On 23 March, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an urgent and immediate global ceasefire in all war zones so that nations entrenched in conflict can focus their resources on battling the novel coronavirus outbreak. The UN has also slammed countries like Russia for withholding aid during this global crisis. But are these efforts enough to contain the virus and violence in conflict-ridden regions?
With global COVID-19 numbers exceeding 800,000 cases and 42,000 deaths, all eyes have turned to the developed countries of the Global North, who are currently topping the charts with their high infection rates and inability to contain the virus, despite their wealth of knowledge and resources. People are comparing East Asian countries' efficiency in handling the spread of the virus with the methods adopted by European and North American countries, with various conspiracy theories cropping up trying to make sense of all this. And in spite of a looming rhetoric of global solidarity and unbridled cooperation at the time of a global pandemic, little is being done to pressure global powers to lift sanctions or provide tangible aid to vulnerable states, particularly in the Middle East.
The plight of those in conflict zones like Syria, Libya, and Yemen, seemingly comes as an afterthought to the suffering of those in the West. The virus does not differentiate between nations based on their relative importance in the international order, and conflict-ridden countries in the Middle East are uniquely vulnerable during this global pandemic.
Firstly, the massive spread of the virus in Iran and the severe lack of transparency in its management have raised doubts about the extent of the spread of the virus in the region at large. The lack of governance in conflict-ridden regions further impedes their testing, isolation, and healthcare capabilities. According to the 2019 Global Health Security Index, which rated the health security apparatus of 195 countries to gauge what would happen if a global pandemic were to emerge, Syria was ranked second-to-last at 194, while Yemen was ranked at 179.
In the recent course of its over decades-long civil war, Syria has lost over 85 health facilities to bombings by its own Russian-backed government in its northwestern region. Upon confirming its first fatality to the coronavirus on Monday–a woman in an undisclosed region–Syrian officials cancelled all public events and decided to delay parliamentary elections. And while nine more people have been tested positive for the virus since then, narrow testing protocols have led experts to believe that this number is just “the tip of the iceberg” of the extent of the COVID-19 in the war-torn country. Dr Ihsan Eidi, a Syrian cardiologist, revealed that even the best Syrian hospital has only one ventilator and suffers from a lack of trained medical personnel.
Libya is similarly underprepared, under-resourced, and understaffed for a global pandemic. Eidi’s sentiments were echoed by Claudia Gazzini, a senior Libya analyst at the International Crisis Group. She described the health system in Libya as “abysmal” and inadequate to cope with the virus. This is further exacerbated by political feuds between the country’s warring regimes, with the ongoing conflict between UN-backed Government of National Accord and Khalifa Haftar’s forces proving to be an impediment to reaching a consensus on the dissemination of healthcare services, among other things.
In Yemen, aerial strikes by the Saudi-Emirati coalition against Houthi forces have destroyed nearly 32 vital medical facilities, causing major disruptions in healthcare access and service. During the war, the healthcare system in Yemen has been unable to properly treat even preventable diseases. Additionally, a lack of sanitation facilities have compounded the nation's struggle against the largest cholera outbreak in modern history, affecting over a million people and killing thousands over the past four years. Medical workers are still treating cholera patients, even though many foreign practitioners have returned home. Due to the siege-like conditions created by the Saudi-Emirati naval blockade, Yemen has exhausted nearly all of its medical equipment and pharmaceuticals, most of which were imported, leading to severe shortages. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that only 51% of Yemen’s health centres are fully functional.
With their nationwide and citywide lockdowns and capabilities to build new emergency hospitals, one would assume that wealthier nations are better suited to fight the virus. Yet, their healthcare systems–particularly those of Italy, Spain, and the United States–seem to be unable to manage the extreme strain of exponentially rising cases. This raises even more alarm about the ability of states like Syria and Libya to deal with the coronavirus, as their medical facilities are already compromised and heavily dependent on international humanitarian aid and foreign medical workers.
Without the presence of international aid workers, the socio-demographic realities of life in these crisis-torn regions render Eurocentric recommendations of social distancing unfeasible in war zones like Idlib, Sana’a, and Tripoli. For example, months of relentless airstrikes by Turkish forces in Syria have seen a spike in the already-high number of internally displaced persons in the country, leading to massive overcrowding of its refugee camps by a whopping 177%. This has led to a situation where 3 to 4 displaced families have to live together in small confined spaces without adequate access to sanitation, nutritional, or medical facilities. In such cases, ideal redressal mechanisms like staying indoors and maintaining healthy distances are impeded by the unfortunate realities of spatial and political turmoil.
Joelle Bassoul of Save the Children voiced concern over the inward-looking approach of nations like the US and France with respect to this virus and their hesitations to send foreign aid workers during heavy travel restrictions, fearing that this will debilitate all the rehabilitation efforts currently taking place in conflict zones. YBF’s Janhavi Apte also elucidated the various operational and executive challenges being faced by humanitarian aid workers in reaching vulnerable areas during the current situation, despite the promise of aid funds by well-meaning nations and international organizations.
But these operational difficulties in conflict zones are also likely to be downplayed by the people of these regions, who have already been victims of terrible trauma. Evolutionary psychologists have found that notions of danger and what constitutes it are not universal or normative, but are subjective to the perceptions of danger that are rooted in experience. In conflict zones where there is already so much physical threat to life and sanity, the fear of a disease, which does not pose an immediate threat to one's existence, may just see more resilience among the people. A Libyan national said, “Corona is too scared to come to Libya because the war intimidates the virus.” This idea that survivors of war who have lived among the worst kind of dangers and define catastrophe differently than those living in war-free liberal democracies is a crucial point that must be acknowledged and dealt with in conjunction with the bolstering of operational medical facilities to deal with the virus in these areas.
But this is a difficult challenge given that even the threat of coronavirus has not necessarily prompted a change in the violent patterns of most of these regions, even in Yemen, where both the Houthi and the government forces have reached common ground in urging travellers to self-quarantine and ordered a ban on flights. Just this past weekend, Saudi Arabia reportedly intercepted two ballistics fired towards Riyadh by the Houthis. Simultaneously, shortly after Syrian officials announced their first case of the virus, their air defence forces reported shooting down numerous Israeli missiles that were fired at multiple targets in the country’s Homs province. Violent clashes between the opposing forces in Libya on Monday led to one of Haftar’s senior commanders and his aides being killed by the GNA.
So even though these countries have implemented recommended measures like closing transport lines, banning public gatherings, and closing schools, these are frivolous exercises, since the embedded conflicts of the region will continue to remain a hurdle in containing the movement of people. The UN has time and again failed to mediate, sustain arms embargoes, or see long-term ceasefire agreements being followed in these conflicts. The international community has also been unable to significantly deter state actors involved in the mass destructions of these civilizations from continuing their wars.
Combating the virus and violence in conflict zones, therefore, is not as simple as calling for ceasefires–those are hardly ever respected, especially in the aforementioned countries. Moreover, such territorial and resource-driven conflicts are more likely to escalate given the economic and strategic uncertainties that the coronavirus brings. The virus has already badly hit tourism, oil prices, and capital markets, the three main contributors to most Middle Eastern economies. It is unlikely then that the Saudi-Emirati alliance will back down in Yemen due to perceived threats from Iran against the backdrop of a weakening Gulf economy. For Turkey, a continued offensive in Syria would deter cross-border migration into its own territory. Hence, a more holistic approach that embraces to the unique contexts of each conflict zone is necessary in these areas. There is an urgent need to move beyond the rhetoric of flattening the curve and social distancing and to recognize the complex challenges of imposing more restrictions on people who have already been living in war-like conditions for decades.
Guterres has already stressed on the importance of getting resources “directly into the hands of people” and to ensure the social protection of those who cannot afford to bear the burden of the current crisis. The UN has time and again proven its inability to control regional conflicts–therefore, the immediate focus should rather be on strengthening the medical infrastructure of these countries to sustain the collateral damage resulting from both the virus and the existing violence. The need of the hour is to safely transport international aid and foreign medical professionals to conflict zones, with an approach to simultaneously tackle the physical and psychological challenges faced by IDPs, refugees, and citizens. This is imperative if these regions are to survive to fight for their own freedoms in a post-virus world.
Image Source: Foreign Policy
Virus vs Violence: The Challenges of COVID-19 Mitigation in Conflict Zones
April 1, 2020
