The Future of Diplomacy After COVID-19

Multilateralism and the Global Pandemic

Hana Alhashimi, Andres Fiallo, Toni-Shae Freckleton, Mona Ali Khalil, Vahd Mulachela, Jonathan Viera, Hana Alhashimi, Andres Fiallo, Toni-Shae Freckleton, Mona Ali Khalil, Vahd Mulachela, Jonathan Viera

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780367764029
• eBook ISBN: 9781000384260
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Economía
• Subtopic: Desarrollo sostenible

This book considers the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international diplomacy, and the challenges and opportunities it presents for the future of multilateralism.

Global cooperation and solidarity are central to responding to and mitigating the health and socio-economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, yet, to many, this was slow to mobilize and lacking in political leadership. This book takes a practical look at the lessons learned from the period spanning the World Health Organization's first declaration of a public health emergency of international concern in January 2020, to the commemoration of the 75th Anniversary of the United Nations in October 2020. This timespan covers a critical period in which to consider key areas of diplomacy, covering a range of tools of global cooperation: multilateral diplomacy, the rule of law, sustainable development, economics and financing, digital governance, and peace and security. Each chapter in this book introduces readers to the current situation in their respective areas, followed by a constructive consideration of lessons learned from the pandemic's impact on that field, and key recommendations for the future. The practical focus and future orientation is particularly important as the book injects pragmatism and guidance that will facilitate 'building back better' in COVID response plans, while creating space for continued focus on global commitments around sustainable development and the future of the UN.

Written by a team of authors who have worked directly in International Public Policy and the establishment of global agendas at the United Nations, this book will be essential reading for professionals and policymakers involved in diplomatic roles, as well as students and scholars interested in the future of international relations, global governance and sustainable development.

1 COVID-19

Where public health and diplomacy converge

Vahd Nabyl and Achmad Mulachela

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the contemporary global stage has prompted significant shifts in many countries’ domestic and international priorities. In an effort to control the spread of COVID-19, economic activities and peoples’ movements have been compelled to hastily stop through social distancing and lockdowns, causing ripple effects and restrictions that disrupted not only the conventional aspects of how people conduct their lives, but also the conceptual aspects of how to run businesses during and after the pandemic. While the full-range impact of the pandemic has yet to be seen at the time of writing, there are indications that the world will never be the same, with many pointing to a “new normal” and opportunity for a “great reset.”

The pace the COVID-19 made its way to a global scale transmission was faster than the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2003. This reality could be seen in a chronology of events that occurred since December 2019, when the World Health Organization (WHO)’s Country Office in China picked up a media statement on cases of “viral pneumonia of unknown cause” by the Municipal Health Commission in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China. On 5 January 2020, the WHO published detailed information about the pneumonia. The disease outbreak news explained what responses were taken by the national authorities in China that included tracing, retrospective investigation and sanitizing the environment. No specific recommendations were at first provided by the WHO. Instead, based on the available information on the outbreak at that time, the WHO advised against travel or trade restrictions on China.

About one week later, on 13 January, the Ministry of Public Health of Thailand reported the first imported case of the coronavirus. It was followed by the second case reported outside China, which came from Japan on 16 January. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan confirmed the case of the coronavirus in a person who travelled to Wuhan City. Assessing from the pattern of global travel, the WHO predicted that more cases in other countries were likely. However, at that time most parts of the world did not foresee or prepare rigorously for the arrival of the coronavirus in their countries. The first confirmed case of the coronavirus in the Republic of Korea was reported on 20 January, while the first case in the USA was reported on 21 January. At that time, the coronavirus was still several weeks away from being declared as a pandemic.

Three days later, on 24 January, the first cases of coronavirus in France were announced. These were the first confirmed cases in Europe, and happened a day before the WHO Regional Director for Europe outlined the need for local and national governments to be prepared with testing, detecting cases and other clinical preparedness. By the end of January, there was some consideration of the need for countries to focus on their readiness for rapid detection of imported cases, and to prevent further spread. Following his visit to China on 28 January 2020, the Director-General of the WHO expressed his deep concerns on the continued increase in cases and evidence of COVID-19 human-to-human transmission outside China.

With the purpose to listen to the voices of health experts around the world beyond formal mechanisms, the WHO convened for the first time its weekly informal discussion with a group of public health leaders from many countries on 29 January. That same day also marked the first reported COVID-19 case in one of the Gulf Countries as the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region announced the first confirmed test cases in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). A day later, there were 98 known cases and no deaths in 18 countries outside China. Evidence of human-to-human transmission were found in five countries (China, Germany, Japan, the USA, and Viet Nam), and soon the WHO declared COVID-19 as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), but not yet as a pandemic. In Africa, the first confirmed case in Algeria was reported on 25 February. It was the second country in the continent with reported COVID-19 case after Egypt, which was reported earlier in the same month. One day later, on 26 February, the first reported case in Latin America was from Brazil.¹ On 29 February, Ecuador had confirmed its first case.²

The novel coronavirus got its name “COVID-19” on 11 February, when the WHO announced that this name was chosen without referring to a specific geographical location, animal or individual or group of people, in order to avoid stigma. Throughout February, the WHO also issued several guidelines for a number of planning and operational tools to be used by countries, organizations and individuals. Lessons learned by the WHO from handling the Ebola, H1N1 and SARS outbreaks provided ample material to deal with COVID-19. To further assist the WHO Director-General with strategic advice and high-level political advocacy and engagement in different parts of the world, six special envoys on COVID-19 were appointed on 21 February.

To investigate the epidemic prevention and control in China, and to rapidly report to national and international authorities on the next steps in response to the outbreak, the WHO and China formed a Joint Mission consisting of 25 national and international experts from China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Nigeria, Russia, Singapore, the USA and the WHO. From 16 to 24 February, the Joint Mission visited Beijing, Guangdong, Sichuan and Wuhan to conduct their work. In its final report that was issued on 28 February, the Joint Mission underlined that to reduce COVID-19 illness and death, certain measures must be taken including “the large-scale implementation of high-quality non-pharmaceutical public health measures” such as contact tracing, testing, isolation, and quarantining and community engagement. Recommendations were made for countries that experienced COVID-19 cases outbreaks and uninfected countries, the public as well as the international community. Operational considerations for managing COVID-19 outbreak on board ships during an international voyage were also made.

Domestic and international adaptation to COVID-19

During the months of February and March 2020, high demand and use of personal protective equipment (PPE), including gloves, medical masks, face shields, gowns, goggles, respirators and aprons, in healthcare and in community settings, prompted a sudden surge in global demand for these products. Shortage of PPE resulting from the rise in demand and, in some countries, panic buying and hoarding, resulted in an increase of virus spread risks. Healthcare workers who relied on PPE to protect themselves and patients from infections were particularly affected. Prices of PPE increased, caused by a combination of reasons such as limited supply and trade restrictions imposed on PPE, as well as speculative behaviour of hoarders. Compared to prices since start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the WHO noted in early March that prices for surgical masks increased sixfold, N95 respirators threefold and gowns doubled. Governments and industries were requested to increase manufacturing of PPE.

Although in the first week of March COVID-19 was not yet categorized as a pandemic, calls for action to control, delay, limit and stop the impact of the virus had already been voiced. An independent high-level body established jointly by the World Bank and WHO, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPNB) calculated that the COVID-19 outbreak was predicted to cause greater economic loss than those created by SARS, MERS and Zika virus combined. The monitoring body also requested leadership from the G7 and G20 countries to mobilize sources to fill funding gaps estimated at US$ 8 billion to support stockpiling vaccines and essential protective equipment; manufacturing and delivering treatments and diagnostics; research; and support to the WHO emergency responses.

The number of confirmed cases worldwide passed 100,000 on 7 March. A few days later, on 11 March, COVID-19 was categorized as a pandemic by the WHO. It took almost three months since COVID-19 was identified in China in December 2019 to declare it as a pandemic. Concerned by the alarming impacts and spread of the virus, the WHO Director-General restated his call to all countries to save lives, prevent infections and minimize impacts through a comprehensive strategy involving whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. As the confirmed cases in Europe surpassed the combined numbers of reported cases and deaths in the world apart from China, on 13 March the Director-General of WHO declared Europe as epicentre of the pandemic.

March 2020 saw the pandemic transformed the streets in New York City transformed. Eerie images of closed stores, restaurants, offices and empty avenues in Manhattan were seen in TV and the internet. The city’s lockdown went into effect and residents were required to stay home as the coronavirus cases have risen sharply. Those who must go out to buy food and essential groceries, went with high caution.

Throughout the months of April, May, June and July, the UN Headquarters in Manhattan was practically closed. No in-person meetings were taking place, except on 17–18 June 2020 when the President of the General Assembly convened elections for five non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, the President of the 75th Session of the General Assembly, and members of the Economic and Social Council. These elections took place in the UN General Assembly Hall and attended by representatives of UN member countries. Staff of the UN Secretariat mostly had to work remotely. Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic continued to spread, overwhelming the capacity of health systems in numerous countries. Lockdown measures, whether partially or full, were implemented in many countries. The aim was similar; to reduce pressures on health system capacities by containing the spread of the virus.

By the second quarter of 2020, there was a growing understanding and widespread media focus on the global nature of the pandemic, and the need for the focus to be on supporting frontline workers under immense stress as hospitals in many countries exceeded their capacities. Civil society elements rallied to build support for these “front-line workers,” namely healthcare workers, pharmacy and grocery store staff and delivery services. In New York City, 7 PM was always marked with the sound of car honks and applause by the residents in many neighbourhood – a symbol of support and solidarity to the front-line workers.

International advocacy organizations, often in collaboration with celebrities and the WHO, joined effort to fundraise for this goal of supporting the frontline workers. An example of such program was a virtual concert celebrating humanity “at home,” organized by the Global Citizen. The program, titled “One World: Together At Home” Global Special, was broadcast on television networks and streamed online on multiple global platforms on 18 April. It featured a line of performances by artists including Lady Gaga, Chris Martin, Paul McCartney, Shah Rukh Khan and many more. The concert received a total of $127.9 million support that was distributed to the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund and to local and regional responders. It is notable that similar fundraising efforts to support the fight against the pandemic were also taking place in local and national scales. Different forms of charity were blooming, ranging from free courses online offered by reputable educational institutions, online fundraising campaign to provide free food catered by restaurants for health and other essential workers, and many more.

These overall global phenomena caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has multi-dimensional effects that trickled down and felt at individual level with considerable degree of psychological and social anxieties. With looming unemployment, disruptions to education calendar, food shortages, social unrest and increase of domestic abuse, governments around the world must adopt new plans to protect the lives of their citizens, the survival of their economies, and the maintenance of peace and security.

Redefining national interests: interplay between priorities: protecting the economy and people’s health

Governments around the world adopted various strategies to adjust their development plans and mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Their aims were not only to address immediate public health and economic challenges such as providing emergency treatment facilities for saving lives, but also for achieving longer term goals such as obtaining access to potential future vaccines, as well as to recover better from the crisis. Although the direct impact of the pandemic may not affect every country in the same scale, it is obvious that all nations were affected by its overall consequences of it. This is all the more true when we consider the functioning of the global economy, which relies heavily on the interconnectivity among all stakeholders that do not operate in a vacuum. Policymakers have been looking at scenarios with longer timeframe trajectories, anticipating prolonged burdens that will exhaust their national resources after the pandemic is over.

It is normal that countries embarked on different policy paths, employing varied strategies and approaches to address a problem that has universal characteristics such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods used in one country, even if they had been to some extent successful, would not necessarily be applicable or impactful in another. While all countries shared a similar goal to overcome the crises and rebuild better, each country had its own national priorities, domestic capacities, and unique internal processes that determined how to realistically steer its way out of the crisis.

Nevertheless, there were similar patterns of policies taken by governments. The Blavatnik School of Government of Oxford University published a working paper that compiled data on various measures of government to COVID-19. Common strategies pursued by governments include bans of public gatherings, restriction of travel, closure of offices and schools, investment in healthcare facilities, and other forms of interventions to contain the pandemic and its impacts.³

In the first weeks following the detection of COVID-19 cases, the approach was to contain the spread by encouraging physical distancing, shutting down businesses except the essential ones, providing isolation for patients that contracted the coronavirus. The extent to which such policies were implemented varies from country to country, and in some instances within parts of the same country. As the coronavirus spread further from its first point of discovery in China, the policies to restrain mobility followed. As an example, there were time lags between the mo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsements
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Editors and Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. COVID-19: Where public health and diplomacy converge
• 2. Future of sustainable development
• 3. Future of economic diplomacy and financing for development
• 4. Future of digital cooperation
• 5. Future of international peace and security: From the Spanish Flu to COVID-19 and to the next pandemic
• 6. The future is multilateralism
• Index