Coronavirus 'travel bubbles' must be rooted in science, not politics
As the coronavirus situation in East Asia and Europe stabilises, countries are inventing a new vocabulary to describe their efforts to reopen borders.
Many countries have begun the process, calling their policies "travel bubbles", "travel corridors", "air bridges" or "green lanes". Australia and New Zealand announced a possible trans-Tasman bubble in early June, but implementation could be as far away as September with parts of Melbourne entering a new lockdown on July 4. On June 8, Singapore started a "fast lane" arrangement with six Chinese cities, while Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand have also announced similar plans with other countries.
Farther afield, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania announced a "Baltic bubble" in mid-May. From July 1, the European Union is allowing travellers from 15 non-EU countries to enter the Schengen Area (including Australia, China, Japan, South Korea and Thailand).
As in previous decisions on movement restrictions for Covid-19, there is an absence of a global consensus on how, when and who decides which countries are allowed entry. The decision process will always nominally contain some science, such as "Covid-19 infection rates are low" or "testing capacity is adequate".
The subjective nature of any decision-making criteria, no matter how scientific sounding, makes it more likely that policymakers and leaders will try to obfuscate these criteria. After all, "ensuring that countries have a proven pandemic curbing system" sounds great and responsible, but is impossible to measure, entirely subjective and easy to hide behind.
The decision makers are largely politicians, diplomats or economic actors, with a predictable tendency to use scientists and epidemiologists as props. Their decision process is opaque and subjective. It is prone to negotiation, lobbying, commercial pressure and geopolitics.
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC BUBBLES
If science and public health are servants of commerce and politics when determining "safe list" countries, this will create several negative implications.
Firstly, public health is threatened when science and epidemiology take a back seat to commercial and political considerations. A suite of solutions comprising multiple tests, preapproved itineraries, mandatory movement tracking, quarantine periods and social distancing will help, but is not infallible in preventing a second or third wave of infections.
Secondly, decisions heavily swayed by commerce and politics risk diplomatic spats and weaponisation. Britain and France recently imposed retaliatory quarantines on each other's citizens. Just as Portugal was upset at being left off Britain's list of safe countries, it's easy to imagine other countries being insulted, offended or threatened. If travellers from one country bring Covid-19 into another country, it could cause a diplomatic incident and intense finger-pointing. Worst of all, countries can use the safe list as a carrot or a stick, weaponising it to achieve their foreign policy, economic or political objectives.
Thirdly, a safe list heavily dependent on politics and economics can be hypocritical or discriminatory. Countries often claim to make policies based on evidence but are actually often making the evidence suit the policies they want. If decisions are not objective, then economically and politically powerful nations can sway the decisions of smaller ones, and rich nations can discriminate against poor nations.
Finally, without using clear, scientific, predictable and transparent decision-making criteria, safe lists can become a new global ideological fault-line. Let's call it the epidemio-ideological fault-line, to add to prevailing political, economic, social, ethnic or religious ones. Countries will be judged based on the capabilities of their health systems, their trustworthiness and economic worth. Countries not making the safe list will endure another label, this time of "unsafe and unhealthy".
A man wearing a face mask walks along Hua Hin beach in Thailand. Photo: AFP alt=A man wearing a face mask walks along Hua Hin beach in Thailand. Photo: AFP
SAFELY REOPENING BORDERS
For countries with a stable Covid-19 situation that are considering reopening their borders to each other, here are some recommendations.
First among these is to manage public expectations by first having private, behind-the-scenes discussions. One reason why Australia and New Zealand's trans-Tasman bubble and the Malaysia-Singapore travel corridor have not yet materialised is that political leaders announced them even before any substantive groundwork began. Private discussions to establish trust, familiarity and joint standards will increase the chances of success, without the weight of public pressure and heightened expectations.
The second recommendation is full transparency after both countries agree to go public. Transparency must include the weightage of individual criteria, data sources, decision makers and advisers. Judgment on economic and political criteria is an important part of the process, so it should be acknowledged appropriately instead of hiding behind the fig leaf of "we decide based purely on science".
Thirdly, science and public health criteria should be prioritised in the set of decision-making criteria, and not used to merely justify any predetermined decisions. The science criteria must be specific, measurable and numbers driven. This will reduce the risk of inappropriate commercial or political sway, provide a measure of defence against any diplomatic incidents, and provide clarity to businesses, citizens and diplomats. There is no perfect set of science criteria, so countries must rely on the scientists of both countries.
Finally, both countries must build in a predetermined schedule of renewals or triggers to exit travel bubbles. Travel bubbles should rely on up-to-date epidemiological criteria and should not be fixed in stone. Therefore, depoliticising the way decisions are changed, and their timing, will be crucial for public health and diplomatic reasons. There must be some built-in "automatic exits" from the travel bubble arrangements, similar to automatic surge protectors for electrical appliances during lightning storms.
At some point, the world will need to re-establish trade, travel and personal links. Reopening borders is not a zero-sum or binary game. It can be done in an objective, thoughtful and balanced way, to avoid a world divided along pandemic lines.
This article originally appeared on the South China Morning Post (SCMP).
Copyright (c) 2020. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
