Odd Arne Westad Photo: Bai Yunyi/GT

Editor's Note:

Will COVID-19 permanently change the world order? Will it spark an anti-globalization trend once it's over? How will it influence China-US relations? Professor and Cold War expert Odd Arne Westad (Westad) at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, shared his insights with Global Times reporter Bai Yunyi in an exclusive interview. 

GT: Henry Kissinger recently penned the article "The Coronavirus Pandemic Will Forever Alter the World Order." He said the political and economic upheaval the pandemic has unleashed could last for generations. What are your thoughts on it?

Westad: If we look at it historically, pandemics do not shape trends, but they strengthen political trends or social trends that are already on the way. In terms of power shifts, if we think about it in a global sense there is a global power shift that has been underway for almost a generation, and that shift in power and influence is from West to East. I'm not just thinking about China here, but I'm thinking about Asia in general becoming more significant in economic terms. If China and other East Asian countries can overcome this epidemic better and faster than other countries, that trend in economic terms will be reinforced. But it's too early to tell yet because there might be a second wave of this pandemic later. And there is also a question of whether there will be other kinds of pandemics that might develop out of this.

Globalization will probably slow down, at least for a while. I think more countries will be looking after their own interests in a narrower sense. Possibly there will be attempts at changing the global supply chain. For instance, the US may produce some of the things that they once got from others by itself after the pandemic. The possible changes in the overall process of globalization would influence the political outcome.

GT: What are the uncertainties that we will face in the post-coronavirus era?

Westad: I think we will have to deal with three big uncertainties. The biggest one is health in terms of this pandemic and the pandemic that may happen next. The second one has to do with economic globalization that may have an immediate setback. In my point of view, to keep up at least some level of international economic exchanges will serve all countries well.

The third one is related to what is good governance. The trend that we see during a pandemic is that a lot of people in different parts of the world will ask for more state intervention. They want governments to take care of their healthcare. Those trends are important.

GT: Many people believe that the US no longer seems willing to take its traditional role as the world leader to fight COVID-19. Do you agree with this? What are the implications for the world?

Westad: I agreed with this. And I worry about that because I don't think there is any other single country that can step in and provide the kind of leadership on some issues like the US does.

I've seen a weakening of American leadership in a broad sense now going on for some time. I think these epidemic illnesses will strengthen trends that are already ongoing. The big question is whether this will last for a longer period of time. I think that it's a little too early to tell.

I think the US' ability to lead has been dramatically reduced, but the potential for American leadership is still there. In many ways, it is still by far the strongest country in terms of international affairs. So, it depends very much on the willingness of its leadership to play a leading role globally. And to lead is not just a question of getting more for oneself. It's also about working systemically to improve the situation on a global scale. That's the big question for the US - whether it wants to come back into that role or whether, like many Americans are simply saying, they want to get more for themselves in this new situation.

GT: What is your prediction for future China-US relations? Have you changed your previous opinion that there won't be a Cold War 2.0 between the two countries?

Westad: I won't change my view on that. I still think it would be rather different from the cold war because even if there are attempts at undermining the supply chain, China still operates within the same global market system.

I do foresee more conflicts and I do think one of the biggest problems coming out of this crisis is the tendency to blame the other side. No single country should be responsible for the pandemic alone. This is a global crisis. Blaming is unhelpful in keeping up good relations between the two countries. But it's not going to lead to a long-term cold war scenario that we saw between the US and Soviet Union unless other things also change.

I don't think decoupling will happen on a broad scale because the only way it could happen is a complete redesign of the global economic system. And that is still very unlikely.

I've been trying to think of the worst-case scenarios in which that could actually happen. I think there are only two things that could lead to that: one would be a complete collapse of the global financial system because if that happens, then the incentives for working within an international economy that is based on globalization will also disappear. But I don't think the global financial system is going to collapse as a result of this. Secondly, it would have to be military conflicts. I also think that is unlikely to happen.

GT: Different methods in handling the virus among countries have sparked debate about which system is better and more useful. Do you think this reflects a resurgence of the "ideological conflict" of "system conflict" during the Cold War?

Westad: I've been skeptical about the idea that an ideological conflict is brewing. I see many other reasons for conflict, but I wouldn't primarily see it as ideological.

I think the big question has to do with the role of good government. Who can provide the kind of government and leadership that is needed in a crisis situation like this? So far, countries in eastern Asia have done much better than what Europe and the US have done. I'm not sure if that has to do with the system of government. I wonder if it has more to do with political culture than actual political systems. 

Not many Americans have lived in China for a long period of time and been able to see China from the inside. And likewise, not many Chinese people are able to see the US from the inside. Therefore, I think they often imagine on both sides that the other country is much more different from themselves. That is actually the case. Many Americans see China as a more successful variation of the Soviet Union. But in reality, since I've lived in both countries, I can say that China today is miles away from what was the Soviet Union.

I think it would be very bad if this was seen as an ideological conflict and I don't think it is necessary.

GT: Analysts have said the world might embrace an era of big government following the pandemic. What is your take on this idea? 

Westad: I think so. I think it will depend on which country you're in. Many people in Europe and North America are looking for stronger government leadership during such times of crisis. In the US, there needs to be more preparation at the federal level and much more leadership preparation for these types of crises. 

The US can afford to build more high-quality healthcare systems for its citizens. I think this crisis will push further in the direction of trying to do something about that. This can only come from the government. It cannot be provided by private capital. 

Even if the government grows stronger at the central level in Europe and the US, I don't think the model they will use will be similar to China's. If China reviews its governance methods in the wake of this crisis, then it's not going to move in the direction of what you would find in Western democracies. There will be adjustments. The adjustments will be in the direction of a better functioning government, particular at the central level. But I wouldn't see this part as an ideological conflict in a broader sense. 

GT: What will happen to China-Europe relations after the pandemic? 

Westad: The danger for me when this pandemic is over is that most countries will begin to look after their interests in a narrower sense. I definitely think that is true for Europe. It will be in a broader sense and not just with regard to China. But I have been surprised by the European politicians who have a more negative view of China than what they had before the pandemic. So, I do think it's possible that the overall relationship will be influenced in a more negative direction. But I still think just like with the US, China and Europe are so closely connected in economic terms that even though there will be probably more trade tension, I don't think the overall relationship will be changed by this. 

GT: Some countries show selfishness when they scramble for anti-virus supplies and bar others from entering the border during the pandemic. Do you think this means we are entering a period of isolationism and populism?

Westad: You will see more isolationist attitudes and stronger pressure by populous groups on governments, but it won't be a long-term trend. As we have seen in many cases, when isolationists and populists govern, they cannot deliver the kind of goods that their people demand. 

If you try to isolate yourself from the global economic system, it is to your detriment. It's something that harms the people that you want to represent. In the US, even some of the people who supported US President Donald Trump in the last election feel that the pandemic has revealed how the US has not handled the situation well under the Trump presidency. These same people could think that maybe the ideas on supporting populist candidates or global isolationism are not good. It might be that more international cooperation is needed to overcome such challenges. 

We shouldn't be too pessimistic, because even though there will be enormous challenges, particularly with US-China relations, it's far too early to say that we cannot overcome these challenges. 

The most realistic assessment is for a very long time, the relationship between China and the US will be part rivalry and partnership. The two countries cannot live without each other. My view has always been that the most important thing is for the two countries to find things that they can cooperate on. It's simply not true that the US and China have opposite interests on every issue. With regard to the control of global epidemics and climate change, both countries do have similar interests.

GT: Historically, is there a precedent where a major pandemic has changed the political order that we can learn from? 

Westad: We often draw the parallel between this and the Spanish flu. The results of that epidemic in 1918 to 1920 were worse on a global scale. But what people forget is that part of the reason why the epidemic had such terrible consequences both politically and administratively was because WWI preceded it. So, I think one has to be careful with drawing historical parallels. 

There have been cases in history when a pandemic has led to significant changes in power. In Chinese history, there were cases where epidemic illnesses played a very important role in weakening one political system amid changing one dynasty to another. Many people also think that it was an epidemic that played a very important role in the collapse of the Roman Empire.

My main point is that the epidemics and pandemics strengthen the trends that were already underway. They didn't create large-scale power shifts by themselves.