When we were growing up in the sixties during the time of the Cold War between the USA and the then Soviet Union, we would often hear about a possible Third World War. Sometimes, the situation would get so heated that people would fear the Third World War might not be far away. I still remember the events in 1961, when the threats and counter-threats between President John Kennedy and Prime Minister Nikita Khrushchev over the Bay of Pigs reached such an extreme level that a Third World War seemed imminent.

Sixty years have passed since then—and no, there hasn’t been a Third World War in all those years. At the beginning of last year, such a war seemed to be a far-fetched possibility, rooted only in imaginations. But in the aftermath of the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, it doesn’t seem to be so anymore. In fact, I’m willing to argue that a Third World War has already started last year and we have been fighting it ever since.

Make no mistake, Covid-19 has imposed a war and there is no getting away from it. The whole world has been trying to fight back against this invisible, common enemy of humankind. Just like the waves, this war has been splashing on the shores of country after country. The enemy has also been changing its traits and tactics. It doesn’t spare anyone—big or small, rich or poor, male or female.

So far, globally 221 countries and territories have been affected by Covid-19, more than 138 million people have been infected, and nearly 3 million people have died. I am aware that in terms of numbers, this is quite small compared to the death tolls of the First and Second World Wars. But in an advanced world dominated by science and technology, this is quite a high number. And all these lives were lost or ravaged not because of the use of weapons, but because of a virus. We have seen the destructive power of this enemy in countries like the USA, the UK, Brazil and India.

This war has rattled human lives and livings, destroyed economies, and changed day-to-day human relations and interactions. We are locked inside the house. The modus operandi of work has changed dramatically. Children are no longer going to school. People have been losing jobs, shops and businesses have closed down, and the economies have become stagnant. The ways of human greetings have also changed. People are not touching each other, and are refraining from going to each other’s house. The world is fighting this enemy using two weapons—first, by following health protocols, for example, regularly washing hands, wearing masks and maintaining social distance; and second, by taking vaccine which, although necessary, is not a sufficient instrument by itself to overcome Covid-19.

But it is important to recognise that with the Covid-19 vaccines, a new threat in the form of “vaccine nationalism” is also emerging, which is detrimental to the fight against Covid-19. This would have implications on global political economy in terms of power shifts and power relations among countries, as well as the power structure of the system. Because of a mismatch between the global demand for Covid-19 vaccines and their global supply, three trends are quite clear: First, every country is looking at its own interest and trying to protect its own people with the vaccines. As a result, every country is trying to get as many vaccine doses as it can. Second, the demand for Covid-19 vaccines is global but the vaccines are produced by a few countries. So, these vaccine-producing countries are also pursuing a policy of trade protectionism as far as the distribution of vaccines is concerned. Third, the vaccines are being used in power diplomacies by the rich countries.

Remember that with the advent of various vaccines, some countries moved fast to secure vaccines from various production points. Some countries were successful and some were not. Canada is an example where lack of access to vaccines in the global market delayed its whole inoculation programme at home. US President Joe Biden, after being elected, warned that vaccines produced by US firms would first be used to meet domestic demand before exporting them to other countries.

Given the context of European Union (EU) and Brexit, the situation in Europe has been much more complex. Since its birth, the UK-produced AstraZeneca vaccine faced criticism not from the scientific community but from the political leaders of the EU, including the French president and the German chancellor. The relentless efforts by the EU political leadership to discredit AstraZeneca were, according to some analysts, a backlash to the UK’s decision to leave the EU. Over the months, a number of EU countries abandoned the AstraZeneca vaccine and as a result, their vaccination programmes suffered a severe blow. The EU also put conditions that no EU country can export Covid-19 vaccines to non-EU countries and the export must be confined to EU members if there is a need by another EU country. Last week, the UK has also announced similar restrictive measures.

Because of all the dynamics of political economy of rich countries, the availability of such vaccines to the developing world would suffer. Already, some developing countries have run out of their initial supplies and are now turning to China and Russia, the efficacy of whose vaccines is often questioned. In this new world with new realities, in the coming days, the power of a rich country would be determined to a large extent by the stock of vaccine it has and its production capacity. That country will use its vaccine power to extend its geopolitical strength. Among the developing countries, there will be those preferred by the developed countries as far as the supply of vaccines to those countries is concerned. Covid vaccine may be a crucial determinant in informing and influencing the future global system.

Clearly, we are in the midst of a very different kind of a global war. And people are dying in great numbers every day. The First and Second World Wars lasted for about five years, and the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic lasted for about two years. How long would the present Covid-19 war continue?

Selim Jahan is a former Director, Human Development Report Office, UNDP.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

By Selim Jahan
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 23 2018 (IPS)

The lack of women’s empowerment is a critical form of inequality. And while there are many barriers to empowerment, violence against women and girls (VAW) is both a cause and a consequence of gender inequality.

Estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate that about 1 in 3 (35 percent) of women and girls worldwide have experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime. However, these numbers – shocking as they are – only tell a part of the story.

VAW is a global phenomenon that cuts across boundaries of age, socioeconomic status, education and geography. Yet globally we still do not know very much about its extent: only 107 of 195 countries have data available on intimate partner violence for example, a number that falls to just 56 countries when we seek to understand non-intimate partner violence.

Even when data is available, it is likely that the figures are an underestimate as it is notoriously difficult to collect sensitive information on VAW when the victims can fear coming forward or feel ashamed.

VAW also has an impact on the lives of many women beyond the direct victims. The fear of violence can prevent women from pursuing education, working or exercising their political rights and voice. A recent Gallup survey shows that in every region of the world, women consistently feel more insecure than men, although the levels of insecurity significantly vary across regions.

VAW is not only a cause of gender inequality, it is a consequence of it. In many places, gender-based violence is reinforced by discriminatory laws and exclusionary social norms that undermine women and girl’s opportunities for education, income and independence.

Sometimes VAW accompanies shifting power relations within households and communities, especially when there is resentment against women who move away from conventional roles.

Today, 49 countries still do not have laws that protect women from domestic violence. In 32 countries the procedures that women face to obtain a passport differ from those of men. In 18 countries women need their husband’s approval to take a job.

Practices like early marriage are also widespread, particularly in low human development countries, where 39 percent of women aged 20 to 24 were married before their 18th birthday.

Estimates from the 2015 Human Development Report show that even though women carry out the major share of global work (52 percent), they face disadvantages in both paid and unpaid work.

They perform three times more unpaid work than men – 31 percent vs 10 percent – and, when their work is remunerated, they earn 24 percent less than their male counterparts. A professional ‘glass ceiling’ means that women still hold only 22 percent of senior leadership jobs in businesses, and fewer than 25 percent of senior political and judicial positions.

So what next? It is clearly vital to support women and girls who encounter violence, for example ensuring they have access to justice, shelter and protection, whether violence is domestic or in the work place.

But to break the VAW cycle, policy interventions should focus on the longer-term by changing discriminatory social norms; closing gender gaps whether they are educational, economic or social level; or building awareness about VAW.

Innovative and aggressive policy that aims to change outcomes (such as increasing women’s voice in the community) may change norms. Although norms should guide the design of culturally sensitive policies and programs, they should not constrain or undermine initiatives.

Progress has been made on many important fronts (e.g. on closing gaps between men and women in primary education and political participation), but there has been inertia and stagnation in others (e.g. employment).

And so much more effort is needed to tackle the patterns of violence that cut deep into many societies so that they are not perpetuated across generations. Collecting more data is an important first step.

*The HDialogue blog is a platform for debate and discussion. Posts reflect the views of respective authors in their individual capacities and not the views of UNDP/HDRO.

HDRO encourages reflections on the HDialogue contributions. The office posts comments that supports a constructive dialogue on policy options for advancing human development and are formulated respectful of other, potentially differing views. The office reserves the right to contain contributions that appear divisive.

Excerpt: