Saturday

15th Aug 2020

Opinion

Nobody's fault? Europe's sleepwalk into disaster

Europe slept and did not hear the first murmurs. A virus outbreak somewhere in China. No need to worry, said the Chinese government.

Then a bang.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Support quality EU news

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

  • The pandemic illustrates many aspects of the climate problem in condensed form: everything is connected - something goes wrong in a fish-market in Wuhan in November triggering a global health and economic crisis in March

In the night of 22 January the 11 million citizens of Wuhan learned that they could not leave the city and should stay at home. More Chinese cities were closed off.

Europe heard the bang, turned around, and continued its slumber. China was far away. There had been many health scare outbreaks before – SARS, swine flu, Ebola, mad cow disease – little ever happened here.

In 2013, historian Christopher Clark published Sleepwalkers, an account of the outbreak of the First World War.

He argued that in 1914, Europe's leaders had no idea of the horrific war and terrible consequences they were about to unleash. Avoid sleepwalking again was a refrain in many speeches on Europe in recent years.

We will not sleepwalk into nationalism. We will not sleepwalk into global warming. President Emmanuel Macron said it. Chancellor Angela Merkel said it and then-Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker mentioned it as well.

And then Europe sleepwalked into the catastrophe of a pandemic. The parallel here wasn't 1914, but 1918, when the Spanish Flu broke out.

The last pandemic in Europe, about which we had forgotten.

So, Europe failed.

Is this putting it too strongly? Didn't China obfuscate? Didn't the World Health Organization collude for too long in playing down the danger? Didn't scientists from Berlin's Charité research centre develop the first global covid-19 test as early as January? Haven't some European countries addressed this much better than others?

All true, but by March, the emergency had forced every government in Europe into an impossible choice: Letting many people die and health systems collapse, or ground much of public life and inflict massive harm on their economic lives.

They averted 1918 but got the economic crash of 1929 instead.

Good government avoid ending up with such choices, as this was an avoidable choice.

With much less time, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong have controlled or managed the outbreak without halting large parts of their economic lives. Covid-19 was a foreseeable emergency: experts had warned about pandemics in general and about corona viruses in particular in the last two decades.

The very last moment to act was 22 January. All alarm bells should have rung across Europe. They did not. Life went on.

People travelled to and from China without any EU country stopping them or testing passengers.

Albert Camus described the attitude in The Plague: "Everybody knows that pestilences have a way of recurring in the world, yet somehow we find it hard to believe in ones that crash down on our heads from a blue sky."

When it broke out, everybody started washing their hands in innocence. Southern European governments said "we need help, this is not our fault".

President Macron indicated that the virus was unforeseeable. Nationalist politicians blamed the EU.

The director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control said "I'm not sure that there is anything that really would have prevented this.", though in fairness, the EU level had shown more urgency than its member states.

The virus was foreseeable, and every government in Europe failed. They were not prepared, and they did not act in time. We live in democracies, however, and governments respond to what the opposition, the media, lobbyists or citizen groups push.

Nobody talked about pandemics. No politician would have gained a vote by working on preparing for pandemics. We all failed.

Is it useful to talk about failure and guilt? I think it is. Beyond the fear, there is a lot of anger. People ask why this happened. If we don't talk about who failed and how, anger does not lead us to improvement.

We can pretend that the pandemic crashed down on our heads from the blue sky, but then we will learn nothing.

The most obvious need now is a comprehensive review of what went wrong – in each member state and at the EU level - and to drastically improve our preparedness. We will learn from South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and others.

Covid-19 has given us a crash course in pandemics. Everybody knows now that an outbreak in one corner of the earth can knock on your door the next day.

We need to prepare and we will. The risk is, however, that we may spend the next years fighting the last war. The next threat may not be a pandemic, it may be 1986 – a nuclear accident – or it may be 2001 – a massive terrorist attack. Or it may be indeed 1914, a new European conflagration.

1989 Mark II

Eastern Europeans know that things can turn upside down from one day to the other. They were there in 1989 and in the following decade of economic turbulence. In most of Western Europe, this historic sensibility has been lost.

Things worked fine for 70 years, why should one worry? But history returns in different guises. Europe is already drifting back into the geostrategic realities of the 19th century, without too many people talking about it.

Not all new threats are a replay of the past, however. The unfolding climate catastrophe is a new threat.

Here the EU has been more alert than most, but it needs to do more and push others to do more. The corona-crisis illustrates many aspects of the climate problem in condensed form: Everything is connected - something goes wrong in a fish-market in Wuhan in November triggering a global health and economic crisis in March.

Scientific insight is manipulated or put in question, until it is too late. There are tipping points - once a health system is overwhelmed by the number of cases, many more people die.

The crisis may give the sense in western Europe that history is not a never-ending march of human progress.

Often, preventing the worst is the best possible achievement. In Eastern Europe it may highlight that not every threat has historical roots. Crisis often bears utopian ideas or a longing for a quick return to normal.

Both stand in the way of change. If something good comes out of this crisis, it would be a sense of realism across the EU about our vulnerabilities and an sustained will to address them effectively together.

The push cannot come from governments alone. We are all responsible.

Author bio

Michael Meyer-Resende is the executive director of Democracy Reporting International, a non-partisan NGO that supports political participation.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Coronavirus

Will coronavirus change EU's pharma supply chain?

The European Commission vice-president Vera Jourova recognised that the EU's pharmaceutical sector had a 'morbid dependency' on third-country suppliers. But some experts from the pharma field have warned export bans undermine global supply chains.

Analysis

How the EU's virus-alert agency failed

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, an EU agency, was meant to highlight threats from infectious diseases, but painted a rosy picture of Covid-19.

Agenda

EU leaders clash over corona recovery This WEEK

EU leaders will again try to hammer out a compromise on how to fund an economic recovery after the deepest crisis since the Second World War - but divisions are still running deep. MEPs meanwhile will quiz various commissioners, online.

Column

Drums of war again, in Europe

Just a few weeks ago, as Europeans in several countries put their furious debates about masks and corona appsinto higher gear, Turkey and Greece almost came to blows in the Aegean Sea.

Schrems privacy ruling risks EU's ties to digital world

With more and more trade moving to the digital realm, Europe can ill-afford to cut itself off. Meanwhile, China continues to advance a vision for an internet that is fractured along national boundaries and controlled by governments.

Worrying rows over future EU chemicals policy

It is of utmost concern to the environmental health community that forces within the EU Commission are actively trying to push back against a European Green Deal that is supposed to put people's health at its core.

News in Brief

  1. Most EU states oppose US sanctions on Russia pipeline
  2. UK imposes quarantine on France, Netherlands, Malta
  3. At least 3.5m EU nationals to stay in UK
  4. UK urged to 'calm down' on migrants
  5. Pompeo starts EU tour with anti-Chinese 5G deal
  6. Dutch lawsuit seeks billions from tech firms
  7. Amazon people urge EU banks to stop funding pollution
  8. Russia vaccine could be "dangerous", Germany says

Revealed: fossil-fuel lobbying behind EU hydrogen strategy

As with the German government – which presented its own hydrogen strategy last month – the European Commission and other EU institutions appear to be similarly intoxicated by the false promises of the gas industry.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. UNESDANext generation Europe should be green and circular
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNEW REPORT: Eight in ten people are concerned about climate change
  3. UNESDAHow reducing sugar and calories in soft drinks makes the healthier choice the easy choice
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersGreen energy to power Nordic start after Covid-19
  5. European Sustainable Energy WeekThis year’s EU Sustainable Energy Week (EUSEW) will be held digitally!
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic states are fighting to protect gender equality during corona crisis

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us