The new coronavirus and the subsequent worldwide crisis is once again forcing the issue of a Third Way between neoliberal capitalism and authoritarian systems onto the global agenda. Especially as we have “two failing superpowers” in China and the US, as Martin Wolf recently wrote in the Financial Times. Whether we live in a bipolar world or without any strong pole or even in a chaotic global system, Europe should take the chance provided by the present crisis to develop a new global strategy — a strategy that should not imitate any of the existing ways to deal with global issues such as the coronavirus.
China
China has fought the coronavirus relatively well and quickly. But we should not forget that the centralized and authoritarian system rejected early warnings from doctors in Wuhan and even forced denials from them. Precious time passed before the Chinese authorities reacted. Now they are generous in offering help to other countries. This help is welcome, but we have to see both sides of the coin. And we should insist on what Wolfgang Ischinger and Stefan Oschmann called in Handelsblatt a „Responsibility to Report,” parallel to the “Responsibility to Protect.”
In addition, there is another danger of contagion coming from China, but not only from there: the use of ‘social media” and of mobile phones to observe and finally to control peoples’ behavior, movements, and contacts. This “virus’ is already spreading to Europe and is infecting the thoughts of some politicians who are already inclined to develop an authoritarian style of politics.
USA
But let’s first look into the developments of the other “failing superpower.” Here the neglect of the dangerous virus was done officially and quite transparently and publicly. President Trump denied the possibility of a widespread infection before he became aware of the danger of such an attitude and of the chance to act like a wartime commander sending troops into war. But as in some European countries, the consequences of the pandemic became worse than necessary because of the lack of a Public Health Service. Such a service cannot prevent the breakout of a contagious virus, but it can guarantee the best treatment possible.
It is the strongly profit-oriented healthcare system and extreme budget cuts in the past years that are now showing terrible deficiencies. This we can see in the US but also in European countries such as Spain, where extreme savings after the financial crisis made the system unprepared for such a crisis. In the US, there has been a reform of the healthcare system. But Obamacare could not achieve enough improvements due to opposition in Congress. This opposition came primarily form the Republicans but — as Bernie Sanders repeatedly underlined, including in personal discussions I had with him — even from some Democrats following the arguments (and the sponsoring) of the pharmaceutical industry. Overall, the US has by far the most expensive healthcare system, yet many people in the US cannot profit from it. Europe should never follow the US “model.”
The American example shows clearly how one should not deal with public health. Europe must insist on a strong Public Health Service and on pharmaceutical supplies that can help actively and successfully overcome pandemics like the present one. Private companies and the supply of health services via the market can play an additional role, but they must always be integrated into a public health scheme. But there are also other viruses that should be dealt with neither in the US nor in the Chinese way.
The fragmentation of the Internet
Let’s come back to the other dangerous contagion, which is now more visible than ever: the anti-democratic virus. This virus has spread around the globe already for a while, but with the coronavirus, it got support and new strength. For China and other countries such as Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, the free and global Internet is a threat to their regimes. Therefore, they have been working for some time already on establishing new Internet protocols (New IP ) that would give their governments stronger control. They aim to substitute the networks that are organized and controlled predominantly by US companies, including Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook. As Shoshana Zuboff, the author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, says: “Right now we have two versions of the internet - a market-led capitalist version based on surveillance, which is exploitative, and an authoritarian version also based on surveillance.”
China — and specifically its leading technology/communication company Huawei — is very active in promoting its concept of state-controlled internet. James Griffiths, author of The Great Firewall of China: How to Build and Control an Alternative Version of the Internet, analyzes the Chinese endeavor to build a Digital Silk Road: “In proving that you can control and intensely surveil your domestic internet and avoid it being used as a tool to rally people against the government, combined with the economic success of its companies, China has made this vision incredibly attractive to regimes - autocratic and otherwise - around the world.” And China and its authoritarian friends are trying to convince the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) that these state-controlled internet companies should have the same recognized position as other IT corporations. However, their aim is a decoupling and “nationalization“ of the Internet and the social media. These countries want to use a nationally-organized Internet to control their citizens and their behavior, even in times when there’s no health risk.
Europe should develop and pursue a third way
Neither the traditional “free” and US-organized Internet platforms nor the strongly government-controlled and obedient companies in China can be of satisfaction from a European and democratic point of view. Europe should first of all become even more active in setting stronger conditions for international companies that related to consumer rights, data protection, and the spreading of fake news. Already during the coronavirus crisis, some of these companies have been more actively combating — medical — fake news than in the years before with political fake news. But maybe it is not too late to develop European communication networks and platforms with stronger regulations but without misuse by state authorities that seek to restrict personal freedoms. Whatever concept and policies Europe develops, it must be a third way between government control and full dependency on US communication giants.
Concerning the present crisis, one must acknowledge that the European Union did not play a vital, coordinated, or active role in addressing the spread of the virus. Of course one has to recognize that health is not a predominantly EU-level competence and that the pandemic coming to Europe so strongly was a surprise. And there are different ideas for how to react to the contagion and its spread among European politicians and experts alike. But we should learn for the future. And this learning should lead to the strengthening of European cooperation on health issues, including guaranteeing the supply of drugs, masks, and ventilation machines. In addition, we should also be open for international cooperation through the World Health Organisation and beyond.
Needless to say, a crisis such as the coronavirus demands strict measures concerning public life. But we should resist relinquishing standards of data protection and human rights, even in times of a pandemic. We should fight contagions without resorting to authoritarian methods that are likely to stay beyond the coronavirus pandemic. And in any case, democracy asks always for parliamentary control. Today one can see too many political forces that are treating privacy and data protection very casually, and some are ready to forget their arguments of yesterday.
I cannot agree more with the former High Representative of the EU Javier Solana — who is himself hospitalized after having tested positive — who writes in a comment for the European Council for Foreign Relations: “Ensuring maximal preservation of civil liberties and continuing to hold our leaders accountable is not just an ethical imperative; it is also our best line of defence against threats like the one we face today. Doing so does not weaken our societies; on the contrary it enriches the public debate, thus increasing our chances of identifying the most suitable response.”
Neither the US way of dealing with health issues nor the Chinese way provides a model that Europe should follow. And that is also the case for the regulation or non-regulation of Internet and platform services. Especially in times of enforced reduction of personal contacts and even quarantines, it is important to have Internet services run and managed by responsible companies with respect for public interests and without public censorship. Europe should go this third way, and in the long run, others may follow, even if other more radical — private or state — attitudes get more support in other regions of the world.
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.