Author : Pratnashree Basu

Expert Speak Raisina Debates
Published on Apr 10, 2020
Health crises may originate anywhere in the world, but the subsequent responses from the concerned countries characterise their roles as responsible collaborators or otherwise in the international system.
COVID19: Taiwan, accountability and global institutions

COVID19 has resulted in opening up a Pandora’s Box of uncertainties which in turn have triggered numerous questions. The most popular among these revolve around the economic situation after COVID19, collective capacities for handling health challenges, and whether there will in due course be a shift in the geopolitical landscape.

The international order is comprised of groups of nations as part of institutions which monitor, deliberate and devise norms of international conduct which are in turn influenced by the bargaining capacities of member nations, a practice that is and will continue to be inherently political. But now, as news, opinions, theories of combating the virus and a constant stream of updates and trackers are crowding every inch of online space, a section of this conversation has begun to question the efficacy of an international system which fails to account for global challenges because of the extent to which it is held hostage to varying degrees of influence and duress. These concerns come in the wake of the knowledge that Taiwan’s alerts on the coronavirus as early as at the end of December 2019 went unheeded by the WHO.

Taiwan needs mention in the context of questions concerning the possible shifting of geopolitics because it is an instructive instance in terms of how power and influence shape said dynamics. The country has a rather unfortunate story as far as global politics is concerned with no scope for participation in global forums and formal recognition from a handful of countries which have decreased over time as Beijing lures nations into cutting off ties with Taipei in exchange for economic and political backing. For years Beijing has sought to systematically delegitimise Taiwan’s participation in global platforms and has ramped up these efforts after the previous election in 2016 saw the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party come to power. But on many domestic indicators such as democratic politics, stable democratic institutions and a highly developed market economy, human rights and civil liberties, Taiwan is a frontrunner.

These concerns come in the wake of the knowledge that Taiwan’s alerts on the coronavirus as early as at the end of December 2019 went unheeded by the WHO.

For the last few years, the country has also progressed by leaps and bounds in terms of a solid foundation in digital adaptation practices and advances in medical research technological applications. In many ways, the exclusion that the country has faced diplomatically — and which is now more or less accepted by a section of the public which has come to prefer that diplomatic aid money be spent at home — has contributed to enhancing resilience, sufficiency and competence as a nation. Informally, Taiwan has been able to maintain diplomatic channels with several countries for years and even as its interventions on the pandemic were ignored, it has been able to work with countries in the EU and the US with regard to the development of test kits.

China on the other hand, has a reputation for being opaque and the reports of cover-ups and mishandling that surfaced once COVID19 became public knowledge contributed to escalating a sense of disfavour towards the country primarily because of how it handled the virus when it was still at the stage of an outbreak. The country has always been and continues to be sensitive about its image and its legitimacy and true to its nature, it has launched into an image-recovery of sorts comprising of building a narrative about how it bought the international community time, is supplying medical test kits and masks and has pledged financial aid to the WHO for fighting what has now become a pandemic, claimed thousands of lives across several countries and has resulted in systemic disruptions which the entire world will be left grappling with even after we manage to reach a degree of control over the pandemic.

Unsurprisingly, the responses of Taiwan and China to the outbreak have been in stark contrast. They vindicate Taiwan’s expertise, transparency and prompt action while exposing China's mishandling, suppression of vital information, and delayed action. Even so, not only did the WHO ignore the preliminary reports that Taiwan made but has since deliberately sought to ignore subsequent updates and in a recent viral video clip, a senior WHO official disconnected the interaction after being asked about Taiwan’s membership to the organisation in the context of recent developments. The WHO has since then sought to salvage the situation albeit rather feebly. Meanwhile, reportedly, the wet markets in China — ground zero for the SARS-COV2 and the earlier SARS outbreak in 2013 — are reopening.

The responses of Taiwan and China to the outbreak have been in stark contrast.

Arguments which posit that the ongoing botched handling of the crisis by countries in the west and the simultaneously apparent pro-activeness of China in recent weeks and its ‘Covid Diplomacy’ indicate underlying shifts in the world order, tend to fall into a loop of not only simplistic but also unsound assumptions. It is also unfortunately not a tit for tat scenario of China gaining brownie points if the US messes up or vice versa. The reality, as is often the case, lies somewhere in between. Rather, it is perhaps increasingly being recognised that an over-reliance on supply chains which orbit around China need to be diversified. Systemic shifts in global order are not provoked by shocks like COVID19.

Health crises may originate anywhere in the world, but the subsequent responses from the concerned countries characterise their roles as responsible collaborators or otherwise in the international system. In all likelihood, once the pandemic is behind us, the possibility of the debates surrounding China’s role taking a backseat is very probable. What is more worrying in the long run is the fact that the odds of China being made to assume any degree of responsibility may be quite a reach given the country’s clout and the concurrent weaknesses of institutional mechanisms like the UN or the ICJ, which China has disregarded in the past as well. What can be however constructive is a re-examination of these institutional mechanisms and how breaches can be disincentivised.

The pandemic is weighing down with all its might on the entire world but its arrival has also brought into focus the very pressing need to resuscitate a world that is confronted with manifold challenges, the mitigation of which demand setting the house in order.

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.

Author

Pratnashree Basu

Pratnashree Basu

Pratnashree Basu is an Associate Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Kolkata, with the CNED programme. She is a 2017 US Department of State IVLP Fellow ...

Read More +