This summer has been largely defined by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and accelerating climate change. Both are manifestations of globalization, and the reality of a world increasingly defined by the vast and fast cross-border flows of just about everything, from goods, services and capital to data, terrorists and disease.
Little nowadays stays local for long. A lethal virus that first appeared in Wuhan, China, did not remain there, and greenhouse gases emitted anywhere warm the atmosphere and ocean everywhere.
These two crises demonstrate the woeful inadequacy of efforts to address the problematic aspects of globalization. The so-called international community has again shown itself to be anything but a community.
The COVID-19 vaccine supply is billions of doses short of what is needed. The funds to pay for global immunization are likewise billions of dollars short. Governments are putting their countries first, even though fast-spreading variants of SARS-CoV-2 are emerging in under-vaccinated populations elsewhere and are indifferent to political borders.
As a result, the pandemic remains an intense threat. The death toll is said to be above 4 million, but the real figure is several times higher, owing in some cases to flawed reporting systems, and to deliberate undercounting by populist leaders in Brazil, India, Hungary, Russia and elsewhere.
The economic consequences are likewise substantial, with the pandemic estimated to have reduced global GDP by more than 3 percent. About 100 million people have fallen back into extreme poverty. Inequality between and within countries has spiked.
What makes these developments all the more frustrating is that we know what to do about COVID-19 and possess the means to do it. Several safe and extraordinarily effective vaccines exist. What remains to be done is to scale up production to meet global demand.
In some countries, such as the US, what needs to be done is the opposite: to increase demand to meet the available supply. Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by partisan politics, and misinformation circulating on social media, TV and talk radio, has become dangerously widespread.
If vaccination were complemented by public health measures known to slow the spread of the virus — wearing masks, social distancing, readily available and accurate testing and contact tracing, and quarantine requirements — there would be far fewer and less severe infections, and the pandemic as we know it would fade away.
The effects of the other crisis, climate change, have arrived sooner than many anticipated. For years, the tendency has been to put off any concerted response to the threat, despite clear and growing evidence that the planet is warming.
As is often the case, the urgent crowded out the important, but this summer is showing that climate change is both important and urgent.
Its effects are many. In the US, wildfires in the west rage out of control as the temperature climbs, and smog has blanketed swaths of the country. Europe and China are the scenes of massive flooding. In Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, there are signs of prolonged drought.
The loss of life has been relatively modest, but it could well grow. Economic effects will likewise mount. The number of people who have been internally displaced or forced to migrate is rising sharply as large tracts of territory become inhospitable to human life.
There is much talk about how to slow or stop climate change, but it is mostly just that. The UN climate change conference in Glasgow, Scotland, in November will likely continue to emphasize an approach whereby individual countries offer voluntary commitments to reduce their emissions.
This is important, but it is obvious that many countries are focused more on economic growth at all costs, and are unable or unwilling to adopt energy paths that would meaningfully reduce their contribution to climate change.
It remains to be seen whether there is the will to adopt tariffs that raise the prices of goods made in factories fueled by coal or to impose sanctions against governments that refuse to stop the destruction of rainforests that absorb carbon dioxide. Also to be determined is whether wealthier countries are prepared to make available the funds and technologies that poorer countries need to shift to a greener energy mix.
At the same time, focusing on slowing the rate of climate change, however necessary, is insufficient.
A good deal of climate change has already happened, and more will happen regardless of what is decided in Glasgow. Efforts to adapt to existing or inevitable effects of climate change to make cities and rural areas alike better able to withstand pervasive heat, sprawling wildfires, more frequent storms, floods and more severe drought will also be needed. Resilience will be as important as prevention.
Lastly, we must accelerate the development and regulation of new technologies that promise to remove carbon from the atmosphere or reflect sunlight away from Earth. Such potential responses to climate change are unproven and controversial, but if the collective failure to deal with COVID-19 is any indication, we had better be prepared to consider them sooner rather than later. There is no escape from globalization; the only question is whether and how we choose to manage it.
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
For China observers, especially those in Taiwan, the past decade has brought awareness of an increasing obsession by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with control. It seeks to control not simply national policy, but all aspects of its citizens’ lives. Not a week passes without some new aspect of Chinese life being brought under CCP control. This forces obvious questions: Why this obsession? And what is driving it? When any one-party state, which already controls government, yet seeks to expand and tighten that control, it bodes ill. With a country the size of China, it bodes ill for Taiwan, Asia and the
Taiwan is now entering a period of maximum danger from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) due to an accelerating Chinese military challenge now emboldened by a shocking dive in American strategic credibility occasioned by its humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan. This means there is a much higher chance that in the next one to three years CCP leader Xi Jinping (習近平) may order the PLA to invade Taiwan because he believes the PLA can win and that the Americans can be dissuaded from coming to Taiwan’s aid in time. It is still possible for Taiwan and Washington
Another year, and another UN General Assembly is convening without Taiwan. Today marks the opening of the assembly’s 76th session at the UN headquarters in New York City, with the option to attend remotely because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which once again promises to be its main focus under the theme “Building resilience through hope.” As they do every year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and overseas compatriot groups are organizing campaigns to call for Taiwan’s participation in the global body. However, unlike previous years, Taiwan seems to be riding a higher wave of support than usual. The pandemic has exposed countless shortcomings
In an op-ed on Friday, Chen Hung-hui (陳宏煇), a former university military instructor, applauded the government’s efforts to reduce the “supply, demand and harm of cannabis.” (“Cannabis use booms on campuses,” Sept. 10, page 8). Chen recounted a story of a boy who partied with the “wrong crowd,” smoked cannabis and died. This story cannot be true, because cannabis is not deadly. Consuming too much can feel mighty unpleasant, but it will not kill a person. This fact is not only backed up by science and statistics from the US Centers for Disease Control, but is well-known in countries where cannabis