Security issues have always been prevalent in the world, and most of them strike fear into the hearts of citizens. Governments scramble to reduce these threats, and quickly mobilize resources and initiate programs in order to restructure the way that these threats are responded to. War is the most obvious security threat, and in the modern world terrorism and intra-state conflict have quickly risen to the fore-front of security issues in the public and governmental eye. However, a key concept of international security often gets overlooked, that is disease and epidemics. These are undoubtedly huge threats to international security, and may even be more dangerous due to their pervasive nature than intra-state conflict and violence. Panic and fear are still present, as is the case with other security threats, but I argue that in the case of international diseases and epidemics there is insufficient appropriate governmental response, mobilization of resources, and proper awareness with coverage.
Today, Ebola is the newest threat to sweep the globe. Over 4,400 victims have fallen to this disease in Western Africa, and the number is still increasing. Ebola is an enormous threat to international security, but due to the non-urgent perception that the Western world has about it, it was not treated as big of a security threat as other more obvious examples. This mismanagement and misinformation is one of the main reasons for the disastrous spread of this disease, as even the World Health Organization (WHO) took almost five months and over 1,000 deaths before the WHO even declared Ebola as an international health emergency. As a WHO internal document states, “Nearly everyone involved in the outbreak response failed to see some fairly plain writing on the wall.” The co-discoverer of the Ebola virus, Peter Piot states “I called for a state of emergency to be declared in July and for military operations to be deployed.” It is clear from this that the WHO have not acted appropriately and in a timely manner for this. One reason for this that is suggested is that WHO are in a once-bitten-twice-shy situation, where they were wary in creating a panic over this epidemic as was the case in 2009 when they were criticized for creating a panic over the swine-flu epidemic. Yes, sensationalizing an event or phenomenon is almost always disadvantageous as it hampers critical and analytical thinking from the public over it as they give in to mass fear and hysteria. However, with an issue like this where the borders are so porous for diseases, there could have been increased preparation and more stringent measures and procedures for limiting the spread. It has gotten so out of control that WHO is projecting 10,000 new cases per week if it is not controlled. This has far reaching implications, as economies are crumbling due to this and airlines stocks are plummeting. According to the World Bank, the economic impact could be over $30 billion worldwide if Ebola does not get controlled: “When you don’t have confidence in your government and the stories that are coming out or confidence in the healthcare system that they’re not prepared, you’re going to have a cocooning effect in the United States, which means everybody’s stays home, they don’t go out, they don’t travel,” Smith, Moore, and Company financial analyst Juli Niemann posits.
Fingers are being pointed left and right over this, as the WHO admits that they are to blame for not catching this earlier but also state that it was mainly the African front office department that improperly reported it and did not have the appropriate response. “The UN health agency acknowledged that, at times, even its own bureaucracy was a problem. It noted that the heads of WHO country offices in Africa are “politically motivated appointments” made by the WHO regional director for Africa, Dr. Luis Sambo, who does not answer to the agency’s chief in Geneva, Dr. Margaret Chan.” The president of the World Bank, Jim Kim criticized the international community for not responding appropriately as well, proposing a 20 billion dollar emergency health fund that would combat these emergency epidemics. “We should have done so many things. Healthcare systems should have been built. There should have been monitoring when the first cases were reported. There should have been an organised response,” he criticizes. The WHO have maintained that it is the responsibility of the countries’ governments to control the spread, but it is a lot more complicated than that and a state’s infrastructure is the main variable in this thus they can not blame the states wholly. The state should not only be responsible in curbing these diseases as the WHO says because: “the rise of infectious diseases is directly related to the lack of basic public-health infrastructure in the poorest states on earth where they thrive. Beyond poverty, both of these epidemics are fuelled by human rights violations…such as stigma, discrimination, and lack of access to safe water, sanitation, healthcare, essential drugs, education and food. Both epidemics are occurring in countries with long histories of brutal dictatorships and civil war, combined with either the deliberate destruction or neglect of healthcare infrastructure. “
The United Nations have warned that they have 60 days to beat Ebola, otherwise they will be facing an unprecedented security threat which they are completely unprepared for and would completely overwhelm them. Another theory that has been posited in explaining the lack of proper response from the Western world deals with the western perspective and outlook on infectious diseases. In an article written by Annie Sparrow, she proposes that “Western doctors tend to believe we have discovered, isolated and conquered germs, and have moved on to more difficult non-communicable diseases like diabetes and dementia.” Infectious diseases and epidemics are seen as more of a third-world problem, and are not given enough attention due to the Western world’s complacency.
There is no quick-fix to this problem, as Ebola is an epidemic that is now taken even more seriously with cases in Texas and Spain. The Medecins Sans Frontieres is doing commendable work against Ebola, as they bravely combat it on the frontlines. Recently, nine medics even died due to the disease.The global community should spend resources combating this disease not only by increasing stringency of borders, mobility and transportation so as to curb the international spread of this disease, but also to target the source. Western African health infrastructure should be aided and reinforced, so they can effectively combat emergencies before they spread and have strength in public-health institutions. Sparrow proposes that the US government and military get directly involved, as “the US navy could offer impressive resources in terms of ships easily converted into hospitals, naturally quarantined by water, and offering a simple solution to the three-week isolation required for those who have completed their tours.” If Ebola and other infectious diseases were recognized as the true international security threats that they are, there would be alot more awareness. One just needs to look at the response and awareness that war and conflict get to see how the quick the response is. Governments fear these threats as they mobilize resources and even change laws to increase stringency, and media covers them thoroughly. The UN has quicker responses, whereas it’s institutions have failed to recognize the potential for the spread of this disease. Again, sensationalization is a negative outcome, but there should be recognizance of the potential of a threat, which wasn’t in place. Moving forward, this can be combated through governmental cooperation and aid to overwhelmed public health infrastructures in developing countries where Ebola is the most serious danger. Moreover, there needs to be proper education of disease and awareness, whilst simultaneously putting in place border and transport procedures that will stop the spread of this international threat.