Given the magnitude of the pandemic and its spread, it appears to be almost certain by now how a post-coronavirus world will observe a much different (re)ordering of the global economic and political system of preferences and commitments than the one existing before. The 2008 crash made many countries more unified in ensuring collective banking and financial sector reforms (to save a contagious spread in the financial sector). The 2020 global pandemic might make global commitments and priorities for most nations to become more skewed towards ensuring greater public-health security for its citizenry, seeking more cooperation from partners there.
So far, as the crisis is still unfolding, many critical multilateral arrangements in place- whether it is the G20 or G7 have played a limited role in presenting a unified front, or, in reassuring and providing effective measures of relief to most affected nations. The G2 ‘Great Powers Club’ i.e. the U.S.-China have both faced criticism for displaying weak global leadership, as the pandemic has infected one nation after another.
The United States’ own domestic scenario (seeing the second largest number of reported deaths from COVID19) and the state of leadership, under President Trump, has showcased a weak international position for its efforts in bringing nations together in fighting the virus, or even offer necessary aid/relief to many developing and less-developed countries. Rather, under Trump, it has been engulfed in undertaking more protectionist measures to restrict exports and supply of essential medical equipment to neighbouring countries (and close allies) like Canada and is now considering restricting its contribution(s) to the WHO.
The Chinese state, on the other hand, has utilised the opportunity to push its propagandistic narrative internationally, while emerging as a ‘costly’ supplier of medical equipment for nations (including the U.S.). Despite its effort in providing for the increased short-term demand for medical supplies, it has continued to receive severe criticism for pursuing virus-censorship, keeping most countries in the dark (including the WHO) on the virus and its contagious spread, especially in months of January-February (2020). Japan has now even offered financial support to its firms for withdrawing their operations from China. And in a post-coronavirus economic scenario, many developed nations (in Europe and North America), especially those with a higher trade/economic exposure to China, may (re)consider disentangling direct trade relations with China and/or pursue a decoupling of supply-chains (those heavily reliant on China).
Want to publish your own articles on DistilINFO Publications?
Send us an email, we will get in touch with you.
But, what about India? How can India utilise this crisis as an opportunity to reorder its global commitments and emerge as a significant actor to allow more nations to become interdependent and associate with a large developing market?
This is an opportunity because in relative comparison to other countries, say, the United States, China or Eurozone, India has been both fortunate and cautious, in preventing the contagious spread of the virus in its domestic territory, and taking the necessary precautions ahead, may come out on the better side (with lesser deaths) of the crisis. It has also taken larger efforts to send across medical supplies and drugs (including hydroxychloroquine) to other nations in the past few weeks.
Source: Fortune
