On reimagining global resilience & shared solidarity from a ‘social contract’ point of view

 

A recent Rockefeller foundation survey pointed out, perhaps surprisingly so in the current environment, that across countries, people’s instinct is still to cooperate. Moreover, a majority (55%) globally agree their country should cooperate on global challenges even if it means compromising on national interests. A tiny majority, yes, but still – a majority.

While the report then argues – correctly, I guess- that people back cooperation more when it delivers on issues they care about, improves lives at home, and doesn’t come at their expense, here I would like to tackle the current lack of global solidarity (even of the 'enlightened interest' kind) from a slightly different angle: a social contract one.

As let’s face it, even the ones who now want to reframe global solidarity (into ‘shared solidarity’, with an increased focus on ‘global public goods’, 'global public investment', as ‘global resilience’ et cetera ) face an uphill battle in the current environment.  Given my own vantage point (Belgian citizen), here I’ll focus on the picture in western countries – acknowledging though that even among these, differences can be huge (eg: Scandinavian countries vs UK, Belgium vs US). As for the Global South/Majority world, that’s for others to take up 😊.

“National” interest?

My starting point: nowadays, there’s plenty of talk of increased ‘polarization’ in our countries. While no doubt tech bro-owned social media play a considerable role in this, I also think it tells you something that it seems harder and harder to get to a national compromise among parties who want to govern, even after elections. Including in countries with proportional representation. The ‘national interest’ is more and more replaced by ‘party-specific’ (or other faction/vested) interests. There are many reasons for this, but a key one in my opinion is the fact that ‘social contracts’ are under huge pressure in many western countries now, and in some cases have imploded altogether. From various angles the perception is increasingly that “the system is rigged” (whether on inequality, migration, increased resentment of generations towards each other (eg on housing, climate), corporate interests routinely prevailing over public interests…).  And they’re not wrong, to a certain extent, though in some countries the situation is clearly worse than elsewhere.

However, if people already can’t agree on the national interest (after elections), why would you expect them to agree on a global interest (and contribute to it in a fair way)?

Making the system fair again: "It's about the social contract, stupid!"

From that follows: if we want people to live up to what a majority of citizens still claims in this Rockefeller survey, one potential avenue is by trying to fix the social contract within countries. It’ll never be perfect, of course (it’s always a work in progress), but it would certainly help if policy makers from the centre started saying “yes, we want to try fix the broken social contract’. And that, I’m afraid, you can only do by “making the system fair again”.  True, the global system was never “fair” in the first place, for the reasons you know, but at least in western/northern countries some decades ago, I have a sense more citizens still agreed on a ‘common, national interest’ (and probably had a more positive view on the social contract in their countries). So if we want to tackle increased polarization in our societies, that’s where I would start. Perhaps together with safeguarding public interest media (see a recent report by the High-Level Panel on Public Interest Media) as clearly you can try "fix" the social contract all you want, if citizens live in vastly different (media) bubbles, it won't make much difference. (I praise myself lucky to still live in a country where public interest media are still sufficiently strong).  

Coming back on the social contract though, of course, it’s easier said than done, as many of the levers to try fix this national social contract are actually situated at the global level (where a global government is lacking as you know, and the previous hegemon has gone “missing” (or worse) moreover). So there’s a bit of a ‘catch 22’ here. Yet the opposite is also true -the more countries move - nationally - in this direction (towards making their countries fairer again), the easier it becomes for ‘coalitions of the willing’ to move in that direction too (at global level), and vice versa. So this could trigger a virtuous circle of sorts – much needed in the current polycrisis era.

The more people reckon ‘the system in my country is less rigged than before’ (or at least ‘we’re moving in the right direction’), the more they’ll be willing to support – at the global level - ‘global resilience’, global public goods, global public investment, ... heck, even ‘global solidarity’ if you want.  Not the least as many realize, deep down, it’s in their interests too. There's something intuitive to 'pay now for GPGs, or pay much more later'. 

A few quick wins (not talking about ‘political will’ here 😊) for 'fixing' social contracts:

-        Go after the billionaire class (on taxation, their outrageous climate behaviour, …)  - both at national and global levels (eg: Solidarity levies task force, Zucman’s G20 tax, …)  (including a whopping special tax for billionaires aiming to explore space or organize tourism in space)

-         Tackle our own double standards   (see Gaza) – as these make people deeply cynical about the (international) ‘rules of the game’ (eg: why on earth would tax payers support EU humanitarian aid for Gaza if at the same time some EU countries continue to arm Israel?)

-          In the current 3.5 %(/5 %) debate on NATO targets, we should claim right away 1 % of GDP (out of this amount) for ‘global resilience’ (/support for Global Public Goods). That's just  common sense in my opinion (and I bet a majority of citizens in the world would agree) - regardless of whether you agree with the 3.5%/5% NATO target in the first place. Yet, this one percent target would be all the more convincing to public opinion if you go on to say explicitly “this money for GPGs obviously has to come from the winners of globalization  (and contributors to Global Public Bads)”.  I have a hunch most people know who they are by now.

 

But the opposite is true too. If centre parties fail to fix social contracts sufficiently in the coming years, only the radical-right will prosper.   ( as history has taught us that the radical-left tends to be shot down by the establishment sooner rather than later (or else collapse due to infighting)… )     And yes, in some countries it’s probably already too late, at least for now (thinking of one in particular). 

But in many others, it’s not. Time is running out though.

With that, I end my humble contribution to ‘re-imagining’ the new era 😊.

Naar een 10-punten plan voor internationale samenwerking en solidariteit in tijden van polycrisis?

(blog van 10 juni, oorspronkelijk gepubliceerd op De Wereld Morgen)

 Het is al weer effen geleden dat ik nog eens een blog voor De Wereldmorgen schreef, maar een uitnodiging via een collega om op 10 juni in een panel te spreken over de toekomst van internationale samenwerking en solidariteit, op de jaarlijkse meeting van Be-Cause Health in Brussel, leek me een goeie aanleiding (de neoliberaal in mij had bijna ‘incentive’ geschreven) om vooraf eens een paar gedachten te proberen ordenen.

Meer bepaald ziet het openingssalvo aan vragen voor de mensen in het panel er zo uit: “Hoe ziet u de toekomst van internationale samenwerking, hulp en solidariteit? Wat kunnen we doen om de strijd voor wereldwijde gezondheid(szorg) opnieuw uit te vinden, en daarbij de fouten uit het verleden te vermijden? Hoe kunnen we het recht op gezondheid voor iedereen garanderen?”

Ik hoor je denken, de ene vraag klinkt al voluntaristischer dan de andere in de huidige omstandigheden. Maar er valt wel degelijk veel over te zeggen, zélfs en misschien vooral in dit nieuwe tijdperk van polycrisis.   Bij mijn interventie wil ik in eerste instantie focussen op de binnenlandse publieke opinie, in wat vroeger bekend stond als “donorlanden”. België is er daar zoals bekend één van.  Andere panelisten (en mensen in het publiek) gaan ongetwijfeld op de vele andere dimensies inzoomen van de huidige crisis – o.m op het vlak van hervorming van global health governance en de noodzaak tot versnelde implementatie van de New Public Health Order in sub-Sahara Afrika.

Cynisme

Mijn uitgangspunt: een groot deel van de publieke opinie is ronduit pessimistisch, zelfs stilaan cynisch over ‘officiële ontwikkelingssamenwerking’ – en dat was eigenlijk al zo voor Trump & co de genadestoot gaven aan Amerikaanse hulp en solidariteit. Daar zijn tal van redenen voor, zonder exhaustief te willen zijn: (1) het onderscheid tussen ‘rijke’ en ‘armere’ landen waar o.m. het system van ODA (‘Official Development Assistance’) (en bijhorende ‘0.7 % BNP’ norm) op gebouwd waren, is veel minder duidelijk dan vroeger. Diplomaten van ‘rijke’ landen geloven er zelf niet meer in als ze die norm herbevestigen in ‘zero drafts’ voor pakweg de ‘Financing for Development conferentie’, die eind juni begint in Sevilla. Meer een rondje voor de bühne.  Aangezien het precariaat (en meer in het algemeen de mensen die het moeilijk hebben om overeind te blijven in de ratrace), blij(ft)/ven aanzwellen in veel ‘welvarende’ landen, zijn almaar minder burgers nog enthousiast over internationale solidariteit. De VS en het Verenigd Koninkrijk waren door hun brute vorm van kapitalisme ‘voorlopers’ bij een en ander – maar als we Axel Ronse en co laten begaan, eindigen we daar binnen afzienbare tijd ook. (2) Daaraan gekoppeld: in veel ‘rijke’ landen staat het sociaal contract onder druk (o.m. omdat maar al te duidelijk is dat de ‘sterkste schouders’ niet in verhouding bijdragen, en al te veel publieke diensten geprivatiseerd en/of anoniemer werden in de loop der jaren). (3) Internationaal is het al niet veel beter. Multilateralisme en zelfs de ‘rules-based order’ waar toch één en ander op aan te merken was, ook al in betere tijden, dreigen finaal te bezwijken (o.m. door de horror in Gaza) met de wel erg stuitende hypocrisie van de EU en haar ‘twee maten, twee gewichten’ als één van  de hoofdredenen.   Aangezien internationale solidariteit en multilateralisme samengaan (zie bijvoorbeeld de duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen (SDGs)-agenda), lijdt het weinig twijfel dat met de neergang van multilateralisme, ook internationale samenwerking in de brokken deelt.  (4) Een tijdje geleden liet Jean van Wetter (Enabel) ergens optekenen dat internationale samenwerking ook wat elitair overkomt in de perceptie van veel modale burgers, in tegenstelling tot decennia geleden. Dat is ongetwijfeld correct.  (5) Last but not least, internationale samenwerking kampt ook met (minstens) een perceptie van weinig effectief & efficiënt te zijn, ja zelfs vaak contraproductief.  Waarbij voor alle duidelijkheid nogal veel over één kam geschoren wordt, maar dat terzijde.

Komen daar nog bij de gebruikelijke redenen die waarnemers op dit ogenblik signaleren in media, zeker in Europa, zoals minder en minder fiscale ruimte door de militaire opbouw, vergrijzingskosten, …. en een soort “self-fulfilling prophecy” waarbij het egoïsme waarvoor Trump, Vance & co staan, blijkbaar een ‘Brave New World’ vormt waar we ons maar  aan “aan te passen” hebben (het is niet voor niets dat in de slipstream van Trump’s USAID & PEPFAR ravage, een stuk of wat andere landen ook hun budgetten voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking drastisch naar beneden hebben herzien)….  Last but not least,  de ‘ontwikkelingssamenwerkings-sector’ is om begrijpelijke redenen nogal huiverig om al te expliciet te pleiten voor blijvende solidariteit en samenwerking, zelfs indien die op fundamenteel andere leest geschoeid worden (zie verder), om niet het verwijt te krijgen ‘voor eigen winkel te pleiten’.

Je begrijpt dus waarom het Be-Cause Health panel met dat drieluik aan vragen zal starten.

Nood aan véél meer assertiviteit

Echter, zoals je allicht al gemerkt hebt, de hele wereld is in beweging, en dat geldt ongetwijfeld ook voor paradigma’s. Er lijkt me dus, eerlijk gezegd, geen enkele reden waarom ook progressieve krachten niet (veel) assertiever zouden mogen zijn bij het opkomen voor een nieuw paradigma in tijden van polycrisis.  Mark Rutte en co hebben daar heus niet het alleenrecht op.

En laat ik dan maar met de deur in huis vallen: ik herinner me een 70-puntenplan van het Vlaams Blok dat, ondanks nogal wat commotie toen het gelanceerd werd, in de loop der jaren door nogal wat zogenaamde ‘centrum-‘partijen voor minstens een deel in de praktijk is gebracht – helaas. Welnu, waarom zouden mensen die geloven in internationale solidariteit ook niet met een nogal agressief tien-punten plan op de proppen komen? Niet om op korte termijn centrum-rechts (of erger: Bouchez bv) in dit land te overtuigen, wel om te proberen de conversatie in een fundamenteel andere – en veel minder defensieve – richting te duwen, en op middellange termijn voldoende mensen en partijen te overtuigen om echt dingen in beweging te krijgen. Er zijn genoeg andere recente voorbeelden van paradigma-shifts (bv. neoliberalisme) die jaren, zelfs decennia in beslag namen voor ze echt mainstream werden.

Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat  het cynisme over internationale samenwerking waar ik eerder over sprak bij velen tot op zekere hoogte overwonnen kan worden.  Al was het maar omdat we – helaas – lijken af te stevenen op een tijdperk van ‘globale weerbaarheid’ (“global resilience”), waarbij we op tal van domeinen bijna niet anders gaan kunnen dan de uitdagingen via internationale samenwerking te proberen aanpakken.  Maar dan moeten we wel beginnen zeggen waar het op staat. En daarbij mogen we een zogenaamd ‘links-populistisch’ narratief allerminst schuwen. Zoals ze een en ander aan de andere zijde van het politieke spectrum plegen te zeggen: vaak gaat het trouwens gewoon om ‘gezond verstand’.

Ik doe alvast een eerste aanzet hieronder – maar dus eerder in functie van dat panel morgen (met focus op de binnenlandse publieke opinie). Hoop dat iemand hier echt werk van maakt een dezer.

1. 1% van het BNP moet gaan naar globale publieke goederen (ivm ontwikkeling (SDGs) (inclusief globale gezondheid), de planetaire crisis, humanitaire hulp, …).   Onder het motto: als Theo zijn jongensdroom meent te moeten waarmaken door onverdroten voor 5% van het BNP voor defensie te pleiten, als ware het een soort natuurwet ( en “alsof het aan de bomen groeit”, om Sammy niet te citeren), dan lijkt dergelijke target voor GPGs in tijden van polycrisis allerminst overdreven.
2. Cruciaal: nu sociale contracten (met inbegrip van belastingsstelsels) in tal van landen herijkt gaan moeten worden, lijkt het me niet meer dan logisch dat de sterkste schouders – vaak de winnaars van neoliberale globalisering – ook veruit het leeuwendeel van deze inspanning moeten ophoesten. Laat dus de (0.0) 1 % maar betalen voor Globale Publieke Goederen (in ons land o.m.: de rijkere families met hun “geoptimaliseerde” belastingsconstructies, ondernemers zoals Marc Coucke en Fernand Huts, specialisten-dokters met hun vennootschappen (en -lobbies), en uiteraard ook de topvoetballers à la Kevin de Bruyne en Thibaut Courtois). Overwinsten van multinationals zijn zeker ook meer dan relevant in deze. Internationaal moet hetzelfde gelden trouwens, in nogal wat landen is de polarisering tussen rijk en arm nog een stuk wraakroepender dan bij ons (zoals de Oxfam rapporten van de jongste jaren maar al te duidelijk maakten).
3. Progressieve krachten moeten dus -zonder “mits’en en maar’en” – aan de kant van de ‘global tax justice beweging’ staan. Recent verscheen nog een policy brief van UNU-IIGH die daarover weinig twijfel liet bestaan, “The Fiscal Architecture of Health: UNU-IIGH Policy Brief Calls for Global Tax Reform as a Public Health Imperative”. De policy brief positioneerde belastingsrechtvaardigheid als een centrale pijler van de ‘global health’ agenda. En terecht.  In de wereld van de globale gezondheidszorg is dit echter nog steeds weinig evident: nogal wat mensen, zeker op de hogere echelons, blijven geloven in een meer “pragmatische” benadering, waarbij filantropische organisaties (zoals Gates, Wellcome Trust, ….) gaten zouden helpen dichten. Dat is niet verkeerd op korte termijn nu er een ravage plaatsvindt in veel lage-en middeninkomenslanden, in de nasleep van Musk & Trump’s hardvochtige bezuinigingen, maar op middellange termijn slaat het nergens op.  Me dunkt hebben we de jongste jaren al voldoende verwittigingen gekregen over de corrosieve impact die miljardairs (kunnen) hebben op de samenleving en (kwaliteit van) onze democratieën. Idem dito voor alle ‘de-risking’ en ‘blending’ waar je nu nogal wat mensen hoort voor pleiten: nog los van de andere risico’s (en een vrij naïeve inschatting van de drijfveren van een groot deel van de privésector, vrees ik), vormt dit soort ‘innovatieve financiering’  mijns inziens ook een belangrijke reden waarom internationale solidariteit als ‘elitair’ wordt beschouwd in veel kringen.
4. Daaraan gerelateerd: wordt het niet stilaan (hoog) tijd voor een ‘extreme rijkdoms-lijn’ – in lijn met wat de New Economics foundation daarover propageert ? Via een democratische consultatie kan land per land nagegaan worden waar die ongeveer zou moeten liggen. Lijkt me een must post-2030 (als we nog zoveel tijd hebben). De redenen voor zo’n ‘extreme wealth line’ zijn  legio  (en zeker ook ecologisch en politiek).   Dus waarom geen ‘sunsetting miljardairs’ target voor de post-2030 agenda?
5. Daarop aansluitend: maak – bv. in elk interview en in elk opiniestuk -de link tussen rijkdom en klimaatschade veel explicieter. Weinig zaken maken mensen cynischer dan zelf klimaatinspanningen doen, en ondertussen de “jet set” zich nergens van aan te zien trekken (met toeristische uitstapjes naar de ruimte als “kers op de taart”). Laat ons dus maar een aantal luxegoederen (zoals superjachten en private jets) keihard beginnen belasten. Opnieuw: “potje breken, potje betalen.” Een ‘frequent-flyer tax’ die snel oploopt bij elke bijkomende vlucht is een andere evidentie.
6. Maak een pak duidelijker dat ‘nu betalen voor globale publieke goederen’ vaak neerkomt op ‘in de toekomst veel minder moeten betalen’ ( zeker ook ‘binnenlands’) (en vice versa). Tijdens de Covid pandemie gingen zoals bekend triljarden verloren. Op klimaatvlak hoef je geen groot wonder te zijn om op dezelfde hamer te kloppen. Allicht geldt in veel andere domeinen iets identieks. Da’s dus een argument waarmee je ook de meer gematigde en rationele rechtse stemmen (genre Gwendolyne Rutten of Bart Somers, of aan de andere kant ‘Les Engagés’) moeiteloos kunt overtuigen. Heel misschien is het zelfs een argument dat bruikbaar is voor Matthias “Onze Welvaert!” Diependaele : )
7. Een beetje ‘realpolitiek’, daar kunnen we inkomen, zeker in een multipolaire wereld. Maar er zijn grenzen aan de hypocrisie. Of die zouden er toch moeten zijn. Als onze beleidsmakers die grenzen op degoutante manier overschrijden, zoals de laatste twintig maanden, moeten we blijven pushen – anders zal nog meer cynisme het resultaat zijn. En we weten allemaal wie daar het meeste baat bij heeft.
8. En zoals Karim Karaki aangaf in een recent ECDPM opiniestuk, ondertussen een beetje dimmen qua ‘aspirationele doelen’ in lijn met wat je realistisch kunt waarmaken op korte termijn, zou de EU ook sieren.    Al deel ik, zoals uit bovenstaande mag blijken, niet zijn inschatting dat pakweg 0.2 of 0.3 % voor GPGs het ‘nieuwe normaal’ moet worden.

…

(enzovoort -wees gerust, ik kan echt wel tot tien tellen : ))

 

Samengevat: als we niet een stuk assertiever (ja zelfs, agressiever) worden, en ons beperken tot ‘proberen redden wat te redden valt’, en al te “pragmatisch” zijn en ons proberen aan te passen aan de ‘nieuwe transactionele wereld’, dan vrees ik dat we de strijd om het narratief gaan verliezen tegen radicaal-rechts  (dat nu al een enorme invloed heeft op het centrum in veel van onze liberale democratieën).   Ter info: als Trump en co hun zin krijgen van het Congres, gaan ze daar naar verluidt ‘landen’ op 0.03 % voor “buitenlandse solidariteit” (waarbij zelfs die allicht nog ‘MAGA’-proof zal moeten zijn…).

Of laat het me zo uitdrukken: die 5 % voor defensie is echt geen natuurwet. Welnu, hetzelfde geldt voor budgetten voor globale publieke goederen. Maar dan in omgekeerde richting.

Waarmee ik niet wil zeggen dat financiën alles zijn in dit debat – om bv. tech transfer en internationale normen en wetten niet te noemen.

 

Stap twee

Hoe je een en ander dan vormgeeft, bv. via Global Public Investment   of een andere benadering ‘fit for the 21st century’, is stap twee.  Uiteraard moet een nieuw ‘narratief’ in de nieuwe multipolaire wereld inzetten op wederzijds belang en is inclusieve governance een absolute must. Maar de eerste stap, me dunkt, is veel agressiever worden mbt wat we zelf denken dat nodig zal zijn om een beetje solidariteit (zowel nationaal als internationaal) te behouden voor de heel moeilijke jaren die eraan komen.

PS: last but not least, lijkt het me ook niet verkeerd om (zoals de N-VA haar beruchte “debatfiches” heeft), ook een soort ‘rapid response’ checklist klaar te hebben, om ad rem te kunnen reageren op rechts-populistische opmerkingen van Bouchez en consoorten.

Genre: ‘Is internationale samenwerking wel efficiënt?’  “Heb je al eens goed gekeken naar die F35s? … “  Of nog: “Heb je Coucke al eens bezig gezien bij RSC Anderlecht? ” : )

Global Health Monopoly

It is said we live in a brave new ‘transactional’ era now, and so I was wondering whether some business-savvy person, called Donald or otherwise, could come up with a Global Health version of “Monopoly”, the most transactional boardgame of all (true, these days, it would technically need to be combined with “Risk”, in order to fit the current geopolitical times even better, but I’ll keep that for another day).   

 

What could make a country or other global health “stakeholder” earn a few places extra in this boardgame, or lead to some other ‘position switches’, given the difficult “trade-offs” they all face?

Well, from the top of my mind:

·         As a strong “leader”, you cut your ODA, in order to have more funding for defence (and in the process appease an authoritarian leader not too keen on aid). Yet,  you call it a ‘terribly difficult decision’.   (move forward three places)

·         Yes, some of your citizens might run the risk of getting their heads chopped off on a bad day, but nevertheless, in the Grand Global Health Scheme of things, you can totally make up for that by some charitable funding for polio eradication.   (hurray, move forward four places!)

·         There’s a pandemic going on, but your Foundation isn’t too keen on a TRIPS waiver (move forward five places, ànd you get a front seat in COVAX)

·         You run a Public-Private partnership, and reckon you’re doing an amazing job by having the private sector contribute one billion   ( six places extra – and you get a front seat at the World Health Summit in Berlin)

·         You are a visionary billionaire who knows exactly what needs to be done on global health as well as on climate change?    (you go straight to the boardgame spots that are heavily bankable, and can start setting up expensive global health hotels till you drop)

·         During a pandemic, you talk all the time about ‘Leaving no one behind’ and ‘Nobody is safe till everybody is safe’, yet your organisation naturally makes sure your continent comes first when it comes to vaccines   (ten places extra, plus you also get invited to all sorts of High-Level Global Health Events where you shine like Johnny Logan on a Eurosong stage )

·         You pride yourself on being a ‘Global Health Leader’ for decades, yet you help facilitate a genocide?      ( as many in Global Health power corridors pretend their nose is bleeding, no worries! )

·         You support a brutal militia in another country, yet, your regime is considered a ‘donor darling’  and has been doing reasonably well on HDI (go to ‘global health prison’, but only for a few months –  and sooner or later, Dr Tedros will call you a ‘Brother’ again 😊)

·         You label ‘solidarity, equality, & sustainability'  disparagingly as  ‘DEI and climate change’ and thus anti-the “values” in your country?    (no worries, WHO leadership still tries to convince you to come back to the organisation!  And so your next roll with the dice counts double )  

·         You run an international football organisation that is rather corrupt and love to fly with private jets all around the world, yet you have a partnership with WHO on ‘sports and health’   (jackpot, you get invited to the new US president’s inauguration!)

·         ….

 

 

As many spots on the board game still need to be filled, do add !

 

(Disclaimer: don’t take this too seriously)

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.