haass112_HirurgGettyImages_coronavirususmilitarywarposter

与病毒作战

Apr 6, 2020 Richard Haass

纽约–美国总统唐纳德·特朗普称自己是战时总统，世界上许多人对他也在使用类似的形容。这一描述提出了一个显而易见的问题：关于抗击病毒，历史和战争的本质告诉了我们什么?

虽然战争通常应该是最后的手段，但如果敌人决意发动攻击并构成迫在眉睫的威胁，那么不与之对抗则可能会致命。事实上，这场疫病从在中国武汉局部爆发演变成一场全球大流行，这正是因为中国当局在应对它之前浪费了宝贵的几周时间。中国领导层最初掩盖了疫情状况，允许携带病毒的数百万人离开武汉。

美国也表现出一种普遍不愿参战的态度。这没什么好惊讶的。战争作为最后的手段是“正义战争”理论的原则之一，这一思想体系出现于中世纪，其目的是让战争变得不那么频繁，也不那么暴力。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading and receive unfettered access to all content, subscribe now.

Unlock additional commentaries for FREE by registering.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Richard Haass

Writing for PS since 2020
136 Commentaries

Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, previously served as Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-2003), and was President George W. Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland and Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan. He is the author, most recently, of The World: A Brief Introduction (Penguin Press, 2020).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 13 Comments on this article

Ian Bishop Apr 8, 2020

There needs to be more centralization to control the distribution of PPE. We should allow the private sector to gather supplies as they know where the supply chains are. To be honest, we really need a new world order with a new world translation. This would make it easier to centralize everything as we continue to expand our globalization.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ian Bishop Apr 8, 2020

This can be achieved if tarriffs and sanctions are lifted. However, they are not, especially on Iran and Venezuela. The IMF blocked $5 billion in aide to Venezuela and Iran is now able to collect medical care from Europe. This are grounds for war as sanctions and tarriffs during a time like this are crimes against humanity.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ian Bishop Apr 8, 2020

Yes this is true not to rush but it is dangerous to delay. You and I both know we are in a currency crisis and the banks can't be bailed out this time. We cannot afford to allow the economy to lose too much with oil being way under $50. This puts us in track to have the largest financial collapse in world history.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Apr 8, 2020

Richard N. Haass asks if we are “at war” with COVID-19. Across the globe world leaders have invoked wartime language amid the pandemic. On February 6, President Xi Jinping declared a "people's war" on the coronavirus outbreak, whose death toll grew by the day. As the number of infections and death toll rise rapidly across the US, some call it their “Pearl Harbour moment,” or “9/11 moment,” with Trump and his lieutenants embracing the narrative of a “wartime” presidency.
What COVID-19 and a war have in common is that the liberal democratic order is temporarily suspended, and extraordinary measures are passed that significantly empower the state to act in emergency and limit citizens’ rights and movements. Government leaders declare – and extend – states of emergency, putting their economy on a war footing, and calling for wartime economic policy and thinking – such as making economic production subservient to wartime efforts.
Although we are not literally at war with a virus, some public health experts approve of such rhetoric. When faced with an imperceptible threat like a viral pandemic, political leaders have the responsibility to communicate the gravity of the situation to a public that may not otherwise sense danger. They say the narrative of a war also helps condition society for the radical changes to daily routines mandated by authorities. And it helps pave the path for the massive political and economic restructuring governments may have to push through in the wake of the pandemic.
While war metaphors call for mobilisation and action, the pandemic poses an altogether different demand – people are asked to simply be passive. The spectre of a “war” has proved counterproductive, prompting widespread panic, like hoarding supplies and leaving store shelves empty. In the US fear of social unrest has led to record-breaking numbers of guns and ammunitions sold. The idea of fighting an enemy infiltration also lends itself to bigotry against minorities and immigrants.
Both state and non-state actors have a hard time fighting a deadly virus. People are tempted to use the world “war.” But the problem with this word is that it does not require military hardware to win but clinical research and medical knowledge – an effective vaccine – to defeat the virus. In times of an emergency, fear and uncertainty that grip the public can be more deadly than the disease itself. The current crisis does not call for an arms race, but international cooperation, like data-sharing and solidarity. While a pandemic does not observe a cease-fire, it is unlike a conventional war, a war of necessity, not a war of choice.
The author points out a few tactics in warfare that can be applied in a pandemic. Dispersion is a strategy that offers “the enemy fewer targets. Relatively weak militaries often employ this method by avoiding set-piece battles against stronger forces. Dispersion, in today’s parlance, means social distancing.“ If imposed effectively, it helps contain the pandemic’s spread.
Another advice is to get to know the enemy thoroughly, in order to avoid fighting a “fog of war.” Little is known about COVID-19, and it takes time to learn more about this novel virus. Testing is for the moment the only way to protect the population from contracting mass infections. For this reason government leaders' anxiety about a tanking economy could prove unhelpful if a lockdown were eased prematurely. COVID-19 still remains a risk factor and could lead to a catastrophe if this highly contagious virus is not brought under control properly.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Swamp Fighter Apr 7, 2020

Haas is a bit over the top with his moral relativism. We were caught unprepared because China's authoritarian system is dysfunctional and antithetical to the civilised world order and as a result their lies are killing tens (hundreds?) of thousands.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Josh Hong Apr 7, 2020

It goes global not because China squandered the first several weeks, but because the entire world outside it didn't want to face it properly. There was no case reported in the UK in early February, and only a few in the US. Look what it is now. Every single country will pay for their decisions.
- Michael Public Apr 7, 2020
  
  If China had contained it, it would not of mattered. If China had put out statistics that matched the number of funeral urns sold - maybe the UK and the US would have chosen differently. If China had honestly come forward and said that 80% of spreaders were asymptomatic and they have no way of stopping them boarding planes - it would have been different. The West had a pathetic response - but China is by no means innocent here.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Elizabeth Pula Apr 6, 2020

No, there are specific people in the US that are at war against the citizens of the US.

Crozier had the guts to stand up for his men, his ship, and his country.

Crozier did what a commander should have done to comply with direct administrative orders. He dealt with the immediate confrontation to solve the problem. He is not the problem. Certain other people are most definitely the problem, as the military rank in file have acknowledged from the bottom and from the top.

If you don't know what your are doing, then you should have the common decency to not stab your own men in the back, especially if you want them to sacrifice their own lives for certain despicable human beings that have publicly displayed their disgusting personal behavior, and ineptitude to lead a nation even when not faced with a labelled critical event.

“However, we are not at war, and therefore cannot allow a single Sailor to perish as a result of this pandemic unnecessarily,” Crozier wrote. “Decisive action is required now in order to comply with CDC and (Navy) guidance and prevent tragic outcomes.”

He was speaking the immediate appropriate truth as a commander in charge well and above his present rank. He deserves a medal, accolades and a promotion. He does not deserve ridicule by people that do not know their own proper function, and position.

These other people do not know how to lead any one including themselves. They have no concern or interest in the survival of the US, as a nation. They need to fight their own battles personally, rather than expecting someone else to do everything for them.

To add insult to injury of not paying them fairly, they stab their fellow citizens in the back, and insult them publicly. Those types of actions by those types of people are not examples of leadership.

Crozier is a real leader of real men. His action is an example of a positive step in the present real war against a formidable enemy, labelled COVID-19. Chalk one up for the Navy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dr Remi Okeke Apr 6, 2020

"And there will be a next time, if not COVID-20, then perhaps COVID-21 or some other pathogen". Then these pathogens must not catch us so unprepared again. Let us take the social distancing into 2021 and beyond, radically reduce the level of our international movements, and deploy modern technology, now available in abundance, into our previous methodologies of conferencing and meetings.
- Michael Public Apr 7, 2020
  
  Every eleven years an outbreak of something new arises - the pattern is quite regular. They don't always become a pandemic. But permanent social distancing is not the ideal answer. Despite the technological advances the benefit of a online meeting is no where near that of a face to face one - and that is to say nothing of haircuts. This pandemic has been a fiasco because politicians call the shots - in China - suppressing the facts - in America and the West - an insistence on a business first lassez-faire attitude. Next time there will be more urgency, honesty and co-ordination - I guarantee it.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Apr 6, 2020

I dislike the comparison to war. Wars have been so numerous and so diverse that the usefulness of the comparison breaks down quickly. I would wager that the only thing the same is a kind a feeling of dread in the stomach of what is to come next.
- Madurai Padmanabhan Apr 13, 2020
  
  While the War analogy may sound repugnant, it should help us to find an exit strategy that differs from the Industry-Military nexus that has followed the WWs.
  The health care sector cannot be handled like national security was.
  Perhaps the answers we find to rethink what is a common enemy, will alter our understanding of the middle -aged “just war” theories. 21st century connections ought to be redefined accordingly. Older and wiser, perhaps!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Apr 6, 2020

.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/qyHOW9Tzh

与病毒作战

To continue reading and receive unfettered access to all content, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

与病毒作战

To continue reading and receive unfettered access to all content, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification