13 May 2020, NIICE Commentary 4640
Shakthi De Silva
The outbreak of COVID-19 has resulted in a flood of analyses on the geopolitical dynamics of a Post-COVID-19 world. The internet is rife with hypotheses, some dubious, on the origins of the virus and the ‘winners/ losers’ in a Post-COVID-19 world. Some point to ‘authoritarian leaderships’, such as China, as the ideal political model to flatten the curve. Others argue that the dichotomy should not be framed as democratic-authoritarian, but rather as inefficient-efficient, political administrations. Largely absent from these analyses is the discussion on COVID-19 from the theoretical lenses of International Relations.
Many Liberals viewed the wave of global interdependence as an irresistible force. Not only was it believed to be a source of prosperity, but Liberalists also maintained that it would decrease the incidence of international conflict, leading to long term peace and stability. COVID-19 has certainly dampened this Liberal optimism. States have enforced travel and entry bans, border closures and quarantines to limit the spread of COVID-19. This constrictive international order might prevail, in varying degrees, for longer than expected, if a cure or vaccine is not found soon. Large corporations may also be induced to move away from more profitable approaches such as outsourcing and sustaining Global Value Chains, towards one that limits the production chain to the national borders of a country.
International cooperation has taken a back seat as state leaders scramble to protect their citizens. The European Union is a good example, particularly in the way several European leaders reacted to Italy’s request for support as it struggled to contain the virus. Ashley J. Tellis, in an essay to The National Bureau of Asian Research, describes another case, which saw President Trump browbeating India for exporting hydroxychloroquine to the United States under pressure, despite the drug being of dubious effectiveness against the Coronavirus. Thus, self-help, or in this case self-preservation, seems to be the guiding principle of states in the prevailing international environment.
How does Realism explain this phenomenon better than Liberalism? Realists have contended that in an anarchic international system, self-help becomes imperative because states are concerned about their own survival. In their view, states are driven by the need to protect and promote their own national interests despite the long-term benefits of international cooperation. When the drastic impact of global warming really kicks in, this phenomenon will be even more widespread.
Realists also downplay the importance of international institutions, in contrast to Liberals, who stress upon their value and utility when dealing with global problems. Once again, which theoretical lens better explains the role and performance of international institutions today? For starters, mixed messaging by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the rather lenient approach it adopted towards China resulted in substantial backlash from some world leaders, especially by the US President Donald Trump, who cut funding to the Organisation. Moreover, the general public no longer looks towards the United Nations Secretary General or other heads of international organisations for leadership and guidance. Instead, they turn to their own state leader and political bureaucracy, which creates a form of ‘rally around the flag’ effect and substantially diminishes the significance and utility of international institutions. Nevertheless, is it premature to say that this tendency augurs the decline of multilateralism and international institutions? To be honest, yes. The role played by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) during this pandemic is a case in point. NATO was quick to prepare forces to combat the COVID-19 crisis, and even prepared air and maritime deployments as readiness measures for battling any threats that may arise due to the pandemic, including threats faced by NATO’s COVID-19 workforce.
In conclusion, does this mean that Realist thought is the ideal approach to make sense of the prevailing milieu? Not always. Realism puts primary focus on dealing with traditional security threats on a national level. Threats from other states, involving attacks from military forces, rank high on the agenda, while pandemics rarely, if ever, feature in Realist literature. Realists also contend that states should prepare for threats by accumulating power. Accumulating power involves developing the economy to reinforce military forces and weapons which would hardly be of use to deal with a pandemic.
What does all of this mean? On the one hand, economic interdependence which engendered a globalized world as well as the utility and efficacy of international institutions have been questioned, and at times criticised. Realism did predict the ‘false premise of international institutions’, (eloquently argued by John Mearsheimer in 1994 through an article by the same title), but for different reasons. Realists believe that international cooperation would not persevere in the long term owing to the prospect of relative gains, not due to an inept response and mixed messaging. Moreover, in contrast to Realist claims, some organisations, such as the NATO, have mounted a relatively effective response to the pandemic.
Insights from Realism do help explain, to a certain degree, the prevailing international order and what might follow in the coming months, but it is important to remember that no International Relations theory perfectly explains the world at all times. The tenets of Realism such as statism, self-help, the emphasis on national interests, etc. have helped describe some aspects of what is taking place in the world, but it is best to keep in mind the fact that the world is in constant flux with nothing set in stone.
