Four myths - why Corona may not change the world at all

Pandemics don't always bring about great change.

Worrying trends could accelerate.

But the end of liberal democracy is probably not near, writes the renowned political scientist Joseph S. Nye.

• The coronavirus * has dramatically changed the course of the world in recent months - politically, economically and socially.

• But history shows that pandemics are

  not always

  major turning points, argues renowned US scientist Joseph S. Nye.

• Nye sees several “myths” surrounding the

  impact of

  the virus on

  politics

  .

• This article is available for the first time in

  German

  - it was first published by

  Foreign Policy

  magazine on October 9th

  .

Washington

- How will the

the world order?

The honest answer is that nobody knows.

At this point in time, there are

.

The best policy makers can do is bypass myths that block their thinking and explore alternatives that will help them focus on the questions that matter most.

Sometimes there are misjudgments, but it makes sense

to structure

such a way that political decision-makers can learn from both mistakes and successes.

When assessing the consequences of the current pandemic, one must first show humility before everything that is not yet known.

The

is new.

are still studying it biologically and epidemiologically.

It is not known how long it will be rampant, nor at what point in time or in what form it may recur.

It is also unclear whether - or for how long -

will exist or how they will be distributed worldwide.

The extent and duration

are unknown, but the effects on the global economy are likely to last longer.

A

is likely to have serious political implications.

But all judgments about economic recovery are made difficult by the reliance of economies on our unpredictable human ability to control the virus.

The

can be a useful guide it, but it can also lead to the wrong track.

Coronavirus: What Can We Learn From History?

It has been heard many times that previous

.

Historians point out that Periclean Athens was so weakened by the plague that it lost in the Peloponnesian War against Sparta, or that the pandemic in the 14th century, which killed at least a third of Europe's population, ended feudalism paved the way.

A hundred years ago, the

killed

an estimated

(including 600,000 Americans) - more than twice as many as the First World War.

Viral

to this day, but most historians blame the

and its aftermath

not the pandemic,

for the dramatic geopolitical changes in the decades that followed, such as the

.

The Spanish flu may have contributed to cultural changes, such as the nihilism emerging in the 1920s.

But the

who fought in French trenches and lost their lives may have had the greater influence.

Although the pandemic cost more lives, its aftermath was overshadowed by the effects of the war.

Added to this was

government

on deaths caused by the pandemic.

This is why it is important

.

What comes after Corona: Myth # 1 - Pandemics are always major turning points

The first

to dispel is the notion that

.

Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't.

People tend to assume that great causes produce great effects.

But the example from 1918 shows that this is too simple.

Covid-19 is a drastic event, but it does not yet allow any conclusions to be drawn about the extent and nature of its effects.

And while the pandemic has had a significant impact on

, not all of the effects will result in

.

The

on the way we live, work and our mobility.

It is likely that it will have long-term consequences for the labor market, the locations of economic activity, education and social interaction.

It exposed poor health systems and their inequality.

If these social changes

, it would affect US foreign and geopolitics.

The social changes could also lead to domestic political reforms without affecting foreign policy at all.

Corona and the consequences: Myth # 2 - the end of globalization is unlikely to come

A second myth that may prevent careful analysis is the widely held belief that Covid-19

will usher in

the

that followed World War II.

Globalization - or interdependence across all continents - is partly due to changes in transportation and communication technology, which are likely to continue to advance.

The

may change, but there will be no standstill.

Air traffic may decrease, but the world will not become virtual.

Some aspects of economic globalization, such as

, may be restricted, which may be less so for other aspects, such as financial flows.

And it is important to distinguish between

.

While economic globalization is influenced by government laws, ecological aspects of globalization, such as

, are more likely to be determined by physical laws.

Walls, walls and tariffs

do not stop any transnational ecological consequences, but

and

could delay their occurrence.

Post-Pandemic Geopolitics by Joseph S. Nye, Jr. @ProSyn https://t.co/jAif7pF2s3 My guesses about peering into the future.

- Joseph Nye (@Joe_Nye) October 6, 2020

The effects of the pandemic on

cannot be foreseen either.

Once the pandemic is over, legal immigration could decline, but illegal immigration, for example via the Mediterranean route, may be more related to

than to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Even with strict border controls,

if their home countries become uninhabitable.

At this point, it becomes likely that some economic

related to national security will be

, and security concerns could lead companies and governments to less “just-in-time” and more

.

Apart from a war, these security adjustments are unlikely to disrupt global supply chains or bring international trade to a standstill.

And even if it did, it would not end global ecological interdependence or would not stop the flow of climate refugees due to natural disasters.

Coronavirus with severe effects?

Myth # 3 - Pandemic as the nail in the coffin for liberal democracy

A

is the popular belief that Covid-19 heralds the

and the

that can impose draconian tests, quarantine and isolation measures.

Sometimes this view is backed up by the

, where the spread of the virus - after a catastrophic start - has been successfully brought under control, contrary to the failure of the United States.

But one should not make generalized statements about two countries led by very "special" politicians.

Democracies like Germany and New Zealand

did better than

.

And within the democracies, countries with pragmatic leaders like

more successful than countries

ruled

by politicians with authoritarian tendencies like

.

It is true that

in Hungary have used the public health crisis to increase their authoritarian influence.

But if it hadn't been for the coronavirus, they would probably have found another excuse for it.

At the same time, data protection experts worry that

could conjure up the surveillance state.

But the

they rightly feared

and will continue afterwards.

At most, the pandemic could intensify existing developments.

On the other hand, a

in some emerging countries could undermine the conditions for democratic governance.

African states such as

have already used Covid-19 as an excuse to postpone or hinder planned elections.

The tendency for the number of democracies to decline existed before Covid-19, but may have been exacerbated by the pandemic.

What will follow after Corona?

Myth # 4 - China now has a permanent advantage

The

relates to the fact that the pandemic gave

a long-term advantage over the United States

with its

.

Some believe that by regaining a positive economic growth rate of plus 2.5 percent - as opposed to the negative economic growth of the United States of probably minus 4 percent - and by its soft power offensive for economic and medical support of other countries, some believe that China will grow in 2020 in a positive light, and it has thereby changed its reputation for the coming decade.

However, with a view to 2030, one should be careful about transferring short-term trends.

America's inability to respond will, in turn, damage America's soft power policies, which was

already evident in 2017 polls

when

declined.

The president's inconsistent pandemic policies, both before and after his virus infection, only compounded the downward trend.

But such trends have also been reversed in the past.

The United States, for example,

was able to resume

its

in the following decades when it was at a low point in the Vietnam War.

has provided aid, manipulated statistics for political purposes, and vigorously propaganda - all in an attempt to cover up early failures and to put its

.

+

A young boy is sitting in the middle of an art installation in a Beijing shopping center - China has apparently almost defeated Covid-19.

© Andy Wong / AP / dpa

But when it comes to soft power policy, China is in a weakened position.

Beijing has put obstacles in its own way by

and, through its

controls, obstinately prevented the full range of talent in civil society from being exploited, as is possible in democracies.

When China

imposed

at the beginning of the corona outbreak

, this was remembered both in the country and abroad.

Unsurprisingly, China's soft-power policy ranks low in global opinion polls.

It is difficult

to link

friendly “mask politics” with nationalistic “wolf warrior diplomacy” and at the same time the political oppression in Xinjiang and

.

Corona will not change everything - negative changes are still possible

If you with

, this increases not necessarily the likelihood that a geopolitical continuity is ensured.

Both

, a

and an

, all of this could have uncontrollable consequences.

History is full of political misjudgments and surprises - see August 1914, when the great powers prepared for a third Balkan war, from which the troops were expected to return by Christmas of the same year.

Instead, four terrible years of war and the decline of four empires had to be witnessed.

If a theory of continuity turns out to be wrong, then from today's perspective it is probably not due to the Covid-19 pandemic, any more than one can

attribute

the causes of the disasters in the 1930s to the

.

In geopolitics, big causes - however unpleasant they are - don't always have big effects.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr. is a professor at Harvard University, past chair of the National Intelligence Council, and author of “

. 

This article was first published in English on October 9, 2020 in the magazine “ForeignPolicy.com” - as part of a cooperation, it is now also

 available to

+

Foreign Policy Logo

© ForeignPolicy.com

List of rubric lists: © Saul Loeb / AFP