Geopolitics and COVID-19: Synergies, dominoes and their impact on the global tourism product
The novel coronavirus pandemic, which has already infected over 23 million and has claimed over 800,000 lives worldwide, is perhaps the greatest catastrophic event we have faced in the modern history of the global economy.
Appropriately described as the great equaliser, the pandemic has spared no one as we have seen some of the more traditional global powers being stretched to their limits while, ironically, some of the smaller countries have been able to manage the spread of the pandemic with greater efficiency.
Irrespective of the sizes and resources of countries, however, the economic impact of the pandemic has been universal. As the health and human toll grows, the economic damage is already evident all around us and represents the largest economic shock the world has experienced in decades.
Millions of jobs have been already been lost including 50 million in the travel and tourism segment. The global economy is projected to contract between eight and 10 per cent this year as the pandemic is expected to plunge most countries into recession in 2020, with per capita income contracting in the largest fraction of countries globally since 1870. Beyond the economic impact, the pandemic has also presented a range of political, geographical and cultural implications. Noticeably, the ongoing pandemic has reinforced the power of the State in its traditional role as protector of society as governments globally have been at the forefront of coordinating responses, surveillance and monitoring and organising economic relief efforts within and across borders. It has also been observed that most countries are finding it difficult to balance competing interests at both the national and global levels.
Governments have been forced to make harsh decisions prioritising public security over the economy with no ideal outcome in most instances. Contradictory to we have grown accustomed to since the era of globalisation began in the 1980s, we have seen most countries made decisions to promote national interests over global interests over the last several months. Unfortunately, we now live in a hyperconnected world where countries can no longer escape the consequences of the action or inaction of other countries. We have also seen the resurgence of long-time ideological debates with respect to issues such as rights and freedoms versus the public good, religion versus science and idealism versus realism.
Among global powers, there has been great anxiety that weakening economies and increased political instability at home will affect chances of re-election and weaken their states politically against their main rivals in the international realm. Overall, it has been virtually impossible for many global leaders to escape the ambivalent political impact of their policy responses to the pandemic. This is because key policy decisions have become increasingly subjected to multiple, competing interests which must be delicately balanced against each other. Undoubtedly, some global leaders are facing moral dilemmas in which generally accepted policy responses to the pandemic have conflicted with narrowed political and fragmented interests and have produced sharp ideological contestations among internal groups and with key external actors. Some of the more extreme elements of these ideological contestations have included: the proliferation of conspiracy and fringe theories, xenophobic suspicions and fears, widespread perception of attacks on freedoms, anti-science sentiments, darwinist ideation and defiant economic pragmatism.
For their economic survival, some countries have been left with little choice but to reopen their borders to facilitate international trade and travel. Of course, questions about premature reopening amid rising infection rates are valid but are counterweighted against the necessity of economic survival. Once again, this underscores the idea that policymakers have been faced with very difficult decisions during this period. Indeed, two of the most daunting considerations that have confronted many global leaders universally have been choosing to prioritise either the economy or public health or how to balance both.
There has obviously been no easy answer to either question and countries have largely made very calculated decisions where this issue is concerned with many opting to use very strict protocols to guide a managed reopening of their economies and their tourism sector.
The tourism sector is particularly vulnerable to adverse geopolitical developments which can engender, among potential tourists, an adverse disposition towards international travel and an increased fear or suspicion of other cultures resulting in increasing insularity or narrow-mindedness of people.
Additionally, inefficacy at national levels in managing the pandemic can prevent the timely recovery of international tourism or undo gains made in other countries especially since many countries with both high and low recovery rates have now decided to reopen their borders to each other for international travel.
Edmund Bartlett is Jamaica’s Minister of Tourism, and Chairman of the Global Tourism Resilience and Crisis Management Centre. He is also Member of Parliament for St James East Central, and Leader of Government Business in the House of Representatives.