The Coronavirus, the Enemy, and Nationalism

(Second in a series of articles on the implications of the coronavirus for our times, for human history, and for the fate of the earth.)

The novel coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, has been making its way across the world, conquering one territory after another, since it first emerged in China around three months ago.  There are now 185 countries where the virus has taken hold, and most of them, barring a few that took early and concerted measures to mitigate it, are finding it difficult to restrain the advance of the virus within their territories.  Much like a world conqueror, the virus respects no borders, recognizes no nation-states, and cares not an iota for sovereignty.  This may be one reason why the leaders of many countries, and even Donald J. Trump, an open exponent of the idea ‘America First’, have declared that the wholly unprecedented situation created by the virus concerns all humankind.  “Let’s look out for each other,” the WHO’s Director-General said in pronouncing the virus a pandemic, “because we’re in this together, to do the right things with calm and protect the citizens of the world.” Musicians, actors, and major public figures are all part of the choir reassuring the world that “we are all in this together”.

The virus has many other characteristics besides its indifference to nations, ethnicities, and religions, among them the fact that comparatively little is known about it and, most importantly, that it is “invisible”.  There is no cure for it yet even if the internet is awash with hundreds of purported remedies. Addressing the nation on March 17, French President Emmanuel Macron declared “nous sommes en guerre”, “We are at war”, adding:  “The enemy is there—invisible, elusive—and it is advancing.” Many other politicians have also taken to describing their country as being “at war”, and the WHO’s head has similarly characterized it as an “enemy against humanity.”  Since the United States has launched in succession, aside from military engagements that are ordinarily understood as taking a country to war, a number of other “wars”—most prominently, on drugs, cancer, and terror—it is no surprise that it now stands ready to launch a war on the virus. That political elites, whatever their purported ideological differences, think rather alike most of the time is nowhere better demonstrated than in the language deployed to characterize the deadly stealth with which the virus moves and attacks:  as Trump said a few days ago, “We have to fight that invisible enemy—unknown, but we are getting to know it a bit better.” The military metaphor comes naturally to nearly every American politician, but a politician such as Biden—a life-long Democrat, the Tweedledee to Trump’s Tweedledum—was not being merely rhetorical when in the Democratic primary debate with Sanders he declared, “We’re at war with a virus.” He has suggested mobilizing the military and calling in the National Guard.

Wars have often proven to produce outcomes worse than “the enemy” that they were meant to eliminate, and much more could be said of all the dangers that lurk in the heady rush to this war. For the present, however, it is enough to dwell on one aspect of this contemporary discourse:  when there is an enemy, nationalism is not far behind. “We are all in this together” may be read as an encomium to John Donne’s famous exposition of 1624, Meditation XII of Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, and in particular to these lines:  “No man is an island entire of itself; every man is piece of the continent, a part of the main . . . any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.”  It is also, as we have seen, the hoary cry being raised by all “right-thinking” and good people as the coronavirus continues to exact its toll. Yesterday hundreds of radio stations over nearly all of Europe simultaneously broadcast the song, “You’ll Never Walk Alone”, in an expression of solidarity and to give those battling the disease in grim loneliness the courage to fight it.  And, yet, everywhere the virus has with equal urgency impelled nations to become insular and raise the flag of nationalism.

Let us consider briefly, without any pretense that the subject is exhausted, a few respects in which the global response to the coronavirus pandemic exhibits pronounced nationalist tendencies. It is worth recalling that, during World War II, several nations were competing furiously with each other to develop the atomic bomb.  Such achievements are always a matter of national pride, even when, as is the case with nuclear weapons, the achievement is itself nothing short of an obscenity.  There is now a global race—among the United States, Germany, China, the European Union, and perhaps some others—to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus.  The naïve might well think that such competition is healthy, and it scarcely matters which country first develops a vaccine. All of humanity may be one, but no nation-state has ever acted on anything but the idea that its own population must take precedence over others, especially in times of acute crisis.

If and when a vaccine is developed to combat the virus, there is good reason to believe that the country that develops it will first ensure a supply for its own citizens, and may even attempt to extract advantages for itself before distributing it to other countries. The precedents from the recent past are not reassuring:  in 2009, when the swine flu (H1N1) had struck enough countries with sufficient force to warrant its designation by the WHO as a pandemic, an Australian company was the first to develop successfully a single-dose vaccine.  The Australian government, a recent academic article notes, “made it clear to the Australian manufacturer CSL that it must fulfill the government’s domestic needs before exporting the vaccine to the United States”, and likewise the US’s Secretary of Health and Human Services stated candidly on 28 October 2009 that only after “all at-risk Americans” had been treated with the vaccine would a donation to other countries be contemplated. Poor nations are invariably the last to receive vaccines—if at all they receive them. There can be no doubt that as the major powers each militarize their national research effort to produce a vaccine to fight COVID-19 that nationalist sentiments will prevail.

Secondly, and most evidently, countries have in quick succession sealed themselves off from other nations, policing borders with the aid of all the technologies of the modern state. The US was first off the mark with the announcement that it would not permit any flights from China.  Italy placed a cordon sanitaire around itself, and Germany closed its borders with Austria, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, and Switzerland; and Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic proceeded to close their borders in turn.  The European Union as a whole has practically cut off Europe from the rest of the world.  Numerous other examples could easily be cited from other parts of the world, and everywhere the justification is the same:  freedom of movement must be curtailed if the advance of the virus is to be halted.  But the matter is far more complex: the “enemy” is always the other, the foreigner, the alien; the expulsion of the other is also a way of rendering the nation “pure”.  Now that the invader is a virus, a hideous calamity that threatens to disfigure the nation, it is all the more necessary to keep the nation whole and hermetically seal it from those who do not belong.

The vigilance with which each nation-state seeks to guard itself from others has yet another, equally vital, dimension.  For the last three decades, since the time that the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union was fractured and dissolved, and the Cold War was officially brought to an end with the open acknowledgment that the experiment in communism had failed as well as with the concomitant rush among the countries of what had been the Eastern Bloc to embrace with full-throated enthusiasm the putative virtues of the free market economy, the only allegedly universal principle has been the idea of globalization.  It has been drummed into everyone that the world is shrinking, that the fulfillment of human destiny everywhere resides in being good and hearty consumers and giving their acceptance to the idea that electoral democracy is the only viable form of government, and that goods (supposedly like ideas) must be allowed to move across borders without hindrance.  Some on the left of the political spectrum who did not share this vision nevertheless had their own version of globalism, adhering to the hope that the demise of the nation-state was at hand and that supra-national organizations such as the United Nations and European Union would help to govern the world.  The coronavirus, it may be said, has considerably weakened the hand of those who stand by globalization and given further impetus to nationalism, already on the rise in many countries around the world.  The ultra-right nationalist parties in European nations must, I suspect, be loving the coronavirus:  the COVID-19 pandemic has, they feel, vindicated them. So much for all the attempts to write the obituary of the nation-state.


First published at under the same title, here.

9 thoughts on “The Coronavirus, the Enemy, and Nationalism

  1. Along, I suppose, with some (at least theoretical) vindication of the nationalists claim that the nation state must remain paramount is also the proof that privatised industry and the neoliberal government’s abandonment of public service and infrastructure provision has NOT worked. Public health and welfare stripped of resources here in Australia is showing up the awful reality of government of the people by the corporation and for the corporation. Let us hope, as Naomi Klein has argued, that government responses to this crisis ultimately improves the lot of all people, not just the well to do and already privileged.


  2. Hot Takes by Humanities Scholars in the aftermath of the pandemic:

    “Queering the Quarantine”
    “Class, Consciousness, and Coronavirus”
    “Viro-Orientalism in a post-Said World”
    “(Un)Ethical Isolation”
    “Towards a Viro-Political Economy”
    “Infectious Nectopolitics”
    “Aesthetics, Politics, and Tropical Medicine”
    “A Schizopandemic?”


  3. I wholly agree with your argument. Painting the enemy is something that all governments love to do, as it motivates society to action. No matter if it is through hard propaganda like during wartime or soft influence of the public view, like during the coronavirus pandemic. Supranational organizations like the EU have been strained in recent years under pressure from both national elements and transnational disagreement. The coronavirus pandemic only exacerbated this issue and I believe that as the pandemic retreats, many nations will begin to look inward to rebuild and protect their interests.


  4. I agree with your argument. Due to the rapid spread of the virus, many countries have closed their borders. Countries would only protect themselves first from the coronavirus pandemic, even if it means leaving other countries to suffer. Due to the virus’s indifference to nations, ethnicities, and religions, I would expect it to enhance global collaboration. However, it only drove countries further apart. This has had severe social and economic consequences, which I believe would prevail even after the pandemic. After the pandemic, countries would become more isolated, and global cooperation would reduce. It will be up to supranational organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union to unite countries together again. Even so, this will be difficult as many countries would be focused on rejuvenating their own economy, limiting foreign aid. This is especially detrimental to poorer countries that require foreign investment and aid to be able to recover. At the moment, some developing countries still are not able to acquire and distribute vaccines. The longer this prolongs, the more recovery will be required after the pandemic retreats.

    A strategic way the Government has gained public cooperation is by painting the virus as the enemy. This reminds me of the WW1 propaganda posters that were used, clearly labeling the Germans as the enemy. Through this propaganda, they managed to recruit lots of soldiers in pursuit of defeating the enemy. Similarly, due to the nature of this “enemy,” the Government has encouraged practices such as social distancing, self-isolation, and wearing masks. Overall, this strategy has been relatively successful. I believe this is because it is part of human nature to defend ourselves against any enemy, no matter the form it appears in.


  5. Hello Professor Lal!

    I find this interpretation of the COVID-19 pandemic extremely interesting. The idea that using the coronavirus vaccine itself as a tool of nationalism is also somewhat alarming.

    Much like the conquest of space was really an extension of the power politics being played between the USA and USSR during the Cold War, the country who is able to produce the vaccine will seem like the “hero” of the COVID-19 pandemic. Especially in light of former President Trump’s labeling of the virus as the Chinese Virus, the US made vaccines can be twisted in such a way where it seems like the US “stopped” the spread of COVID-19. This image will prevail in spite of the global communities efforts in stopping the spread of the virus in other ways.

    I fear this will feed the emerging nationalistic right that has been encouraged to spread through Trump’s Presidency.

    However, I must ask whether or not its possible for nationalism to be separated from human achievement? The example of the space race, and now the COVID-19 vaccine, have shown that it is almost impossible for a nation to do something good for humanity without flaunting their success. Is the reach of global politics too strong in our current context to allow for such humility?


  6. Reading this essay over a year after it was written, I am finding it incredibly interesting and disheartening that a substantial amount of what Professor Lal predicted has indeed come true. While governments and people around the world claimed that we were “all in this together”, it has become evident over the course of this pandemic that this is anything but true. While it is obvious that every person and government worldwide is at war with this disease, at the end of the day it has only become more clear that every nation is only out for itself. What I found particularly striking was Professor Lal’s prediction that nations would be competing to be the first ones to develop a vaccine, and then would hoard the vaccine supply for themselves, with poor nations being the last ones to receive any aid. The United States developed three vaccines, and as a result, more than 50% of people in the United States have received at least one dose. This is bringing about a huge decline in case rates as we head into the summer of 2021, and that is something to be celebrated, it is critical to point out that only 3.2% of India’s population is fully vaccinated, where there has been an extreme outbreak and massive amounts of death and suffering. The United States, in the name of nationalism, has only begun to offer to distribute vaccines to other countries now that a majority of US adults have already been vaccinated. This pandemic has only made it more clear the discrepancies in access to resources between rich Western countries and poorer nations.


  7. The first aspect of the text that jumped out at me was the fact that the predictions made in this essay have unfortunately come true. Individuals around the globe are slowly beginning to acknowledge the struggles poor countries, especially India, continue to face with COVID-19. A very small amount of Indian citizens have received a vaccine and the virus is spreading at a disturbingly fast rate. Considering India is a very populous nation and people are forced to be in close proximity with one another, the increase in cases was sadly rather unsurprising. While a great percentage of the United States is vaccinated now, the same cannot be said for a majority of the countries in the world. In the United States, many leaders are declaring that the pandemic has practically come to an end. While that may be true in this country, the coronavirus is still a threat to a majority of the world. Knowing that first world countries are hoarding vaccines at the moment, it may be years until the entire world is protected from COVID-19.


  8. Reading this months later as someone who is helping with covid vaccine distribution was very interesting. You predicted that the country that developed the vaccine would prioritize themselves over other nations. The United States has done that, taking many more doses than less wealthy countries. What’s even worse is how many doses we’re wasting. In rural areas near where I’m from hundreds of vaccination slots stay open and doses are wasted. I also volunteer at a covid vaccine clinic and we waste doses every single day because we can’t get enough people to come in. There’s a lot of distrust surrounding the vaccine, causing waste. Clinics order vaccines based on the number of unvaccinated people in their area, and the United States provides all requested doses. While we’re requesting too many doses and wasting them because people are afraid of the vaccine or don’t believe in the dangers of covid, people in other countries are desperately searching for an opportunity to get their vaccines. Someone I volunteer with told me about how in their Spanish class they called people from Spanish speaking countries and talked about covid with them and life in general. The girl that she talked to explained how no one in her family has been able to get a vaccine, not even her elderly grandparents.


  9. Hi Professor,
    I’m literally astonished by how your forcast was telling; vaccine did become a matter of politicis, and particularly, distribution. But this also entails a very difficult problem. It is impossible to hand out vaccines to any people anywhere at the same instant moment. This inevitably harbors problem about who deserve to be saved more than others, which is contradictory to what the modern ‘liberal’ strand of thought insist. This profound ethical issue has been prevalent throughout the history I guess. My father works at a medical company and one day told me about how politics are at stake when it comes to approval of vaccines. He works at a Japanese branch of an American corporation, and complains that the company tries to distribute more vaccines to American market because of a lot of political affairs going on behind.
    The similarity of each country’s rethoric that you mentioned was also interesting. It reminds me of how when WWI broke out nationalism was nurtured through the fear against outsiders. It seems to be safe when the outsider is a non-human virus; however, I believe that it could easily become an excuse to create a human outsider within their group. I saw some cases in rural Japan where infected people are seriously bullied and even ostracised. This reveals a sad univeral mentality that the humanity always posesses.As you succinctly say, “wars have often proven to produce outcomes worse than “the enemy” that they were meant to eliminate.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s