COVID-19: Wage War Against the Philosophy of War
November 10, 2020
Given the continued disruptions caused by the pandemic and uncertainty about
a vaccine, it would behoove the countries of the world to dial down tensions
and expand collaborations, writes Vijay Prashad.
People in Guangzhou, China in February 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic.
(Zhizhou Deng, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
By Vijay Prashad
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
In mid-October, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its World
Economic Outlook report, which offered some dizzying data. For 2020, the IMF
estimates that the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will decline by 4.4
percent, while in 2021 the global GDP will rise by 5.2 percent. Stagnation
and decline will define the economic activity in both Europe and North
America, as well as in large states such as Brazil and India.
With a second wave of coronavirus infections in Europe and with the first
wave not having been controlled in Brazil, India, and the United States, it
appears that these IMF estimates might sink further downwards.
Meanwhile, the data on China is quite astounding. China will account for the
absolute majority, namely 51 percent, of world growth. Based on the IMF
numbers, the other contributors to world growth will be mainly Asian
economies that have strong trading relations with China, namely South Korea,
Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia.
In 2020, Chinas National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) did not
set any growth targets due to the occurrence of the Great Lockdown. However,
at the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, the NDRC head Ning
Jizhe said that targets would be set for 2021, although he reiterated that
the growth targets would not be merely towards GDP growth but towards a
steady improvement in quality, which means poverty alleviation.
After the meeting, Yu Xuejun, deputy head of the National Health Commission,
said that the 10 million families who fell into poverty due to the
coronavirus disruptions have now been lifted out of poverty.
Given the continued disruptions caused by the virus and the uncertainty
about a vaccine, it would behoove the countries of the world to dial down
tensions and expand collaborations. Exchange of information and personnel to
break the chain of the infection organized by the World Health
Organization would enhance eroded public health systems. Yet, this is
exactly what the countries most impacted by the coronavirus Brazil, India
and the United States refuse to do (and this is precisely what is being
encouraged by the socialist states such as China and Cuba).
Peoples Vaccine
While the United States drives a vaccine nationalism agenda, using
whatever means possible to secure a vaccine for U.S. residents with no
regard for the rest of the world population or the viruses disregard for
borders, China and Cuba have called for a peoples vaccine.
This approach, placing public health before profit, advocates for all those
seeking a vaccine to pool their patents and share Covid-19 related
technology. China has now formally joined the COVAX collaboration, a
platform organized by the WHO and others that will support the research,
development and manufacturing of a wide range of Covid-19 vaccine
candidates.
The platform includes 184 countries, but not the major capitalist powers. At
a press briefing, Zhao Lijian said, With four vaccine candidates entering
phase-3 clinical trials, China is self-sufficient in vaccine production.
Nevertheless, China decided to join COVAX. The purpose is to promote
equitable distribution of vaccines through concrete actions, ensure the
supply of vaccines in developing countries, and motivate more capable
countries to join and support COVAX.
Microbiologist harvests samples of coronavirus at the U.S. Army Medical
Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland, March
2020. (U.S. Army)
Meanwhile, as these international initiatives developed, the United States
went on a rampage across the world to diminish Chinas role but offer
nothing productive in its place.
In South America, the U.S. has developed a program called Growth in the
Americas (or América Crece), whose purpose is to draw U.S. private-sector
funding to crowd out Chinese public investments. In Africa and Asia, the
U.S. has developed the Millennium Challenge Corporation to provide modest
funds as a challenge to Chinas Belt and Road Initiative. Apart from these
investment vehicles, the United States has sharpened its military alliance
with Australia, India, and Japan, known as the Quadrilateral Security
Dialogue (the Quad).
India and the United States recently signed a Basic Exchange and Cooperation
Agreement (BECA), when U.S. Secretaries of State Mike Pompeo and Defense
Mark Esper visited India in October. To better understand the context of
this significant Agreement, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
spoke to Prakash Karat, Polit Bureau member of the Communist Party of India
(Marxist) and author of Subordinate Ally: The Nuclear Deal and India-US
Strategic Relations (LeftWord Books, 2007).
Tricontinental Institute for Social Research: Indias external affairs
minister Dr. S. Jaishankar says that India is not part of the U.S.
alliance system, but with the signing of BECA it seems that that hesitancy
is now gone. Is India now fully in an alliance with the U.S. against China?
Prakash Karat: The forging of a military alliance between the U.S. and
India has been in the making for a long time. What we are witnessing is the
unfolding of the defense framework agreement which was signed in 2005 by the
then UPA [United Progressive Alliance] government. This framework was
renewed after 10 years by the Modi government in 2015. The
institutionalization of various aspects of that framework has now been
completed with the signing of the BECA. It is after the Modi government took
office that the process was speeded up. The Logistics Supply Agreement was
signed in 2016. This was a turning point. For the first time, India agreed
to host a foreign countrys armed forces in our ports and air bases for
fueling, repairs, and maintenance. This is like the Acquisition and Cross
Servicing Agreements that the U.S. has with its NATO allies. This was
followed by COMCASA [Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement]
for maintaining the confidentiality of U.S. communications equipment
supplied to India and now the agreement for geospatial cooperation. All
these so-called foundational agreements have interlocked the Indian armed
forces with the U.S. military. There is also a provision for joint
operation in third countries in the framework agreement.
If this is not a military alliance, then what is it? The foreign minister
was dissembling to keep the fiction going that India is not part of any
alliance system.
Tricontinental: The war games being planned bring in all the Quad members.
Is this especially significant?
Prakash Karat: The Quadrilateral Forum was first conceived of in 2007,
consisting of Japan, Australia, U.S. and India. But it could not take off
for various reasons. China objected to such an anti-China platform.
Australia, after the Labour government took office, backed out. But before
that, there were joint naval exercises between the four Quad members and
Singapore, off the Bay of Bengal.
In 2017, the Quad was revived as part of the Indo-Pacific strategy of the
Trump administration. In Obamas time, it was called Asia-Pacific strategy.
With the rising confrontation of China by the U.S., the Quad has assumed a
military shape. The Malabar exercises were, for three decades, annual joint
naval exercises between the U.S. and Indian navies. The Left parties were
opposed to them from the outset. Now, under U.S. direction, it has
expanded: first to trilateral exercises, including Japan, and this year (in
fact from Nov. 3r), it is a four-nation affair, with the addition of
Australia.
The significance of the Quad is that it shows that India has become a
military ally of the U.S., like the U.S. s traditional allies, Japan and
Australia. This is a success for the three-decade-old Pentagon plan to
enlist India as a strategic ally in Asia designed to contain China.
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump arrive for a state
banquet in their honor at Rashtrapati Bhavan, the presidential palace, Feb.
25, 2020, in New Delhi. (White House, Andrea Hanks)
Tricontinental: Is it a good idea for India to antagonize China merely on
economic grounds? Shouldnt India seek dialogue and greater commercial ties
with China rather than move to a war-like footing, particularly as the GDP
in India will also decline further?
Prakash Karat: In the post-pandemic period, India will need to expand its
economic and trade relations with China to assist in its recovery and
further growth. Given the fact that Chinas economy will be a major factor
in the global economic recovery, it is extremely short sighted to think of
restricting investments and trade with China. Already some restrictions have
been put in place. According to the Indian finance minister, in some sectors
production has revived, like the steel industry, because of export orders
from China.
It would be in Indias interests to resolve the India-China border issue
through high-level talks and let that not affect other spheres of our
relations. But then, the government and the Bharatiya Janata Party [the
ruling party] have ideological blinkers on.
In 1965, as India and Pakistan slipped into another war, Sahir Ludhianvi,
one of the great Urdu poets of his generation, wrote a poem called Ai Sharif
Insano (O Noble Souls). It begins with a summary of why war is so
atrocious, for, after all, war brings fire and blood, hunger, want, and
scarcity. What about a war against capitalism, suggests Sahir, rather than a
war that takes the blood of human beings?
Jang sarmaaye ke tasallut se
Aman jamhoor ki khushi ke liye
Jang jangon ke falsafe ke khilaaf
Aman pur-aman zindagi ke liye
Wage war against the grip of capitalism
Seek peace for the commoners happiness
Wage war against the philosophy of war
Seek peace for a peaceful life.
These are wise words for our times.
Vijay Prashad, an Indian historian, journalist and commentator, is the
executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and the
chief editor of Left Word Books.
This article is from Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not
reflect those of Consortium News.
