Written by Ilan Kelman
Could the global disaster of the Covid-19 pandemic bring warring parties together to improve diplomacy? Based on events so far, the wider conclusions from disaster diplomacy work conducted at IRDR are holding: No new and lasting peace is emerging from coronavirus.
This analysis provides two levels. First, the cooperation and offers of international aid are either part of already existing diplomatic initiatives or else are being conducted for political rather than humanitarian purposes. Second, typical diplomatic spats and violent conflicts are continuing, sometimes using the disease as an excuse to continue them.
A sampling of reported coronavirus-induced cooperation and assistance is:
– China and Russia sent aid around the world, including to the US. China is in a drive to overcome the blame it receives for being the origin of, and for its initially lackadaisical response to, the new virus. Russia is trying to position itself as a friendly giant given the current sanctions against the country.
– Cuba provided medical aid and personnel to numerous countries, a continuation of Cuba’s long-standing medical diplomacy efforts.
– Taiwan donated medical equipment and supplies to several countries, including some which have been more aligned to China.
– Turkey sent aid to Israel, although the two countries have a long history of disaster-related collaboration.
– Ceasefires were offered in Yemen and Afghanistan to support addressing coronavirus, following similar patterns of temporary peace for combatting disease such as through polio vaccinations.
None of the descriptions above precludes altruism. They indicate that any selflessness fortuitously coincides with desired political gain, a typical trait of public diplomacy including for disaster-related activities.
A sampling of reported political and violent conflicts related to the Covid-19 pandemic is:
– Boko Haram ramped up violence in the area around Niger, Cameroon, and Chad.
– The US President criticised and pulled funding from the UN’s World Health Organization, although he has never been a UN supporter.
– Italy lambasted the EU for the lack of support, which is not unfamiliar territory given other member states expressing similar concerns during disasters, such as the economic crises in Greece and Cyprus.
– The governments of China and the US ripped into each other over the pandemic, continuing the usual diplomatic spats between them.
– Iran declined aid from the US, a continuation of the two countries’ hostilities.
Fundamentally, as is typical for activities preventing and dealing with disasters, political entities have their pre-set political pathways and they will not use disaster-related work to deviate from their already established decision. Where they had reasons for supporting others and pursuing diplomacy, the pandemic disaster gave them one excuse among many to do so. Where war, conflict, or enmity were preferred, the pandemic disaster gave them one excuse among many to do so.
Two principal research questions for disaster diplomacy emerge, extending to wider discussions of health diplomacy, medical diplomacy, and pandemic diplomacy:
- Are there counterexamples to the observed pattern, showing that coronavirus diplomacy does create new and lasting cooperation?
- Do options exist for parties, within governments or not, to insist that disasters should create cooperation?