As the world’s privileged cope with the COVID pandemic through telework and sheltering at home, millions of people face grim struggles for survival, packed into informal settlements or camps for people already displaced in war-torn or fragile states. Governments have missed opportunities for a stronger international response, partly because of great-power rivalries. The economically powerful Group of 20 nations and international financial institutions have made a start at buoying the world’s economy—but other multilateral forums are mired in stasis. The U.N. Security Council should act to get ahead of the pandemic in fragile states and seize the moment to advance peace in some of the world’s most intractable conflicts.

Shacks for Rohingya refugees jam hillsides above often flooded rice fields in Bangladesh. Extreme population densities and limited water supplies for many refugees impede basic steps to limit the spread of COVID-19. (Sergey Ponomarev/The New York Times)
Shacks for Rohingya refugees jam hillsides above often flooded rice fields in Bangladesh. Extreme population densities and limited water supplies for many refugees impede basic steps to limit the spread of COVID-19. (Sergey Ponomarev/The New York Times)

The COVID-19 virus has only begun to strike the dozens of “fragile” states—those whose poor governance and weak social contracts disable them from resolving internal conflicts peacefully. The widespread lack of testing may be underreporting COVID’s spread in such countries, measured on March 27 at just over 32,000 cases. “Social distancing” is nearly impossible for many communities, such as the million ethnic Rohingya refugees packed into camps in Bangladesh with population densities up to six times that of New York City. In many other fragile contexts, people scraping by below the poverty line face the grim choice of complying with government quarantine orders, or going hungry. As with climate change and any other catastrophe, the world’s poor, and those displaced by warfare, will suffer and die in vastly greater proportions.

Recognizing the potential for the pandemic to worsen already dire humanitarian emergencies, the United Nations has appealed for $2 billion to fight the virus and address economic disruptions. The International Committee of the Red Cross appealed for more than $800 million. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund announced $14 billion to help countries fight the pandemic and address economic disruptions, and urged bilateral creditors to suspend debt payments from the world’s poorest countries, among other steps. U.N. Secretary General António Guterres’ call for a global cease-fire to fight the virus has already led to a much-needed truce in Yemen.

Still, the lack of action by the Security Council and other major multilateral forums is increasingly visible—and concerning. Great power rivalries certainly help explain the stasis. China’s U.N. representative, upon assuming the agenda-setting presidency of the Security Council in early March, referred to the coronavirus as an issue “under the umbrella of global public health and security” and thus outside the scope of the Council’s geopolitical remit. That reflects China’s strategy to limit the scope of Security Council deliberations to issues that represent little threat to Beijing’s domestic practices. At the same time, China has been positioning itself as a vital source of aid to contain the virus, offering help to countries in Europe, Asia and Africa. Last week, an effort by the Group of Seven nations to advance a coordinated international response to the pandemic faltered over the U.S. insistence upon replacing the World Health Organization’s official designation for the disease, “COVID-19,” with the name “Wuhan virus.” Disagreements over the name of the virus reportedly also have stymied efforts to negotiate a U.N. Security Council resolution.

The Precedent: Ebola

There is precedent for stronger multilateral political action in the face of a dangerous epidemic. In 2014, the Security Council adopted an unprecedented resolution to confront the largest-ever outbreak of the Ebola virus, in West Africa. The Council pressed governments to provide material help to the most affected countries and to ease trade and travel restrictions that were undermining the public health response. This effort reinforced the agencies and health workers on the frontlines of the response and enhanced international coordination to contain the outbreak.

Despite the apparent lack of international comity, the world’s premier multilateral bodies urgently must broaden and follow-through on the G20 commitments in hopes of getting ahead of the crisis in fragile and conflict-affected states. International leaders could focus attention and resources on the most vulnerable populations and accelerate the World Health Organization’s efforts to steer assistance to countries with weak public health systems and a high propensity for rapid spread. They also could provide an important platform for sharing best practices in virus containment and response, while coordinating measures to protect critical medical supply chains and economic networks.
 

U.N. Security Council’s Vital Role

The Security Council is the world’s primary mechanism for addressing threats to peace and security, with its resolutions carrying the force of international law. It is thus uniquely positioned to steer and augment the international response to COVID-19, as it did against Ebola in 2014. It also can seize the momentum from COVID-19 related cease-fires to advance peace processes in Yemen and elsewhere. Among other steps, the Council could:

  • Apply pressure for cease-fires in violent conflicts to facilitate COVID-19 treatment and prevention.
  • Urge member states to coordinate and steer the production and delivery of critical medical matériel, such as testing kits and protective gear, to fragile states and countries with weak health systems.
  • Call for states to prioritize the provision of screening and testing capabilities in critically vulnerable locations, such as large settlements of displaced populations.
  • Urge affected states to rapidly expand public health messaging campaigns targeting critically vulnerable areas.
  • Call for unrestricted access for frontline humanitarian workers and health professionals, especially in conflict zones and contested areas.
  • Urge states to redouble support to the WHO and the U.N. humanitarian response plan.
  • Promote testing and surveillance measures to limit the spread of the virus within U.N. peacekeeping missions, and among the populations where missions are deployed.
  • Signal consequences for states that use violence to contain the virus, or as a pretense to restrict civil liberties, undermine human rights protections or threaten political opposition groups.

Most importantly, action from key multilateral bodies will reinforce the necessity of international cooperation to address a generational threat to global peace and security that respects no border, the worst of which we may not have witnessed yet. With millions of the world’s most vulnerable people facing the pandemic, the time for concerted international action is now.

Related Publications

Amid Libyan Crisis, Two Hostile Towns Build a Basis for Peace

Amid Libyan Crisis, Two Hostile Towns Build a Basis for Peace

Monday, June 1, 2020

By: Abigail Corey; Esra Elbakoush

Libya’s escalated warfare and the COVID pandemic are hindering formal diplomacy and thus prolonging the risks the conflict poses—from the Mediterranean to Africa’s Sahel region. Yet even as international peacemaking on Libya is stalled, long-time foes in the country’s west have overcome old enmities to cooperate amid the coronavirus crisis. It is the latest of several grassroots advances in Libya that show how local dialogues can build peace amid warfare—even when global diplomacy is impeded.

Type: Blog

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue; Global Health

COVID-19 and Conflict: Nigeria

COVID-19 and Conflict: Nigeria

Thursday, May 28, 2020

By: Oge Onubogu

As Africa’s most populous democracy and largest economy, Nigeria’s ability to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus within its own borders has broader implications for the entire continent. Meanwhile, the virus threatens to exacerbate the country’s existing security challenges, which in turn make an effective pandemic response more difficult. In this #COVIDandConflict video, our Oge Onubogu looks at how the Nigerian government has addressed the virus and what potential takeaways the response to COVID-19 could have for tackling the country’s epidemic of violence.

Type: Blog

Global Health

Coronavirus and ISIS: The Challenge of Repatriation from Al-Hol

Coronavirus and ISIS: The Challenge of Repatriation from Al-Hol

Thursday, May 28, 2020

By: Julia C. Hurley

It was just over a year ago, in March of 2019, that the United States and coalition forces declared the territorial defeat of ISIS following the fall of its last stronghold in Baghouz, Syria. Male fighters over 15 were placed in Kurdish run detention centers throughout northeast Syria, while tens of thousands of women and children who were living among the terrorist organization streamed into the al-Hol camp, giving rise to an unprecedented mix of humanitarian and security challenges. If left unaddressed, the camp could easily serve as the breeding ground for the next generation of ISIS, which is already beginning to reemerge in parts of Syria and Iraq.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Health; Violent Extremism

China Using Pandemic Aid to Push Myanmar Economic Corridor

China Using Pandemic Aid to Push Myanmar Economic Corridor

Wednesday, May 27, 2020

By: Jason Tower

From almost the moment Myanmar detected its first case of COVID-19 on March 23, China jumped to aid its neighbor to the south. China’s army, navy, and government agencies, as well as companies, showered nearly every level of Myanmar’s government and military with health assistance. The question for Myanmar civil society groups was whether the help came with strings attached. On May 21, they got their answer: After a phone call between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Myanmar’s President U Win Myint about COVID-19 response and Chinese assistance, Xi moved to a second agenda item—the implementation of 33 cooperative economic agreements signed during his historic visit to Myanmar in January. Of particular concern: co-construction of the multi-billion-dollar China-Myanmar Economic Corridor.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment; Global Health

View All Publications