WHO delivered medical supplies to fight the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Congo in April 2020. Credit: World Health Organization (WHO)
By Lawrence Surendra
BANGKOK, Thailand, Jun 4 2020 (IPS)
In the midst of the COVID 19 pandemic, the much-anticipated 73rd World Health Assembly (WHA) of the WHO concluded without any major controversies or disagreements.
The landmark WHA resolution to bring the world together to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, co-sponsored by more than 130 countries, and adopted by consensus, called for the intensification of efforts to control the pandemic, and for equitable access to and fair distribution of all essential health technologies and products to combat the virus.
Basically, a message that any vaccines produced should not be privatised by corporate capitalist greed.
Pandemics have been with us for a very long time. Medical science and public health focus on infectious diseases spanning the pre-antibiotic and post-antibiotic era, has tried to keep pace with the newer forms and zoonotic variations and shown us that reducing the emergence of a virus to a single source is futile.
The eminent flu epidemiologist, late Dr Louis Weinstein, commenting on the 1968 Hong Kong Flu epidemic that appeared simultaneously all over the world, observed that such epidemics do not spread from a single source. Humans have constantly battled with new infectious diseases.
Post COVID, anti-bacterial treatments for what are called ‘sick-car’ and ‘sick building’ syndromes are now flourishing. Though, however much we sanitise and keep our immediate environment clean, will that help in the fight against infections and infectious diseases?
Dr. Zinsser in , ‘Rats, Lice and History’, wrote in 1935, “ Infectious disease is one of the few genuine adventures left in the world … however secure and well-regulated civilized life may become, bacteria, protozoa, viruses, infected fleas, lice, ticks, mosquitoes and bedbugs will always lurk in the shadows ready to pounce when neglect, poverty, famine or war lets down the defences….
About the only genuine sporting proposition that remains unimpaired by the relentless domestication of a once free-living human species is the war against these ferocious little fellow creatures which lurk in the dark corners and stalk us in the bodies of rats, mice and all kinds of domestic animals; which fly and crawl with the insects and waylay us in our food and drink and even in our love”.
His work was considered a classic with the NYTimes calling it, “one of the wisest and wittiest books that have come off the presses”.
Looking for the source of the viruses is a distraction in understanding the causes. The destruction of our natural environment, clearly, has been the major cause for the pandemics that humanity has faced.
COVID 19 forcefully brought this truth home; while forcing a lock down on the activities of humans, it allowed the natural world to breathe again.
Rene Dubos, the pioneer of Ecological Medicine, who was awarded a Pulitzer in 1969 for his classic work, ‘So Human an Animal: How We Are Shaped by Surroundings and Events’, brought to us long back the connection between the state of our natural environment and our pathologies.
Writing in the Scientific American (1955) an article titled, “Second Thoughts on the Germ Theory’, he wrote, “During the first phase of the germ theory the property of virulence was regarded as lying within the microbes themselves. Now virulence is coming to be thought of as ecological. Whether man lives in equilibrium with microbes or becomes their victim depend upon the circumstances under which he encounters them”.
He was the one who coined the expression, “think globally, act locally” which nowadays is used like a fashion statement, without knowing the origins or the deep philosophical significance Rene Dubos attached to an expression that he first coined. The current COVID world has forcefully shown the importance of “thinking globally and acting locally”.
Where do we go from here in managing this global public health crisis and repairing the relationship of humans to the planet and its sentient beings? The question ‘What now?” is posed as a query for action, for a road map, in the way, the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation Report ‘What Now: Another Development ‘
posed it in 1975.
Another Development: Approaches and Strategies was launched in 1976, as an independent contribution to the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Development and International Cooperation. With a print run of 100,000 copies in six languages, the Report came to play a significant role in the development debate during the following years.
The ‘What Now Report’ was envisaged as a “tribute to the man, Dag Hammarskjöld, the UN Secretary-General 1953–1961 and one of the last century’s most remarkable international leaders, who more than any other, gave the United Nations the authority which the world (now) needs more than ever”.
The five principles of ‘Another Development’ in 1975 stated, “Need based – Development geared to meeting human needs, material and non-material; Endogenous – stemming from the heart of each society which defines in sovereignty its values and the vision of its future;
Self-reliant – implying that each society relies primarily on its own strength and resources in terms of its members’ energies and its natural and cultural environment;
Ecologically sound – utilising rationally the resources of the bio-sphere in full awareness of the potential of local ecosystems as well as the global and local outer limits imposed on present and future generations.
And based on Structural transformation – so as to realise the conditions required for self-management and participation in decision making by all those affected by it, from the rural or urban community to the world as a whole, without which the goals above could not be achieved.
These five principles are even more relevant today and could be the new Panchseel of a new commitment we should make for mutual co-existence between peoples and between humans and nature.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, delivering the prestigious Dag Hammarskjold Uppsala Lecture on Earth Day in 2018 and titled, ‘Twenty-first century challenges and the enduring wisdom of Dag Hammarskjöld’, stated that, “The problems of our time are global problems that can only be solved with global solutions”.
Pointing in his lecture that Hammarskjold, “was a man of culture”, Guterres said, “that allowed him to have a universal view, a universal perspective; to consider diversity as a richness; to be able to understand others; to promote tolerance; to promote dialogue and to find solutions for the most difficult and intricate diplomatic problems of his time”.
“This is what, indeed, is sometimes lacking today” and that, “the proof that this translated into a vision of the world that remains as accurate today as during his lifetime is very well captured” he said in what Hammarskjold had said then, ‘Our world of today [of course many decades ago] is more than ever before, one world. The weakness of one is the weakness of all, and the strength of one – not the military strength, but the real strength, the economic and social strength, the happiness of people – is the strength of all. Through various developments that are familiar to all, world solidarity has been forced upon us. This is no longer the choice of enlightened spirits, it’s something which those whose temperament leads them in the direction of isolationism have also to accept’.
Almost five decades later, organizations with the history, prestige and authority like the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation are uniquely placed to draw upon the wisdom of the past and cooperatively navigate Earth and humanity to a safe place.
Reviving the spirit of ‘What Now’ as the new Panchsheel that works beyond nation states and the strong men that lead these nations states lies the future.
The Foundation needs urgently to take initiatives, using the current crisis as an opportunity to create new global institutional platforms for solidarity based on the principle of ‘planetary citizens’ away from the hyper-nationalists of the present who in history, have “goose stepped” us into disasters.
New generations are looking for such answers. The world must move away from the strong-man politics of men who are also no ‘men of culture’.
Former US President Barack Obama in his Nelson Mandela speech in South Africa, commenting on strong man politics dominating the major large nations of the world, said, “Look around. Strongman politics are ascendant, suddenly, whereby elections and some pretence of democracy are maintained—the form of it—but those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning”.
Fortunately, both in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern hemisphere we now have women in power who are bringing a different quality to national and global leadership.
From Asia, and in small countries like South Korea articulate women of such clarity and depth of experience in international leadership, like Madam Kang, Kyung-wha Korea’s Foreign Minister, are leading with such finesse the Foreign Policy of a nation wedged between big powers. These resources of leadership need to be harnessed for the global good.
The theme for World Environment Day (Friday June 5), is ‘Time for Nature’. Humanity has ‘Time for Nature. Nation states and strong men who lead them have no time for nature which is why we are in the mess we are in and why we need ‘Another Development’ led by this new generation of women leaders currently managing national and global affairs with such wisdom.
The post Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: What Now? appeared first on Inter Press Service.
Excerpt:
Lawrence Surendra is a Chemical Engineer and Environmental Economist and has been a Scholar-in Residence at the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, Uppsala, Sweden
“Before there can be truth there must be a true man”-- Chuang-Tzu
The post Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: What Now? appeared first on Inter Press Service.
By Vladimir Popov and Jomo Kwame Sundaram
BERLIN and KUALA LUMPUR, Jun 4 2020 (IPS)
The world economic contraction so far this year is largely due to measures, especially at the national or local level, to contain or prevent Covid-19 contagion, particularly those restricting business operations, thus reducing economic activity, output, incomes and spending.
Vladimir Popov
Lower business and worker incomes have reduced spending, for both consumption and investment, and thus overall or aggregate demand. While there has indeed been much novel ‘financial folly’ in the last decade, responsible for its dreary ‘recovery’, and financial circumstances will retard recovery, the cruel public health dilemma posed by the viral pandemic is surely its immediate cause.
To be sure, recent economic performance in much of the world had been quite lacklustre, with no strong recovery since the 2008-09 global financial crisis and Great Recession despite the unexpected impact of ‘unconventional monetary measures’, especially in the north Atlantic economies.
Recessions and recessions
The recessions have been quite uneven, due to different circumstances and responses. Various aspects may bear some resemblance to other supply-side recessions, e.g., those caused or worsened by post-war conversion of armaments industries, oil price shocks (e.g., in 1973, 1979, 2007) and ‘shock therapy’-induced ‘transformational recessions’ in ‘post-communist’ and other economies in the 1990s.
A general recession typically involves declines in many, if not most industries, sectors and regions. Such output contraction typically implies underutilized production capacities, raising unemployment unevenly during a general recession.
In contrast, a structural recession refers to falling output in one or a few related industries, sectors or regions, not sufficiently offset by other rises. However, not all supply side recessions necessarily involve structural transformation, especially if not deliberately induced by government.
Really different this time?
A structural transformation – with unviable activities declining as more ‘competitive’ alternatives grow – may not involve overall economic contraction if resource transfers – from declining activities to rising ones – are easy, rapid and low cost.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram
Such resource transfers typically require ‘repurposing’ labour as well as plant, equipment and other ‘fixed capital’ stock. Typically, unplanned structural transformations result in supply-side recessions as resources are withdrawn without being redeployed for alternative productive ends.
Some examples include post-war recessions when converting military industries to peacetime non-military purposes after wars end. After the Second World War, US output declined for three years, and was 13% lower in 1947 compared to 1944.
The 1990s’ recessions in many post-communist economies were similarly due to poor management of structural transformations with declining agriculture and manufacturing, often despite more resource extraction, with some contractions deeper than the 1930s’ Great Depression.
In market economies, such adjustments typically increase unemployment as industries become unprofitable – e.g., due to cost spikes – and lay off workers. Growing unemployment lowers wages, while the conventional wisdom claims that cheaper labour costs will induce new investments.
Market resolution of such unexpected, massive disruptions is likely to be poorly coordinated, slow and painful, with high unemployment for years. Alternatively, governments can guide, facilitate and accelerate desired changes with appropriate relief and industrial policy measures.
Keynes needed, but not sufficient
Slumps in travel, tourism, mass entertainment, public events, sit-down eateries, hotels, hospitality, catering, classrooms, personal services and other such activities have been due to physical distancing and other containment requirements.
Such collapses will not be overcome with support, relief and stimulus measures as most such activities cannot fully resume soon, even in the medium term. Expansionary Keynesian fiscal and monetary policies to address collapses in aggregate demand have limited relevance in addressing government-mandated restrictions intended to contain contagion.
Furthermore, as Nobel economics laureate Paul Romer and Alan Garber note, “loan guarantees and direct cash transfers will stave off bankruptcy and default on debt, but these measures cannot restore the output that is lost when social distancing keeps people from producing goods and services”.
Of course, relief measures for those losing incomes can help mitigate the effects of the adverse supply and demand shocks involved, but much depends not only on direct, but also indirect, second or even third order effects, partly reflected in Keynes’ ‘multiplier’ muted by other government measures.
A necessary precondition for the multiplier to accelerate broader economic recovery is the prior existence of underutilized productive capacities. Otherwise, increasing demand will simply raise prices when output and efficiency cannot be quickly increased profitably.
One size does not fit all
Newly restructured economies will inevitably emerge from the pandemic, but some will do better than others. There is and will be greater need and demand for new as well as modified goods and services such as medical supplies, health facilities, care services, distance learning and web entertainment.
Economies trying to adjust to the new post-contagion context should use industrial policy or selective investment and technology promotion to expedite restructuring by directing scare resources from unviable, declining, sunset industries to more feasible, emerging, sunrise activities.
Enabling, incentivizing or even requiring needed resource reallocations can help overcome supply bottlenecks. China and other East Asian countries have already had some early successes in thus addressing their Covid-19 downturns.
All workplaces adversely affected by precautionary requirements will need to be safely reconfigured or repurposed accordingly. Structural unemployment problems, due to skill shortages not coinciding with available labour skill supplies, can be better addressed by appropriate government-employer coordination to appropriately identify and meet skill requirements.
Government policies, e.g., using official incentives, can thus encourage or induce adoption of desirable new practices, such as ‘clean investments’ for ‘green’ restructuring, e.g., by using renewable energy and energy saving technologies. Without such inducements, stimuli and support for desirable new investments, desired structural shifts may be much more difficult, painful and costly.
Thus, the ongoing Covid-19 crisis should be seen as an opportunity to make much needed, if not long overdue investments in desirable sunrise industries, services and enterprises, including personnel retraining and capability enhancement as well as workplace repurposing.
Vladimir Popov is a Research Director in the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute in Berlin and author of How to Deal with a Coronavirus Economic Recession?
The post Covid-19 Recessions: This Time It’s Really Different appeared first on Inter Press Service.