[ad_1]
For almost a century, the United States has always stepped forward in times of crisis to exercise some form of leadership. Sometimes your contributions have been largely welcomed; other times, not so much. And the results have not always been as expected. But the basic American instinct to lead was present. For better or worse, the rest of the world grew used to it.
However, with Donald Trump in the White House that leadership ended. Already in the presidency of Barack Obama, the United States had reduced the scale of its global commitments, recognizing the fact that it did not have the resources to solve each and every one of the world’s problems. But even “leading from behind,” the United States continued to lead.
What may have been a recognition of necessity under Obama has become an unquestionable principle and loudly proclaimed with Trump. On the role of the United States in the world, Trump is putting into practice – with hints of revenge – what he proclaimed in his presidential campaign. Over the past three years, “America first, and everyone else on their own” has been the message emanating from the White House.
The real-world implications of this shift in focus have now been laid bare. In 2014, when Ebola began to spread through West Africa, there was a serious danger that that regional outbreak would turn into a global calamity. But the Obama administration stepped forward. Working closely with the World Health Organization, USA mobilized a global response and managed to contain the epidemic. It did not occur to anyone to label Ebola the “African virus” or accuse the WHO of negligence and embezzlement.
Since then, the spirit of global collaboration has been under constant attack. With Trump, the United States launched a trade war against China and its own allies, and abandoned major global agreements such as the 2015 Paris climate agreement and the nuclear deal with Iran. For years a fierce bilateral fight for control of the digital economy has been increasing in scale.
Due to these tensions, in practice the UN Security Council has been absent from the covid-19 crisis. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called for action, but the United States and Russia have delayed the matter and the rest of the Security Council countries have remained silent. While one might have hoped that the G20 would again play the pivotal role it played during the 2008 financial crisis, the organization is currently under the presidency of Saudi Arabia and thus its erratic young ruler, the crown prince. , Mohammed bin Salman.
Can a new coalition or the international order be forged
is doomed to involve
a jumble of multipolarity and power struggles, where
unique really global
is a lethal virus?
In the meantime, China has filled the gap by declaring from the mouth out the importance of global governance, but mainly seeking to develop its bilateral relations. Chinese shipping shipments of face masks and other items sail the seas towards their recipients with the requirement that they have an official reception, with national flags and everything. It is a very welcome help, but his ulterior motives are too evident.
Just as obvious is the fact that much more could have been done to limit the spread of covid-19 in the first weeks of the outbreak in Wuhan. The Chinese government has been the subject of well-deserved accusations for these rulings.
Although, certainly, China is not the only place where the official response could have been better. But post mortem is for after the fact. The immediate priority is to mobilize all available resources to contain the pandemic. No one should assume that this story is over.
And unless there is a strong and sustained international response, what will happen in Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria, Brazil or any other large country with high urban population densities? With the United States absent and China’s credibility affected, there is an urgent need for someone to assume the duty to lead and begin to mobilize a coordinated response., be it through the WHO or another way. A pandemic is like a forest fire: if it has not been put out everywhere, it is not completely extinguished.
Could the European Union take the step, or is it also consumed with its own problems? Could an entirely new coalition be forged to streamline things, or is the international order doomed to further involve a jumble of multipolarity and power struggles, where the only truly global phenomenon is a lethal virus? In a post-American world, those are the questions we must answer.
Carl Bildt He is a former prime minister and former foreign minister of Sweden.
© Project Syndicate. Stockholm.
