2020 as a fly for the International Relations

International relations have been transformed alongside history. A sense of this discipline started in 1648 with the treaty of Westphalia, then it became formalized after 1918 in the beginning of the inter war era; then in 1945 was the starting point for the creation of several international instruments and institutions that later will shape the way in which international relations will be carried out. 2001 was a key event to introduce into a more detailed scope of analysis the terrorist groups and then, we have 2008, the year in which financial and economic aspects became the center of attention for the international relations. Will 2020 be recalled as a year of global politics or international relations shift? Will Sars-Cov-19 pass to the hall of fame for scholars when they talk about shifters in balance of power in the far future?

In simple terms, this crisis that has been catalogued as Black Swan has not been a major factor to the point of change the way international relations have been carried out. Why if it has been the reason for severe economies with negative economic growth and millions of people have died because of it? Simple, the international arena was already prepared, and it did not affect major interests or balances of power. The international arena has been tilted towards the complex interdependence between countries becoming a threat any degree of nationalism. However, this threat entered the system with two key events. The first and most notorious was the sortie of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the Brexit. A political strategy carried out by the UK to close its borders against thousands of foreigners that were willing to find new opportunities. The second major event was the positioning of the Trump administration in the USA. Followed by several policies that will be seen as pro-nationalism by the rest of the world in order to make “America Great Again”. Countries already had a sense of nationalism in their minds, a bare one that would not be seen wrong in case of needing it since the two major powers of the old and new eras were doing so. As soon as the crisis started to grow worldwide, these two past cases served as an impulse for not feeling guilty on imposing bans in traveling, or trade before other countries or even to dictate full lockdown of the country just as New Zealand did. This idea of cutting in some degree relations with other countries for the national security was fostered by this sense of nationalism. Therefore, the relations between countries despite restrictions against others have not been a major shifter for the international arena.

Now, having the economies of the countries being affected by the crisis since the debate between resilience or profitability arose, did the interests of the countries and the balance of power changed or will change in the future? According to history, the major shifters of balance of power have been armed and ideological conflicts in which a winner was always congratulated in the podium. This time as there are no winners or losers the balance of power might be the same. USA dominating in the political sphere, with its own group of close friends who follows him and China with an emerging and threatening impetus challenging him in an economic and political field. Sadly, China did not have the outcome it expected with this crisis, since it wanted to scale up a few levels in popularity being the one to provide supplies and aid to other countries, unfortunately, the payees saw it as an obligation because the disease started there. So, as every single country got affected by this crisis and there were no conquered or conquerors, the balance of power will remain the same, only in the long term we will see how it will shift by the economic policies implemented to overcome the actual crisis. Only then, the balance will be slightly unlevered.

Finally, an honorable mention to the organization that was put under pressure with this sanitary crisis, the World Health Organization. This organization fostered the application of the International Health Regulations (IHR), policies and suggestions for countries to control the outbreak. However, as in previous cases, countries did not expect much of it and still got disappointed. The type of regulations suggested were expected and because of the lateness of these and the high infectious rate of the virus the intended goals where not achieved in the first phases of the outbreak. WHO might be suffering from the same disease the UN has, high bureaucratic decisions with slow steps of action.

Covid 19 crisis will be remembered by many aspects, but perhaps will be omitted in the important timeline dates of the international relations since no major shifters played a role to make it change just by the nature of the crisis. No winners came to impose how the rules should be played from now on and protectionism was encouraged by two great powers making it seen just like a possible practice that should not be signalized as bad, once again, by the nature of the crisis. In the future, there may be winners, but not originated by a zero-sum game but winners from a game in which each one have to grow by itself since others are doing the same. A race in which the winner is the one that will have the more resilient economy and society.