Is it time to move on from X?

As I have witnessed Katri Bertram’s brave advocacy campaign in recent weeks to quit X, now finalized in a hard-hitting blog,  “It’s time to move on from X”, let me try to weigh in on this issue as we’re heading for the end of the year.

For the time being, I’ve taken a different decision, combining both ‘X’ and ‘Bluesky’ – though I’m still “tweeting” a lot more from X, for now.

I do subscribe to most of Katri’s arguments on the ‘human rights’ issue & ‘toxic environment’ that X has become, due to Musk, while being well aware that ‘X’ is for some even more toxic (eg: women with a different colour) than for others.  I’m less convinced it’s an issue of ‘followers’ though.

My own take:

-          I’m no fan of what Musk has done to this platform. And I’m no fan of Musk in general, and a lot of what he stands for (by way of example, I hate his views on trade unions, and his own company policies in this respect).  I also certainly admit that ‘X’ has a lot more ‘noise’ than, say, a year ago – when for every 10 tweets on my feed, 1 or sometimes 2 were highly relevant.

-          Still, the same is true for, say, Jeff Bezos & Michael O’Ryan, whom I hate to the same extent, while for these, I seem to have far less of an issue to boycott their companies.

-          Personally, I  consider, for the time being, ‘X’ as my preferred social medium to get a sense of what’s going on in the world (including all the ugliness, sadly), unfiltered, even trolled, with some conspiracy theories, etc. Whereas ‘Bluesky’ feels a bit more like a ‘safe space’, at least for now. Where I hope I can also (and increasingly?) get some good content-related discussions, perhaps more with scientists (who don’t want to spend time anymore on X, for a number of reasons, which is clearly their right).  Put differently, for the time being, I’m (still) willing to put up with a certain amount of ‘toxicity ‘ on X. As it still provides me with something I don’t get from Bluesky (or alternatives). If only, for example, to see what we’re up against, as radical-right wing parties are gaining momentum in many areas of the world.

-          Also, for all its flaws (and undeniable increased toxicity), X is still the main ‘public platform’ where a big chunk of the public conversation happens. Sadly, not like one year ago – I also miss the moderating, as I’m well aware that what we have ‘won’ in terms of radical-right vile voices, we have lost in terms of many others, who have left the platform.  

-          Why do I think ‘X’ is still the main public platform?   Just two indicators: many leaders (eg. Dr Tedros – who certainly has to put up with plenty of toxicity and trolls himself) still use X to get their messages out, including to discuss with opponents, or tackle clear disinformation. And I have noticed that even many of the ones in global health who have now ‘Bluesky’ or ‘Mastodon’ accounts, do use these accounts as well to spread some of their messages on X. If that’s the case, they might have as well kept their X accounts too : )

 

Anyway, just some quick reflections to kick off this week. I’m sure there’s a lot more to say. And as mentioned: the question on which social media we are and/or remain, is a personal one.  Everybody has to decide that for themselves.

Why global solidarity on Covid won’t come from public opinion in the North

This morning, I read an op-ed from a Belgian psychiatrist (Wim Simons) in my newspaper and suddenly, I understood why we haven’t really seen huge pressure from Northern public opinion on Covid vaccine related inequities over the past months and years. In the  piece, Simons argued that our capacity for empathy is determined by several elements: (1) our own assessment of wellbeing, (2) the way in which we know ourselves connected to others, and (3) the meaning we get from life. Right now, after two years of pandemic stress, all of these aspects are under pressure, he claims.    (I would add that even before Covid, many of them were already jeopardized in our neoliberalized economies and societies, for an increasing number of people.) 

Although Simons' piece focused on the (increasing lack of) empathy in Belgium in Covid times, I’m afraid it has implications for the global Covid vaccine equity debate as well. But let me just give you these figures by way of example: a few weeks ago, about 35000 (organizers said, 70000) people, an ideological hotchpotch of people like in other countries in Europe, took to the streets in Brussels to protest against Covid response measures in my country. Some days later, 150 committed activists were protesting the EC TRIPS Waiver stance, also in Brussels.

More in general, even now at the height of the Delta wave in my country, and with Omicron looming on the horizon, global vaccine (and other) Covid inequities don’t really get people on the streets. That doesn’t mean we’re all racist, or selfish. It’s just not ‘top of our priority list’. Yes, many people say, “what a shame this is, this vaccine inequity”. It’s really not for a lack of information at this stage in the pandemic. A bit like on the migrants drowning in the seas at our borders. Many of us know very well the ugly implications of 'Fortress Europe' by now, find it very sad, but few are taking to the streets for it. And our “leaders” know it damned well. Currently, in the Covid era, they feel a lot more pressure from irritated and fatigued citizens, and from interest groups, than they do from people arguing for, say, a TRIPS waiver.

And so they get away with it, and I personally don’t want to blame public opinion for that. Not after 2 years in this pandemic, where many people have been struggling and juggling to get their lives going. No, it’s our so called leaders who need to have a deep look at their track record over the past two years, when it comes to real global solidarity.  At the end of the day, it’s Ursula, Boris, Alexander, Jens, Joe and others. Even more than Albert & Stéphane, I would say. Our political leaders have gone, in spite of lofty rhetoric on ‘global solidarity’ for the strategic choice to stick to the neoliberal IP model we know, in combination with geopolitics  (even trying to use ‘vaccine diplomacy’ for diplomatic gain, perhaps worried that others were doing the same). That was their deliberate choice, and they should be open about it. Covax and, after a while, facilitating tech transfer on Big Pharma terms (in the medium term) were their ‘shield’ for criticism, together with repeating the Pharma mantra that ‘supply won’t be the problem by mid-2022’. 

For the time being, they’re getting away with it – public opinion doesn’t really criticize them for their lack of global solidarity (although I would have liked to see otherwise), no, citizens increasingly criticize our leaders because the ‘Empires of freedom’ they had been promised in their own countries have failed to materialize. That these two are connected, many even know, from good coverage in media for example. But no, it doesn’t tick people’s buttons enough to put pressure on their leaders.

In the process, as it’s all too obvious to citizens that many of our leaders are “in the pocket” of Big Pharma, who earn billions and billions in the pandemic, trust in democracy is going down. I know, it’s just one reason, but it is one. With the results you see on the streets, but not just there I’m afraid. Citizens have become deeply cynical about their leaders (and Bezos and other billionaires flying into space isn’t helping much). The backdrop for Biden's 'Summit for Democracy' this weekend is really quite worrying. 

So it’s not public opinion’s fault, I reckon. Not after 2 years of Covid.  

At this stage, instead I really hope some enlightened leaders will display the guts to understand that this is a pandemic, and so do the necessary, both on dropping the neoliberal IP model and their inclination towards geopolitical brinkmanship. I’m very grateful dedicated activists continue to keep pressure on our leaders to do the right thing.

While not everybody likes using the term, it’s a war. A global one. One that needs global solidarity. Two years ago, in fact.  But it’s not too late for Joe, Ursula and others to change tack. Let’s indeed go for tech transfer and regional manufacturing big time, not on Big Pharma terms this time, and let’s make that a lot easier via a TRIPS waiver, among other measures. Albert & Stéphane (and their companies) have earned more than enough by now. A criminal amount of money, if you ask me.  And enough empty talk about preventing the next pandemic. Time to fix this one.

On providing expert ‘nuance’ in the temporary Trips waiver debate

 

It’s a full blown Framing War now. Perhaps it always was, but after last week’s US shift in position, and the ongoing Covid horror in India and elsewhere, the war has gone into overdrive.

Against that backdrop, it’s perhaps good to again reflect on how experts (scientists & others) can contribute to this debate in, what is arguably and admittedly, a rather difficult “political economy” in the EU. Indeed, let’s face it, with the sheer amount of “liberal” politicians (in the European sense: that means, almost neoliberal on this issue (see von der Leyen, Merkel, Michel, Macron, Rutte, …) at top level in the EU (and a bunch of neo-authoritarians watching from the corridors), it’s obvious that it will be anything but easy to change the position of ‘Team Europe’ on the issue of a Trips waiver. Germany is perhaps the key domino in this fight, but doesn’t really look like falling in the short term, for a number of reasons, see for example Katri Bertram’s blog on the impact of upcoming German elections, or Hyo Yoon Kang 's points on Twitter.

And yes, I know, it’s no silver bullet, the temporary waiver, but that sort of argument is also too easily used for a rather cynical “status quo” position, including among experts, especially in academia, who often like to leave the dirty work to activists on more controversial items (not just because of the typical scientists’ ambition to be seen as a credible, nuanced experts  ( unlike activists and, on the other side, Big Pharma) but also sometimes because there are ‘vested interests’ in the own institution or organization at play).

So perhaps a gentle reminder on how scientist experts can indeed provide ‘nuance’ in this vital global health equity debate.   

Given that this is a ruthless framing war now, perhaps we can borrow a leaf from some of the more outspoken politicians and their ‘debate cards’ when they enter a tv-studio or write an op-ed.   Indeed, there’s absolutely no need at this stage in the pandemic for an expert to sound like a centre “middle of the road” politician, going like, “on the one hand… on the other hand…”.  “The Third Way” might have been popular end of the 90s and early 2000s, these days I would argue it’s only popular in Big Pharma circles (and their supporters).

And so scientists & other experts who believe strongly in global vaccine solidarity, who are asked to weigh in, should ruthless examine arguments from both sides and clearly point out where they have a point, whether it’s a big point or minor point, or where instead these arguments totally suck. Obviously, based on our own values (yes, scientists do have values and even an ideology, the horror! 😊). Unlike the average politician, we don’t have to conveniently ‘forget’ arguments if they don’t fit our values and case. But there’s no need to use woolly language either: if an argument sucks, let’s clearly say so.

And at the end of an op-ed or media intervention, let’s also not shy away from giving a clear advice to public opinion (confused in this framing war, and I don’t blame them), based on this ruthless & systematic exploration of the strengths, merits and flaws of the various arguments in play. While I don’t fully agree with Rachel Silverman (CGD) ’s  presentation from last weekend, I think her meticulous and very analytical approach, not shying away though from taking a clear stance on certain arguments and also going for a clear conclusion, deserves a good following. And yes, experts can and should certainly also weigh in on the difficult political economy in the EU, WTO, … and the higher political and diplomatic interests, but that should not become a pretext for defeatism or weary political realism, sometimes bordering cynicism.

Indeed, these are no times for cynicism, we have seen some remarkable things happening in recent years, including in terms of paradigms shifting. And sometimes you have to help ‘self-fulfilling prophecies’ a bit : )

Final comment: let’s face it, 30 years of neoliberalism have all affected us, deep down, whether we recognize it or not. Sadly, to some extent, we’re all neoliberals now. I don’t think a discourse currently popular in EU power corridors, focused on “protecting innovation and competitivity” would have had it so easy in the 50s and 60s  (the time of Jonas Salk). Conversely, we probably would have been far more open to pope Francis’ discourse from this weekend, when he supported the temporary suspension of intellectual property rights in unequivocal terms “while offering his own classification for  “variants of concern””  (in the words of Peter Singer on Twitter).

When push comes to shove, for pharma companies to share their mRNA technology, even with Russia and China (which some, like BioNtech are already doing anyway), is not like sharing atombomb technology to the nazis…  

In sum: nuance shouldn’t be a pretext for weary political realism and too 'balanced' viewpoints. We can’t afford it.  More, if we do so, the risk is that we become “objective allies” of the ones who want to maintain the status quo.

PS: similarities with the climate emergency crisis are obvious…

On declaring one’s privilege

 This might not be the smartest thing I ever wrote but for some reason I do feel the need to write about this once (and only once 😊).  

Let me just set the scene: I’m a middle aged (European) man, largely in favour of the woke & decolonizing global health agendas (long overdue), I don’t need much convincing that structural/systemic racism remains widespread in pretty much every country in the world, although it’s in some countries worse than in others. I wouldn’t describe myself as “woke” though – some things are beyond me, plus I aimed to be, at a certain point in my life (like many in my generation), J Krishnamurti-style “aware” (instead of “awake” 😊). In case you wonder, that didn’t really happen.   

So, with that out of the way,  I wanted to briefly offer some thoughts on a practice that seems to  become more common (last week, for example, I noticed it at a Decolonize Global Health seminar I attended): to make one’s privilege(s) explicit, before you start talking.

Now,  I certainly get the idea of ‘privilege’: I probably experienced it most during my travelling years (2000-2003) and when teaching English in China. Now in Covid times, very much so as well, obviously. But of course, in many ways, I had been privileged all along, even if I wasn’t fully aware of it at the time (white, male, stable upbringing, safe country, relatively good governance, social security,… you name it).

But although I understand why it can be useful to indicate one’s’ “positionality” in a debate, I don’t really see the point of making one’s privilege explicit before starting to talk in a session. Or rather, if one does so, I would like to see it broader. Let me explain why.

For one, it’s blatantly obvious for most of us in these sessions that many of us are ‘privileged’. I admit, it provides some interesting (and sometimes necessary) info. But check somebody’s social media, and you will know as much (if not more).

Two, it feels a bit like the self-flagellation from the Middle Ages, a sort of purifying ritual (that especially Americans seem fond of). Or if you want a metaphor from another part of the world, it also smacks a bit of “neo-Mao style self-criticizing” (like Jack Ma had to do in recent weeks versus Xi Jinping).

Three, for some reason, it’s always the well-meaning public health students or soft-spoken young social scientists who seem to be willing to declare their privilege, I never see this being done by the posh medical students heading for their first Tesla, let alone by the ‘top dogs’ in the system. I’ll be all for declaring one’s privilege in sessions if  Bill Gates, Seth Berkley, Peter Sands, Albert Bourla, Emmanuel Macron (not to mention Jeff B) do so too, when kicking off their High-Level meetings and replenishments.      

Four: it’s mainly young people who seem bent on declaring their privilege. When you get older, that sort of thing doesn’t come that easily anymore, it appears, perhaps because by then, one day you feel privileged, the next day, nah… not really. Maybe also because you increasingly realize that we human beings are actually a mix: of (1) privilege (and some of us are certainly far more privileged than others), (2) struggle (“life happens to you, your family…”, and you can’t really blame anybody for it … (eg disease, tragical accidents, choices you made that turn out the wrong ones…)) and (3) exploitation by a ruthless capitalist/patriarchal/... economic system  (unless you belong to the 0.00001 % (and even then)). 

My point is: unless you start talking about all these dimensions, your self-introduction – focusing on privilege only - remains a bit fragmentary.  I don’t think that in a scientific session you need to go into the ‘struggle’ dimension, but discussing ‘privilege’ should be complemented by talking about ‘exploitation’, in my opinion.  Even if I’m very well aware that the ‘exploitation’ suffered by participants in most of these sessions doesn’t even come close to the exploitation of the ones “really” hit (and often destroyed) by this economic/patriarchal/… system. But this sort of ‘race to the bottom’ benchmarking is one of the favourite legitimizing mechanisms of our neoliberal global system, and there’s no need to give in to it.

As make no mistake, many of these well-meaning global health students won’t feel as ‘privileged’ when they have to hit the labour market, or more in general, join the rat race where ever more needs to be done with fewer people for reasons of ‘efficiency’. When some of them become Deliveroo or Uber Eat-deliverers, previous talk of ‘privilege’ will feel empty. And I really don’t need to go into the way many public health people in LMICs, even some of the relatively ‘privileged’ ones, are now being hit by budget cuts, often coming from the North.

Also,  I feel “privileged” to have grown up in a time where the massive size of the ecological crisis & planetary emergency wasn’t that obvious yet, I still had a few ‘innocent decades’ in that respect. It’s anything but “a privilege” to have to face the climate & biodiversity crisis, as a young generation, and clean up the mess (if it’s even possible).

Finally, unless I’m mistaken, “global health” & academia have a fair amount of exploitation itself, both being quite neoliberally run “businesses” at times, including towards relatively privileged young people based in the South, so better to also include that in the “picture”.  

So here’s my suggestion: 

Let’s indeed declare one’s privilege at the start of a session or even plenary, but (1) let the bigwigs do so first, and let them also make explicit why they continue to take the decisions they take to sustain a ruthless economic system; (2) when you, as a humble global health student or staff member, do so, make it something “creative” in which you also include the exploitation dimension.

Like: “ ‘I’m privileged in many ways, … but having said that, I’m not as privileged as (and no doubt more exploited than) Bill Gates ( who doesn’t have any ‘deliverables’ or KPIs apart from self-imposed ones, as far as I can tell), I don’t have Seth Berkley’s or Peter Sands’ salary package, neither do I have billion dollar signs in my eyes like Albert “Pfizer” Bourla, “breathe” privilege like Emmanuel Macron …  and I certainly don’t have Jeff Bezos’ privilege to exploit hundreds of thousands of employees, while getting filthy rich with it”.      

For the ones among you who prefer three dimensions (and who doesn’t in academia?  😊) ‘white supremacy’, a term that is used a bit too easily in woke discussions, in my opinion, could be added to the equation.  That is no doubt a continuum as well, not a binary thing.  Let’s call it perhaps ‘supremacist thinking/mindset’ (as obviously, this is not just a white ‘privilege’)

So when we exclude ‘struggle’ from the discussion (even if there are, obviously, links with ‘privilege’ & ‘exploitation’ dimensions, see the whole SDH debate), we could then go for a “3-D declaration”.  

Let’s call it the woke equivalent of the UHC cube. You would make explicit:

-        The amount of privilege (so far in your life)

-        The amount of (capitalist/patriarchal/…) exploitation you suffer in your current job/life

-        The amount of supremacy thinking  (my guess: most of us in global health score very low on this dimension, in the year 2021, but happy to be proven wrong)

That should make for interesting “3-D introductions”, I think. And for the many cube fans among you, you can even visualize it 😊!  

PS: I’m well aware that there are many more dimensions (see also the intersectionality debate), but at my age, I’m not that intellectually flexible anymore : ) 

PS: let me repeat this again, for good order: I know the ‘exploitation’ doesn’t come close to what marginalized people in LMICs (and, increasingly, HICs) suffer. But I don’t believe in this sort of ‘race to the bottom’ benchmarking, which is too often used by “the powers that be” to sustain their system. We shouldn’t let them.  And in Covid times even less.

Polarisation among scientists on Covid-19 responses

Last week, at the (virtual) ITM colloquium, a debate took place on whether the Covid-19 response had been balanced enough. In the slipstream of the discussion, before and after the debate a poll was also conducted with as main choices, ‘a top-down blueprint’ versus ‘a more flexible’ approach.

It was a rather animated debate, not unlike the fierce discussions some of us can witness on the Covid19- Sub-Saharan Africa Google group (where discussions don’t seem confined to SSA, as it’s hard to just refrain from commenting on one’s own setting or country, especially when there’s a new “wave”).

Even if the virus and Covid-19 still present many mysteries, it’s fair to say we know a lot more now than at the start of the pandemic. As scientists got to know the virus better over time, you would expect that polarization, at least amongst scientists, would have decreased, eight months into the pandemic. But the opposite seems true.

What are some of the reasons for this (continuing) scientific disagreement?  Let me give it a try. Below some tentative reasons, but I’m sure there’s a lot more to it.

Unlike polarization in public opinion, we can’t really blame the “Infodemic”, let alone wacko conspiracy theories for this disagreement. No scientist thinks that 6G will bring the ultimate solution, or that Bill Gates (of whom many of us agree that he’s way too powerful in the Covid19  ecosystem (and global health in general)) will include a chip in vaccines to make people more docile, etc.   (PS: there are also other reasons why public opinion is polarized, amongst others of course the impact of public health measures on their own lives)

Scientists, however, mostly know “the facts” (though some understand the intricacies of the virus or, say, modelling, probably better than others). Put differently, by and large, they tend to have all the ‘health literacy’ needed on Covid-19, unlike many ordinary citizens. Yet, we seem to interpret these facts in very different ways at this stage in the pandemic.

It appears many scientists currently want to occupy some pristine territory in between the Great Barrington Declaration and the John Snow memorandum. The poll also pointed in that direction, with more people favouring the ‘flexible approach’ over the ‘blueprint approach’ (PS: a bit problematic wording, if you ask me, as most scientists (who like to think of themselves as being “smartasses”), will always want be ‘flexible’ rather than seen as ‘rigid’)).   8 Months into the pandemic, most scientists now try to live in the mythical land of  “systemic Pasteurists”.  While I subscribe to that aim too, unfortunately, it’s not quite clear what that involves. And so we hugely differ in opinion on this “middle ground”. Even, in some cases, for some looking with more or less similar ideological glasses to the world.

And that’s part of the reason, I guess, why at the end of the day, you might get some “strange bedfellows” (as was also noticed this summer in the streets of Berlin, where at some point ‘dreamy left’ and ‘extreme right’ were demonstrating happily together against the measures). From my vantage point, some of the more maverick scientists even get rather close to Trumpean statements, even if they embrace a radically different paradigm and structural measures.

I don’t think ‘scientific discipline’ is the main explanatory factor. Some MDs are very much into Foucault, I notice, while others rigorously subscribe to the John Snow Memorandum (disclaimer: I signed the memorandum), and virologists’ views.  Conversely, some social scientists hear these days they suffer from a “medical gaze” 😊.  

So what is it then? A mix of personality (cfr: scientists with a libertarian streak, with for some a touch of machismo as well (?), vs more cautious ones); the  “path dependency” of scientists (professional and personal, some for example having worked in dire humanitarian situations), their ideology (how they perceive/frame  ‘Sweden’ & ‘South Korea’ tends to be a good indicator) (although even scientists with relatively similar ideology seem to end up sometimes very far from each other on the response approach they favour), including with respect to neoliberal austerity damage done in recent decades in health systems and society in general); the fact that first order (health) & second order impact (socio economic, mental health) are, to a large extent, occurring at the same time; a tendency to (over)generalize lessons from one’s own country (or countries you know very well, having lived there for many years), scientists’ philosophy of life, …  ?

It’s probably a mix of all of these. And then some more, like their comparative attention for civil rights & rule of law, and respective worry about “surveillance states”.

Long-term strategy no doubt also has to do with it:  how to capitalize on this Covid pandemic moment to get to a fairer & more sustainable world, and thus not squander a great opportunity for real structural change? As the saying goes, “If not now, then when?”  (as compared to what is seen by some as ‘propping up the status quo’, in the mainstream ‘pandemic mitigation’ discourse)  Others think, first things first, let’s first try to deal with the health care emergency, while trying to mitigate consequences for the vulnerable. And then, in a few months, pick up the indeed all-important structural agenda. Like the Allied forces also already started preparing for the world after WW II, while still focusing on beating Hitler and his gang.

One’s main focus of empathy (except family, of course) also seems to play a role. That is for many scientists (depending on family members, own professional environment & history) different.   (eg: some will focus more on (health) care staff under enormous pressure, whereas others who know single mothers with children, know they’re probably more afraid of lockdowns, or think of the enormous tragedies now happening in many LMICs or humanitarian settings, far away from Western media coverage).

Another factor: although all scientists agree that a vaccine will not be a ‘silver bullet’, they often differ in their assessment of the likelihood that a vaccine or some other medical treatment/invention will drastically change the picture in the months to come.

Finally, with Covid-19 implying a major paradigm shift at least as big as HIV (and probably bigger), scientists differ on how to interpret this paradigm shift. For some, the pandemic, as a syndemic, allows finally for more attention for social and political determinants, NCDs, … allowing us all to look with new eyes at these key issues, that have been overlooked for too long. For others, Covid rather feels like a “black hole” that sucks up all attention from these many other worthy causes, often (certainly in some settings) making many more casualties. As for my preference, having signed the JS memorandum, as you can imagine, I’m quite in favour of strict enough public health measures, fast enough, if the trend is going in the wrong direction, and I would personally just look in the direction of the “winners” of this Covid pandemic (billionaires, the financial sector, GAFA, and some other MNCs that still rake in extra billions while billions of people are suffering) to mitigate the socio-economic havoc wreaked on the many precarious people through lockdown or other strict public health measures.

So even if one agrees on the framing of Covid-19 as a ‘syndemic pandemic’, preferred responses by scientists can still be very different, as the pandemic hits those who are most vulnerable, but so does the ‘collateral damage’. That leads to very different assessments on what response is needed when, it turns out.

Anyway, these are some of the reasons I see for the sometimes ferocious disagreement between scientists on Covid-19 responses. I’m sure there are many more. And of course, feel free to disagree.

Still, in a democracy, it’s good to disagree and make your reasons why explicit. 

Hopefully, we’ll all get wiser as a result!

Geopolitics or a cosmopolitan moment?

 

Last week, China joined Covax, after some initial hesitation.

While the devil will no doubt be in the detail, this is still great news. While I won’t deny there’s (more than) a bit of geopolitics involved in this decision, as Adam Kamradt-Scott and others have argued, and I’m anything but a fan of Xi Jinping, a ruthless leader who indeed is playing the long-term geopolitical game in many areas and settings, there are also other ways to look at this.

1.      It’s just “common sense”, for China to do so, in the current situation.  With the current “black hole” administration in the US, Xi would be stupid not to do so. And Xi is many things, but not stupid, as far as I can tell.

2.      It’s even more common sense, if China anticipates a looming Biden victory. A Biden administration will no doubt join WHO again, as well as join Covax sooner rather than later. Better to be there too, then.  Even more so if the ACT-Accelerator turns out indeed a governance format for future health emergencies, as Tedros seemed to hint at last week.

3.      Most importantly, if a future Biden administration takes such a decision, you will hear a lot more about the US ‘joining the multilateralism camp’ again, and a lot less about the US ‘playing geopolitics’.

4.      The same goes for ‘Team Europe’, by the way. Its support for WHO and Covax is not often framed in ‘geopolitical terms’, even if the European Commission shows the same mix of ‘global citizenship’, ‘vaccine nationalism’ (or regionalism, in the words of Katri Bertram), support for its own vaccine makers and pharmaceutical companies, and engaging in geopolitics as Xi Jinping in the current situation.  But no, you hear a lot more about how much Ursula et al believe in ‘multilateralism’ and are great ‘global citizens’. Another, more neutral, term often used is Europe’s “global health policy”.

 

Finally, and I hate to admit it, but you can also see the Chinese decision as one step closer to a ‘cosmopolitan moment’ (if I put my ‘half full glasses’ on for a moment). The world coming together, given the exceptional circumstances.

 

A lot more is needed still, though, for such a cosmopolitan moment:

·        Biden has to win (and then let the US again ‘join the multilateral’ camp (incl WHO & Covax)).

·        The billions have to be found to finance the ACT-Accelerator, urgently.   My personal preference: I would just tax billionaires. But there are many other ways to ‘identify’ the billions needed, there really is a lot of money in this world, if you dare to look where it can be found. In the direction of the ‘strongest shoulders’, that is.

·        C-TAP and other initiatives to share COVID-19 health technology related knowledge, intellectual property and data  need to get much more prominence.  That won’t happen though, as long as civil society is not systematically included in the governance of Covax and other global health stakeholders (WHO being no exception, unfortunately), as it’s only through their pressure that some steps (Moderna) have already been taken.  It won’t come from philantrocapitalism or industry, I’m afraid, now all over the Vaccines pillar of Covax.

 

In sum, it’s a bit of both. Geopolitics and a step towards a potential cosmopolitan moment.

Next stop: November 3.

Football at the highest level: towards a post-neoliberal and truly beautiful game once more ?

Like many around the world, I quite enjoyed yesterday’s Champions League Final between Bayern Münich and PSG, in spite of the fake audience “cheering” and “protesting” throughout the game. Somehow it fit our “fake news” times.  I can live with the result as well. As I don’t want to impose any CL related reflections on IHP readers in the weekly newsletter intro, perhaps a quick separate blog.  If only for the ice hockey fans, or the ones who don’t like sports at all 😊.

 

1.      For a start, it’s just nice to see a ‘decent man’ like Hansi Flick in a very ugly, capital-driven world like top level football where big egos and so called “masculine values” tend to dominate. The resemblance with the empathic Joe Biden in the US presidential elections comes to mind 😊.

2.      While I’m a big fan of the beautiful game, having played it for a decade and a half, it seems more than time we rob it of its current neoliberal “values” - as we leave the neoliberal era hopefully well and truly “behind”, post-Covid.  I’m sure you’re familiar with most of these “values”: the winner takes all (the money), the rich only get richer (and the poor poorer), almost everything seems justified to beat the opponent (including rigging UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules, with the help of top lawyers), the ongoing trade in young African players (of which only the happy few will make it to the top, while the rest are being ditched somewhere along the way),  the shiny new stadiums, often constructed by workers in very difficult circumstances (see Qatar 2022), …  Yeah, I don’t need to tell you that “Qatar” rings a bell.

3.      While UEFA has done a really nice job with its ‘Thank you’ campaign for essential workers (especially, but not only health workers on the front lines), it would be far more convincing if governments started imposing a salary cap on football stars. Football players should never earn more than a prime minister (or president) in a country  (even an incompetent one 😊).  While they bring joy and grief to millions of people around the world, in the end, football remains just a game. Running a country is anything but, as we can see now all over the world. So by no means, football stars share the same responsibility as leaders of countries. As for their portrait rights and all other advertisements, I’m in favour of a ‘tax the 0.0001 % at 99 %” rule, certainly in difficult Covid times like now. To finance public goods. Same goes for tv rights. Tax Sky et al till they drop.

4.      I’m guessing with this sort of salary cap, it would also be far more feasible to get equal salaries for male & female football players. Win-win.

5.      Along the same lines, WHO would do well to not just set up “partnerships” with the shady likes of FIFA, or have football ambassadors for worthy global health causes  (like the goalkeeper of Liverpool, Alisson Becker), the social determinants & tax justice/health financing folks at WHO should also zoom in (and write big reports on) how vital ‘decent salaries’ and ‘tax justice’ (for the more “creative” football stars: that’s the opposite of “tax optimization” 😊) are for essential workers (and their salaries). And dr. Tedros (or his brilliant speechwriter) should come up with some nice mantra that goes with it.  Something with “two sides of the same coin’, no doubt.  Or: ‘Too many coins for Neymar leaves few coins for the others.’  Same for the World Bank et al. If you write worrying reports on the increase of extreme poverty (with hundreds and hundreds of millions of people having to live on less than a few dollars a day), do write also reports on where to find some of the money. You’ll see trust in multilateralism and some of its flagship organisations will suddenly increase exponentially.  

6.      Now that GAFA get more and more flak, in the US and elsewhere, among others for the billions they earned during the pandemic, while many others are struggling to just get by, the ludicrous salaries of football stars somehow seem to have escaped the ire of the public. It’s not clear to me why.

7.      As already mentioned, it’s a dirty world, football at the highest level. Not unlike politics, yes. And (part of) global health? Or rather, perhaps, in all these worlds, there’s beauty and purpose, but also the opposite, cynicism and utter ugliness. It’s about letting the first prevail.

8.      Last comment: I remember some in the global health community feeling sick and tired of the “sycophantic tweets”, a few years ago, but rest assured, by now I’m also absolutely fed up with the drooling comments by some football commentators on “dazzling football stars” etc.  I also enjoy their skills, but please, football remains just a game, even if Neymar et al are exceptionally talented. The contrast with the Coca Cola spot during the break, on everybody’s value in this world, is just ridiculous  (and yes, that goes with all caveats one can have about Coca cola ads 😊.  Can we just enjoy Neymar, Neuer and other Di Maria’s for their skill on the pitch, without having to turn them into the “gladiators“ of this age?   True, we would probably have to come up with a different name (than Champions League), then…  

 

How about ‘Essential Workers on the Pitch’ ?