Coronavirus and the World Order

Coronavirus is posing a global health risk. The World Health Organization has declared it a pandemic. Beyond the health crisis, and the economic costs, the political implications of the pandemic are far-reaching.

International relations experts are yet to explore fully its impact on the world order. Liberals would emphasize on cooperation and they would point at the attempts of international organizations including the United Nations and World Health Organizations and cooperation between countries to prevent the virus from spreading worldwide as liberal attempts. The constructivists would argue the centralized political culture of China would tolerate no criticism of the establishment in handling the spread of the virus and direct the blame towards the outside power. On the other hand, the democratic culture of the United States would generate heated debate across party lines and the highest political leadership would be subject to criticism. For the realists, countries would aim at securing the border and minimizing damage to the national interest. They would do so by imposing travel restrictions, tightening border control, and isolation. All the perspectives do not necessarily run in isolation. Some policies of a state can be considered realists and some policies can be considered liberal.

The coronavirus politics and practice have emerged as a setback to diplomacy. G-7 foreign ministers meeting was scheduled to be held in Pittsburgh later this month. The US State Department recently decided to hold the meeting virtually. International meetings and conferences at various locations, including in Orlando, have been canceled. The United Nations canceled many of its events. Countries have tightened their borders. All the affected countries around the world have also imposed some form of travel restrictions and tightened their borders. Even though it may appear necessary, the emerging trend reflects some kind of isolationism. Remaining secure inside the national territory, without worrying what is happening outside, has become the trend. But the virus seems to run in the opposite direction. Despite all restrictions and impositions, the virus is spreading. The contagious power of the virus defies the power of sovereign states and their militaries. The virus has spread over all continents.

The past three decades, particularly after the end of the Cold War announcing the end of ideological rivalry, witnessed an intense debate on global governance and human security. With the rise of international terrorism, pandemics and global warming, which transcended national borders, the momentum gained for international cooperation to address these issues. In universities, academic programs were created on global governance and human security to study these issues. The recent developments involving coronavirus, however, run counter to the visions of global governance and human security.

The politics involving coronavirus has indicated that the ideas and visions of global governance have taken a back seat. With the aggressive emphasis on national security and border protection, the vision of a globalized world seems a distant dream. It appears the Kantian vision of ‘perpetual peace’, in which nations would prefer a trade to war, democracy and republicanism to authoritarianism would be difficult to realize at least for decades. The recent politics of coronavirus corroborates such a pessimism.

Trump and Jong-un, USA-North Korea, War and Peace: A Gandhian phase in international politics

During news conference on June 12, 2018, after his talk with North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, the US President, Donald J. Trump, affirmed, ‘Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace.’ This reminded me Mahatma Gandhi, who called war immoral, and wrote, ‘War, with all its glorification of brute force, is essentially a degrading thing. It demoralizes those who are trained for it.’

Some political analysts may find this pronouncement of the US President paradoxical, but what I am concerned more here is with the historic nature of the talk, and President Trump’s extending a hand of friendship to the North Korean leader. The analyses of the historic talk indicate that not only the talk ended on a positive note, but also it will herald a new phase in international politics, not only for the East Asia, but also for the world. Let us consider these points.

First, the continuation of the peace process and the consequent ceasing of nuclear weapon building activity on part of the North Korea and the US stopping its joint military exercises in East Asia will save enormous resources, which can be diverted to other constructive purposes. President Trump during his electoral campaign had signaled that the US is incurring heavy expenditure in these joint military exercises, and he would take steps to stop it, thus saving billions to the US exchequer. Also, North Korea would tremendously benefit from the ceasing of hostilities. Its poor economy was overburdened with military expenditure. A coolheaded analysis would show that these steps would not only reduce tensions, but would also save huge resources.

Second, during their talk, the North Korean leader pointed out that the history of suspicion had led to such a war like hostile situation – North Korea piling up weapons, and the US adopting strong measures such as economic sanctions and increasing its military presence in the Korean peninsula. President Trump seconded Jong-un. Many agreements had failed. The pressure of sanctions and force had not worked effectively. The net result was building of weapons, including nuclear weapons by North Korea, increasing US investment in the region in terms of military presence. A peace process, started earnestly, will reduce trust gap not only between the US and North Korea, but also between North Korea and South Korea and Japan.

Third, this development is more of an affirmation of liberalism in international politics. Fear and mistrust, the core feature of the cold era, led to production of lethal weapons. Fear as reflected in security dilemma, implying that a state is not sure how much strong its enemy is, and how much it is prepared to wage a war, contributed to this arms accumulation and war preparation. This realist approach actually increased insecurity among nations instead of defusing it, and created more havoc. North Korea threatening to target US mainland and the US threat to display its fire and fury are all the reflections of this realist, egoistic, approach. In place of war, cooperation, trust and economic relations are sure elements to build peaceful relations in this globalized world.

Gandhi wrote a long ago that war ‘brutalizes men of naturally gentle character. It outrages every beautiful canon of morality. Its path of glory is foul with passion and lust, and red with blood of murder. This is not the pathway to our goal.’ He further wrote, ‘…the economic war is no better than an armed conflict. This is like a surgical operation. An economic war is prolonged torture. And its ravages are no less terrible than those depicted in the literature on war.’ Gandhi’s argument that ‘war is not a morally legitimate means of achieving anything permanent’ has become increasingly relevant in the current times.

The coming of the two leaders shows that the world is heralding a new phase in peace and cooperation. The protracted Korean crisis lingering for the last 70 years, embroiled in the Cold War, ideological, politics could perhaps have not been worse. North Korea suffered from economic underdevelopment, while South Korea prospered. North Korea invested huge resources in arms, while its people starved. The US spent billions to provide security to its allies against North Korea. Years wasted. But, better late than never! Who knows, had this saber rattling continued, there could have been a nuclear catastrophe and third world war! We are fortunate that no such thing happened, and President Trump and North Korean leader Jong-un took the step in the right direction.

Mahatma Gandhi must be turning in his grave, smiling. It is the Gandhian spirit that worked a sort of miracle in Singapore! Gandhi rightly said, ‘there is no path to peace, peace is the path.’ It is only in peaceful environment that positive peace can be realized. The more the world leaders realize this, the more they act on this principle, the better for us and for the world! The meeting in Singapore early this week held such a promise! There are better days for the world coming. And it is incumbent on all peace leaders and activists to cherish this moment and work along this line, and call for and engage in peaceful praxis all over the world.

The author’s forthcoming coedited book is Gandhi and the World. For details see: https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498576406/Gandhi-and-the-World