The World Health Organization has now officially declared the H1N1 flu virus to be a global pandemic, and governments, international organizations, and people around the world are rightly focused on fighting it. But, even as we cope with today’s challenge, we must look ahead - guided by the same principle of global solidarity - to potentially far more serious health risks.
NEW YORK – The World Health Organization has now officially declared the H1N1 flu virus to be a global pandemic. Governments, international organizations, and people around the world are rightly focused on fighting it.
The speed with which the H1N1 virus has spread to almost every continent highlights our mutual interdependence. Nowadays, the impact of disease in one country is ultimately felt by all. Any effective response, therefore, must be grounded in a sense of global solidarity and enlightened self-interest.
We must recognize, yet again, that we are all in this together. When a new disease sweeps the world, access to vaccines and anti-viral medicines cannot be limited to those who can pay for them. Wealthy nations cannot hope to remain healthy if poorer nations do not. Virus samples and information must be shared openly and quickly. Governments and major pharmaceutical companies must be sure that poorer nations receive the medical supplies they need.
To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.
Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.
China’s success in the next five years will depend largely on how well the government manages the tensions underlying its complex agenda. In particular, China’s leaders will need to balance a muscular Communist Party, setting standards and protecting the public interest, with an empowered market, driving the economy into the future.
The preference of some countries to isolate themselves within their borders is anachronistic and self-defeating, but it would be a serious mistake for others, fearing contagion, to respond by imposing strict isolation. Even in states that have succumbed to reductionist discourses, much of the population has not.
When the Bretton Woods Agreement was hashed out in 1944, it was agreed that countries with current-account deficits should be able to limit temporarily purchases of goods from countries running surpluses. In the ensuing 73 years, the so-called "scarce-currency clause" has been largely forgotten; but it may be time to bring it back.
Republican leaders have a choice: they can either continue to collaborate with President Donald Trump, thereby courting disaster, or they can renounce him, finally putting their country’s democracy ahead of loyalty to their party tribe. They are hardly the first politicians to face such a decision.
As the global economic recovery strengthens, and central banks move to raise interest rates, they need to improve their communication with the general public. To do that, they should follow the trail blazed by Donald Trump.
With talks on the UK's withdrawal from the EU stalled, negotiators should shift to the temporary “transition” Prime Minister Theresa May officially requested last month. Above all, the negotiators should focus immediately on the British budget contributions that will be required to make an orderly transition possible.
In recent decades, as President Vladimir Putin has entrenched his authority, Russia has seemed to be moving backward socially and economically. But while the Kremlin knows that it must reverse this trajectory, genuine reform would be incompatible with the kleptocratic character of Putin’s regime.
As a part of their efforts to roll back the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, congressional Republicans have approved a measure that would have courts, rather than regulators, oversee megabank bankruptcies. It is now up to the Trump administration to decide if it wants to set the stage for a repeat of the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008.