What the Coronavirus will not change

Having now twice spoken to my laptop for an hour and a half, I am quite sure that there is one thing that the corona crisis will not change: when all of it is behind us, we will not be doing more online teaching on a permanent basis. Going to lecture somewhere and interacting with the audience: that is fun. Distance lecturing, on the contrary, makes me feel slightly silly, as if I am talking to my refrigerator. (Which I did, recently, but it broke down anyway. A new one was delivered just in time to allow us too to do just a little bit of hoarding. No toilet paper for us, though, but canned confit de canard).

Read the full text below.

(Photo credit: Gerd Altmann, Pixabay)

*****

What the Coronavirus Will Not Change

Having now twice spoken to my laptop for an hour and a half, I am quite sure that there is one thing that the corona crisis will not change: when all of it is behind us, we will not be doing more online teaching on a permanent basis. Going to lecture somewhere and interacting with the audience: that is fun. Distance lecturing, on the contrary, makes me feel slightly silly, as if I am talking to my refrigerator. (Which I did, recently, but it broke down anyway. A new one was delivered just in time to allow us too to do just a little bit of hoarding. No toilet paper for us, though, but canned confit de canard).

A permanent increase in teleworking seems unlikely as well. Personally, in the mornings I often work from home already, in order to write, but after half a day I need a change of air. In other words, after only one weekend of semi-lockdown in Brussels, I am already bored with it. Not that I am such a social person, but it is the idea that one cannot invite even a single friend over for dinner. And that one cannot pop into a bookshop and idle away some hours browsing the shelves. This is probably the weirdest about the corona crisis: normally, in such times you would seek support and solidarity from friends and family, but precisely that is now impossible.

That the coronavirus heralds the end of globalisation, as some already purport, is even less likely.

Yes, perhaps things will change on the domestic front in some countries, especially in how they organise crisis management and the health sector. But I do not see any major political overhaul on the horizon. It is difficult to portray a particular government as singularly ineffective if all countries are struggling. And a (potential, temporary) end to the political paralysis in Belgium does not count as major political change.

In China, many complain about the system’s belated reaction to the outbreak, and there have been demonstrations in the hardest-hit cities. Xi Jinping’s opponents within the Chinese Communist Party may emerge strengthened as a result, but (as I wrote earlier) this will probably not be the end of CCP rule. China already insists that it has overcome the crisis (incurring the risk of declaring victory too soon). But even if it does come out of it first, it will not gain much economic benefit from it if the American and European economies are now slowing down in turn. The more than likely economic recession is bad news for everybody and will probably not really affect the international balance of power.

Instead, the corona crisis confirms existing power relations: it is the most powerful, not necessarily the most effective states whose message dominates the news. Taiwan, which is not allowed to join the World Health Organisation because it is not recognised as a state, has the situation under control. Without a lockdown and in spite of its close interconnectedness with China, but having taken precise measures. Had other countries looked at this example sooner, perhaps the crisis had escalated less than it now has.

The corona crisis may strengthen the conviction that international supply chains have to be reassessed. That idea was already on the rise, and geo-economics is on every leader’s mind. The EU, for example, published a new industrial strategy just last week. In certain sectors, Europe wants to be less dependable on foreign players, for reasons of employment, security, and sovereignty. And, of course, everything has to go green and digital.

But nobody is aspiring to autarchy. Throughout history, nearly all states have depended on international trade, and that will continue to be the case. Epidemics became pandemics in the past as well: the current degree of globalisation is not a precondition for that. Only America before the arrival of Columbus escaped the plague and many other diseases. Unfortunately no travel ban could be imposed on him…

Globalisation can certainly be better organized, and more binding and enforceable rules imposed in the social, ecological, and health spheres. The EU could be a lot more ambitious in these fields. That the EU still has some power to set norms and standards with a global impact at all, including through free trade agreements, is exactly its strength. Abandoning this instrument means abdicating in favour of two other great powers: China and the US. Does anyone think they will organise globalisation more justly?

Preparing the end of globalisation is not realistic. Working towards a better regulated globalisation will already be difficult enough for the EU. The starting point, of course, is to show solidarity within the EU now, when the crisis in Europe is at its peak.

In the meantime the Belgians for once must really stick to the rules and follow the government’s guidelines, for everyone’s health and safety. Of the thousand reasons not to start a new book (reading or, in my case, writing one) not a single one remains. So, at it!

Prof. Dr. Sven Biscop, director of the Europe in the World Programme at the Egmont – Royal Institute for International Relations and professor at Ghent University, now mostly works on his next book at home, and is fortunate that he has no classes in Ghent this semester. His previous book is European Strategy in the 21st Century (Routledge, 2019).