance of global leadership.
Trump might also propose that Bill Gates, who warned about a pandemic of today’s magnitude more than five years ago, head a commission of the best and brightest brains of the future to provide recommendations on what is needed for the globe to respond more effectively to future pandemics. It should not be a G7 monopoly. Representatives from democracies that have done well in the current crisis like South Korea, Singapore, Sweden and Taiwan should be included. We need fresh eyes and new skill sets to develop vaccines and supply chains for equipment to meet the challenge. Most of all, our governments need to rekindle trust that they can marshal expertise and guidelines more effectively in the future.
A bold action plan coming from the G7 could be the tonic that the strongest democracies need to rebuild trust in their institutions of governance. The more individual democracies try to go it alone and the more desperate they become, the more likely support for their system of governance will deteriorate and the more attractive authoritarian examples will become.
There is one bright spot. The private sector, particularly in the U. S., from commercial labs to auto manufacturers and retail giants like Walmart, have stepped up their game to fill supply vacuums. In Canada, CAE developed a prototype for a ventilator in 11 days and expects to produce 10,000 units in three months. We could use more of that ingenuity in politics as well as in business.
The UN has been essentially
AWOL on the virus.