Speaking at the G20 Summit that was hosted virtually on 27 March, President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo called for international cooperation to fight COVID-19. On the same day, Indonesia and five other countries drafted a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution calling for global solidarity in the fight against the outbreak.

Similar calls for cooperation have been made internationally. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) co-signed a letter with the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 20 March, which called on political leaders to commit to bold coordinated action that leaves no one behind in response to the pandemic. The World Trade Organization (WTO), through its deputy director general, has made a remark that the COVID-19 crisis calls for an unprecedented level of international cooperation. Meanwhile, the United Nations secretary-general in an interview on 27 March decries a lack of global cooperation to beat the pandemic.

Are these calls for cooperation being answered? In a chaotic situation where every country seems to outdo the next in terms of being the worst responder to the pandemic, what do countries still have to offer for international cooperation? What is still at their disposal to make such an effort, when all resources are supposed to be exhausted domestically?

Schwartz and Yen (2017), in analyzing the ‘whole-of society approach’ to pandemic preparedness, argues that “Although international cooperation remains fundamental to pandemic preparedness and response efforts, the inevitable arrival of an outbreak within the borders of a country requires that states prepare domestic plans to manage these outbreaks. At the point the outbreak becomes a domestic affair, the burden of control falls to the pandemic preparedness and response infrastructure and institutions established by the country.”

Experiences with pandemics (SARS, Ebola, Zika to name a few) show that no country facing an outbreak has proven itself to possess a fully effective response system.

“Working together” should mean everyone has something to offer. The big challenge is, at a time when all countries are scraping for available resources to deal with the issue, what can be offered is very limited. This is the biggest reason why, albeit the agreement during the G20 virtual summit showing that an effort to address the pandemic collectively is beginning to take shape, we are yet to see significant movement.

An agreement on what must be done is one issue; doing it is another issue. The G20 leaders promised to inject $5 trillion into the global economy to counteract the impact of the pandemic, while measures in public health, technology, global supply chains, and assistance to developing countries have been outlined; nonetheless, without leadership in directing these efforts, an agreement can only do so much.

This is not an argument against international cooperation. The author is a keen supporter of multilateralism, and will continue to argue for it. Yet declarations and agreements to work together that are not being followed up will create unrealistic hope and a false picture of the global situation. What is worse, states feel pressured into joining such calls, and deliberately make a commitment without the intention of actually implementing it to avoid being the odd one out. For those living in Southeast Asia, we are already too familiar with such regional commitments, aren’t we?

This is also not an accusation that Indonesia has nothing to offer in working together with other countries. Data sharing and transparency are part of working together, and these are things that Indonesia indeed has to offer. Nonetheless, for pandemics like COVID-19, the biggest part of “working together” is ensuring that the crisis is well-handled domestically to contribute to stopping further spreading. For this, a country’s pandemic preparedness and response infrastructure and institutions are the top priority, not creating a resolution for global solidarity.

C. Raja Mohan in his article in The Straits Times (March 28, 2020) likens the decision-making during crises — including pandemics — to war, which holds the potential to disturb multiple equations within and across national borders. He suggests that leaders must make difficult decisions in the fog of crises, with limited information and the inability to predict, let alone control, all the variables involved and the consequences of one's actions.

It must be emphasized that the main obligation of national governments is to their own people. In crises, it is natural for governments to maintain that internal considerations must prevail over the international. In other words: taking care of one’s self comes before assisting others. In pandemics like COVID-19 where being healthy is the main ammunition, this approach prevails even more.

As with all global crises, the poorer countries are hit the most. Their health centers cannot manage basic infection control, while financial obstacles affect the ability to pay health workers. What the developing world needs is assistance, and this is not new information. Summary of a Workshop on Financing Pandemic Preparedness and Response (part of the Global Health Risk Framework initiative) in 2016 acknowledges these existing issues, plus the existing problems with assistance from developed countries. The delay between pledges of assistance and funding received results in inefficiency into development, obliging businesses in aid-recipient countries to use credit to meet their operating expenses. These are among the problems listed in the report.

International cooperation in a time of crisis is the norm, but can only be done if the major powers are keen to take leadership. Experience also shows that international assistance to developing countries is also the norm in a time of pandemic, but can only happen when there are countries with more resources at their disposal to provide assistance. Even then, we are back to the adage that taking care of one’s self comes before assisting others. When the major powers are busy with their own domestic problems due to the pandemic, there is less on offer for the rest of the world. For countries like Indonesia, the best (or only?) thing we can offer in this pandemic is to manage the outbreak and keep it under control. If we manage to slow down the outbreak within Indonesia, we are contributing immensely to the international fight against COVID-19. For this, we need all the assistance available, both from within and outside of the country.

On that last note, I propose one question to ponder: Jokowi’s call for cooperation at the G20 virtual summit, Indonesia’s efforts through the UNGA, and even pieces written by Indonesian scholars who point out the importance of international cooperation — were those really a call for international cooperation, or a cry for help? Let’s differentiate between the two, and get our terminology correct. 

---

Head, Department of International Relations, CSIS Indonesia

Popular

Is Indonesia really ready to embrace dual citizenship?

Palm oil plantation-less mills lead to increase deforestation

Prabowo inaugurates construction of Majapahit palace replica