Waves on one sea

30 March 2020, 13:23

“When the second world war should have faded into history, it was still part of our daily life, shown on our TV screens, providing an unfettered view of international relations, with its sense of cohorts and flag-waving. Unable to see things differently, we even handle diseases like war. But during a pandemic there are no reassuring borders to hide behind,” reflects Fabio Alberti, member of Un Ponte Per’s National Committee.

My mother received a pack of masks from a friend in China with a note which said: “We are waves on one sea, leaves on one tree, flowers in one garden.” Not just solidarity between different groups (Chinese and Italian) but between similar beings (waves, leaves, flowers). There should no longer be the notion of ‘other’.” A leap of logic after years of a nationality-based sense of identity.

The spread of Covid-19 has highlighted the obvious irreversibility of global problems faced by humanity as a result of its increased capacity – in terms of both population growth and technology – to influence the whole world through our actions.

Like climate change, the virus does not respect borders and requires a global response, global actions and global governance. It is now clear that political issues must be tackled on a planetary level which will require a profound shift in terms of the political institutions as we know them, and not just in terms of how we live, but also in terms of how we think. And think about ourselves. We must go beyond solidarity as a form of empathy towards ‘others’.

Instead we are witnessing a paradoxical reaction of isolation by some countries, especially Western countries, who cannot see that we are all “waves on one sea”.

Faced with a shortage of masks and medical equipment, there was no suggestion of establishing a planet-wide system of production and distribution, based on rational strategies based on equal and adequate use around the planet, which would ideally have been entrusted to WHO, as an organisation with the necessary power and resources.

In Europe, it was every country for itself, with many countries slow to react and guilty of increasing risks for others, for fear of damaging their own economies, while others focussed on self-sufficient policies and border closures.

This is a step backwards with regards to treaties, such as article 168 of the Lisbon Treaty which enshrines the need for Europe to “adopt measures to fight the scourges which happen across borders, including surveillance, warning and the fight against serious threats to health across national borders.”

Thus began a shameful race to hoard, with some countries seizing deliveries, others closing their borders and some left without any, based on the ‘us first’ approach, where ‘us’ is Italians, Czechs, Germans or Americans, even trying to take control of vaccines.

So in the future, face-masks will be considered ‘strategic weapons’ to be hoarded, by each of us, together with nuclear or conventional warheads, according to the deadly metaphor which sees an epidemic as war.

And it is not just a question of ‘waging war on the virus’, which is anyway a senseless idea, but as a war between countries. This chilling concept was expressed by Domenico Arcuri, the Italian Special Commissioner for the Coronavirus Crisis. After referring to which countries are our ‘allies’ he then declared ‘face-mask war’ on all the others, possibly unaware of what he was suggesting. As if they are like any other trade or other raw matter.

And so war, which after the second world war should have faded into history, despite being shown daily on our TV screens, has come back unfettered into international relations, with its cohorts and flag-waving. Unable to see things differently, we even tackle disease as a war.

This rush to save ourselves, even at the expense of others, is in direct contrast to evidence showing this is no longer possible.

Because this pandemic, just like for pollution and global warming, does not recognise reassuring borders behind which we can defend ourselves or attack others: unless the disease is wiped out everywhere, it will still be everywhere. It is not just a question of solidarity, although that is also a necessity.

To tackle the ourbreak in Africa, for example, WHO needs immediate additional funding of 3 billion dollars. This is a laughable amount, equivalent just 0.15% of global defence spending. And then there’s the Middle East, ravaged by years of divisive war and with healthcare systems torn apart by structural adjustment policies. This is where the virus could trigger a real slaughter. And create a permanent threat for the rest of humanity.

Apart from WHO, which makes regular but ignored appeals, no international political institutions are considering a global approach to stopping the pandemic. For example, if WHO were given the powers, resources and funding to tackle the spread of the disease, they could organise a rational distribution of resources and coordinate research. As a result, at least some money could be provided for humanitarian aide in the poorest countries, which are often considered as ‘others’ rather than ‘us’.

There has been no Security Council meeting (whose security?), no UN General Assembly meeting to decide on joint action and shared strategies and expenses. In fact it seems that some countries are trying to benefit financially and strategically from the crisis, for example by imposing a medicine embargo on Iran, which is basically a death sentence for thousands of people and as such should immediately be cancelled. For the sake of humanity but also for the greater good.

However messages of solidarity with Italy hare arriving from around the world demonstrate that there the world could still take an alternative route.

It took a holocaust for us to realise that there is no such thing as race.

It will take more than a pandemic to convince us that there is no such thing as nations. But maybe the time has come for us to start thinking about it.

Fabio Alberti, member of Un Ponte Per’s National Committee