At the Guggenheim foundation in Venice, a work of art by Maurizio Nannucci - who I met in Vienna during my work as City Councillor - is displayed, which calls for changes: changing place, changing time, changing thoughts, changing the future. Changing places today is not easy, and time is changing anyway. But we should perhaps consider changing our thoughts about the future. Let us take up Nannuci’s call concerning our future.
What is the new normal?
It is is not easy to predict how the virus will change our future world. The famous author Steven Pinker from Harvard University recently said that most of what is written today about the consequences of the pandemic will be wrong. In economics, students are taught that the best forecasts are ones about the past. But we have to plan for the future. There are many good reasons to think about what should (!) be changed in the future. The question is whether the return (!) to “normal” is the best way to plan our future after the pandemic. And therefore, the question is whether the - past - normal is really normal. Is it normal to neglect environmental degradation and global warming? Is it normal to disregard the economic consequences and costs of certain forms of globalization? Is it normal to accept wide discrepancies in income and wealth on a national and a global level?
There are two extreme positions on how to react to the Covid-19 crisis. The first one is just to prepare to go back to the situation and conditions as they existed before the outbreak of the pandemic - maybe even with some strengthening of already existing tendencies. The famous economist Dani Rodrik expects such a development: “Neoliberalism will continue its slow death. Populist autocrats will become even more authoritarian. Hyper-globalization will remain on the defensive as nation-states reclaim policy space. China and the US will continue on their collision course. And the battle within nation-states among oligarchs, authoritarian populists, and liberal internationalists will intensify, while the left struggles to devise a program that appeals to a majority of voters.”
Others hope for a more radical shift, some sort of revolution, that would result in a quick and thorough de-globalization. Some of those have a very nationalistic, authoritarian, and egoistic concept of combatting globalization. President Trump and several right-wing European forces are convinced of their “me first” policy. Others long for de-globalization along more progressive lines. They want to bring production “home” and send foreign workers out without damaging other countries, especially poorer ones. All countries should be able to rely more on their own resources.
Reorganizing and reframing globalization
Let us look at some realistic designs for the future which would be difficult to implement regardless. The former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine abstains in his analysis for Terra Nova from a simple anti-globalization policy. But he criticizes the specific form globalization took when first the Americans and later the Chinese enforced their economic interests on the world at large. These two powers have a special interest in financial deregulation and show a common disrespect for cultural peculiarities of other nations and regions. The other countries and people became victims of their way of globalizing and governing the world. The conflict between the US and China are not conflicts between two different concepts but quarrels between two global powers who compete in promoting the same “violent” way of dominating the world. It is time to change this way of globalization and give cultural and national interests a bigger stake.
One of the failures of this form of globalization is that it is not constrained or controlled by a political multilateral structure. This failure has become extremely visible during the present Corona crisis. This unfortunately is partly also the case inside the European Union - although or because health care is not a competence of the European Union. What we need - first of all - is not a general de-globalization but a parallel globalization on the political level. But the Trump administration in particular is totally opposed to such a strengthened multilateral framework. If Trump continues as US President after the next election, the US itself would become an existential problem for the world. Thus, the EU must even take a stronger and more leading role in global affairs. It must insist on a stronger multilateral framework, constraining globalization.
Health and climate policies are twins
Especially concerning healthcare, we need a new and differentiated strategy. The EU should not rely only on international supply chains and delivery systems. European countries need national and European stocks of necessary materials and drugs. At the very least, the EU and EU governments should have the possibility to quickly turn on the production of everything necessary to save lives and care for all people living on our continent. European Commission President von der Leyen correctly asked for an additional European dimension that adds to the green one a white dimension. Health becomes an important element of national but also European protection of the citizens of the European continent. That does not diminish the importance of global cooperation. The more Europe shows strength and unity, the more Europe can ask for global cooperation and action.
But our renewed and enforced attention given to health cannot substitute other important political strategies. In reframing globalization, we need an effective and efficient climate policy. It would be a disaster to refrain from an active climate policy because of the economic crisis following the shutdown/lockdown of many economies. Even the strong depression that we can expect should not divert us from the gradually started climate policies. On the contrary, Europe should design and develop its climate policy as a strong component of all recovery programs. We should also promote climate action globally, especially with our neighbors. The European recovery depends significantly on the recovery of our neighbors.
The business-friendly McKinsey & Company recently published a report titled “Addressing the Climate Change in a post-pandemic World” that clearly states: “Not only does climate actions remain critical over the next decade, but investments in climate-resilient infrastructure and the transition to a lower-carbon future can drive significant near-time job creation while increasing economic and environmental resiliency.”
Not only are the immediate environmental and economic effects important, but also a long-term reorientation of our approach to organize our economic and social life: “Addressing pandemics and climate risks requires the shift from optimizing largely for the short-term performance of systems to ensuing equally their long-term resiliency.” So even if pandemics have a more direct, visible, and immediate effect, there are close links between environmental degradation and health risks. Therefore, healthcare and climate policies should go hand-in-hand. Europe must insist of a parallel development of its green and white deal.
Thinking and helping beyond borders
It is true, that the coronavirus is affecting people without discrimination. But personal income, wealth, and the place of living of people greatly determine their ability to self-isolate and receive adequate treatment. And it often decides the chances of surviving economically the drastic measures. Income and wealth distribution issues persist and may even aggravate the future chances of people after the pandemic. This is true nationally but also globally. Therefore, any recovery program on its financing and its expenditure side must try to reduce income and wealth inequalities. This would be an enormous contribution to the prevention of conflicts and the attractiveness of terrorist groups.
A very critical issue is the effect of the pandemic on all different forms of migration. If the richer countries - and globally they will stay richer in spite of the virus - don’t help fight climate change and reduce inequality, the push to migrate will continue. Even an inhuman and violent strategy against refugees and migrants will not help in preventing - enforced and “voluntary” - migration.
In Europe we also need migrants if we want to preserve certain standards of living as well as social and healthcare standards. It is interesting that Boris Johnson, after having been discharged from the hospital after his treatment, thanked expressively two nurses - coming from New Zealand and Portugal. And only recently, the UK flew in thousands of “veg pickers” from Romania who are needed in the farming sector. It is very cynical, but the presence of foreign workers was the main argument for Brexit and yet one needs to fly them in - and of course send them back when no longer needed.
On the other hand, tourism may also be shrinking. We have to find policies and mechanisms to develop a “soft” tourism, including transport to foreign places. It will be more expensive, but it should not result in a return to tourism only for the wealthy. Saving the valuable land and monuments from decay and destruction due to the increased number of tourists must be brought into line with chances for all - independent from their income. Also concerning tourism, we should think about the rights of tourists to visit but also respect the right of people to live a decent and undisturbed life in their home countries and cities.
We need a new normal
It is certainly not normal to restrict our daily movements and the chances to see our families and friends. It should not be normal to go around with masks over our mouths and noses. It is not normal that our schools are closed - even if some pupils are happy about it - for some time. But not everything we did in the past should be seen as normal and self-evident. Therefore, already now, we should think what kind of normality we should aspire to. Even if the spread of the recent virus does not automatically lead to a new and better world, we shouldn’t refrain from designing a new and better world. Combatting the coronavirus is not only urgent, but climate change and the disastrous income and wealth discrepancies are a danger for survival and peace. Let´s start to prepare a new normality and this can only be implemented by close global cooperation.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.