The attraction of peace to end COVID-19

The U.N.’s success in asking for cease-fires in world conflicts can help push the Security Council to finally act against the coronavirus.

Reuters
An instructor addresses volunteers for a coronavirus awareness campaign in Sanaa, Yemen, March 28.

The most powerful body in the United Nations, the 15-member Security Council, has largely been silent on the COVID-19 emergency. The main reason is that two of the council’s veto-wielding members, China and the United States, disagree over the pandemic’s origins and the response to it. On Thursday, that silence began to change.

The council finally met to address the crisis although in secret and via videoconferencing. It has been under pressure from many nations to act because of the global nature of the outbreak. In addition, its members could no longer ignore a compelling success story driven by the U.N.’s chief administrator.

On March 23, Secretary-General António Guterres called for an immediate cessation of hostilities in all the world’s violent conflicts in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus and to be able to deal with the humanitarian consequences.

It turns out his call for peace was a powerful attraction.

Since then, cease-fires have been endorsed by warring parties in 12 countries, from the Philippines to Colombia. One in particular stands out. On Thursday, Saudi Arabia announced it would observe a two-week cease-fire in Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world, in response to Mr. Guterres’ request. That five-year conflict, which is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and its rival, Iran, has resulted in one of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and over 100,000 deaths – more than from COVID-19 so far.

In the council meeting, Mr. Guterres was expected to give an update on his peacemaking efforts and to ask for a U.N. structure to closely track the cease-fires. With combatants under such scrutiny, they might prolong the truces and negotiate deals to end their conflicts. In addition, the U.N. and other global bodies could use the pause to seek solutions to the underlying social and economic causes of the local wars.

Mr. Guterres’ original plea was that “there should be only one fight in our world today: our shared battle against COVID-19.” This “common enemy,” he added, doesn’t care about the human divisions that drive today’s violent conflicts.

The ultimate political cohesion against the virus would be a united Security Council. It could show there is something worthwhile to support – the inklings of peace around the world – that may help lessen the current disputes over how to deal with the virus crisis.

Peace is not merely the absence of war but a positive force for repairing and restoring societies. The current silence of guns in many countries begins the process That silence has pushed the Security Council out of its silence.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.