Pandemic and nationalism: from "Asian morbid cholera" to "Chinese virus". History of the contexts of the Covid-19 pandemic. The role of the WHO, China and the United States

Abstract

From a historical, sociological, and political science perspective, and inspired by the paradigm of historical materialism, this article proposes an approach to the different contexts that circumscribe the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic through two types of sources: on the one hand, the bibliography, of a historiographical, sociological and epidemiological nature, in which the collection of articles published in 2020 by Rob Wallace, under the title Big farms, big flus, stands out. Agro-industries and infectious diseases, and on the other hand, the primary sources, that is, the work of analysis of the press, especially El País or El Mundo, the Resolutions and communications of the WHO, as well as other diverse documents, located on the internet.

This macro-schematic approach defines our starting point: a reflection on questions such as: What has happened to us? What is happening to us? How can international relations be interpreted?  What value does the nationalist shift occupy at the moment? And even, why have we suffered a pandemic with dramatic consequences? With this in mind, the article proposes five objectives: to analyze the epidemic structure of contemporary times, to observe the analogies between cholera morbo, influenza and Covid-19, to describe the founding process of the WHO, the role of China and the transformations of the new world order, and finally, to interpret the Chinese virus, from the context of the rebirth of nationalisms and to relate this interpretation to the Covid-19 pandemic.

To develop these objectives, we propose a diachronic analysis of the different social constructions around pandemics from 1832 to 2020, likewise, we also intend to establish analogies between the different pandemics and the international relations that developed over three moments: he Asian morbid cholera (1817-34), the Spanish flu (1918-20) and Covid-19 (2020-22).  In short, we will define the epidemic structure of contemporaneity.

Next, as the central thesis of the work, we propose an approach to the consequences of the Livestock Revolution and climate change due to anthropogenic causes, and its relationship with human health to lead to a possible connection with the Covid-19 pandemic. This thesis needs a historical analysis in which different conditions that develop since 1970, during the third Industrial Revolution, are established.

After the demographic explosion of the 1970s, during which time industrial livestock farming has been dominant in the United States, the production model soon spread to Latin America, Asia and Europe in such a way that a gradual relocation is set in motion that will accelerate during the 1990s. That is, when Eastern Europe (just like Asia or Latin America) joins the international market and offers attractive deregulation scenarios for international food industries.

For this we mainly use the hypotheses of Rob Wallace and K. Shortridge: it is essential to take into account relocation tactics, industrial strategies related to the mass production of poultry meat, and the appearance of new epidemic outbreaks that affect the population since at least 1997 -as well as the origin of typical pneumonia, known as SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and its relationship with the coronavirus.

In addition, the study of this specific context (1970-2020) allows us to understand five vital aspects to interpret the emergence of Covid-19: the decisive role of China and its policies of opening up to the market economy between 1980 and 1985, which accounted for more than one billion new consumers. In the face of this explosion in the demand for food and raw materials, millions of hectares are cleared to establish crop fields, and a large part of the planet's ecosystems are destroyed. That is why ecological arguments become one of the new contradictions in the North-South dialectic; the process of collapse of the Soviet Union supposes the rebirth of nationalisms in Europe. From 1990 to 2007, nationalisms are consolidated, grow and evolve towards populist content, useful for the different governments during the financial crisis; the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 between Canada, the United States and Mexico will imply the practical disappearance of the traditional model of small or medium farms in the United States and Mexico, to the benefit of vertical operations of millions of pigs and poultry. In 1998, the first outbreak of swine flu was declared in North Carolina and, later, in Veracruz; the consolidation of neoliberal economic policies (Hayek-Friedman), which support globalization and reconstruction of the new world order; and lastly, the evolution of the functions of the WHO (World Health Organization) since its foundation in 1948.  This was oriented towards the cooperation and development of great health campaigns in the third world and as a factor of North-South balance until the shift presented by the secretary General Halfdan T. Mahler, who would define the goal of health for all by the year 2000.

From this chronological and plot line, we lead to the financial crisis of 2007 to find the specific context in which the pandemic is declared in March 2020.

On the other hand, this article deals with the effects that the outbreak and unexpected spread of a new virus has produced in the forms of (official) political communication of ethnocentric and nationalist content. These speeches raised xenophobic markings based on the rapid growth in morbidity and mortality statistics due to the new virus. So the concept of the Chinese virus, a social construction launched by Donald Trump, has configured a biased vision, successful until now, for the benefit of the West.

Faced with a global problem with dramatic consequences, the response of governments will take the form of populist tactics whose objective will be the exoneration of their political, economic, social and health responsibilities. Given this situation, it will have to be the WHO that considers it essential to establish scientific criteria to refer to the mutations of the virus in order to end political stigmatization. The WHO will take the lead in naming information-neutral and information-friendly variants of interest (VOI) and variants of concern (VOC), renamed with letters of the Greek alphabet. In short, it is convenient to take into account the populist response of the different governments (United States, Brazil, France or Germany) centered on collective emotions typical of a language of war.