Don't exaggerate the risks
Is it more than coincidence that the war in Iraq and the atypical pneumonia scare have occurred at the same time? In asking that question, I am not implying that Sars, or the scare, is a new kind of weapon - although doubtless if it originated in Syria that would be casus belli for the thugs in the United States.
The question is whether both events represent a reaction against globalisation, or are causing such a reaction. The longer-term consequences of both may turn out to be rather more significant for Hong Kong than the short-term impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars). Indeed, we can already see how the wrong reaction, or an over-reaction, to severe acute respiratory syndrome is creating family stress and business distress, which may be as dangerous to the community as the virus itself.
But first there is the good news, which is being seriously underreported. The virus has been identified with unprecedented speed, made possible through international co-operation. Institutions in Hong Kong, the Netherlands and Canada have played major roles, as has the World Health Organisation, a branch of the same United Nations despised by US President George W. Bush. The WHO's role in tracking the outbreaks and co-ordinating research has been crucial.
It is also worth drawing attention to the organisation's latest chart of the predicted infection rate by date of infection, as illustrated in the accompanying graph. This is quite different from the infection rate announced each day because it takes account of the time lag between infection and symptoms, and between symptoms and confirmation of infection. Of course, there is always the possibility that a new cluster of outbreaks, like at Amoy Gardens, would drive the infection rate sharply higher again. Nor am I suggesting that Sars is not a dangerous disease, about which we still know little. But it does put things into perspective.
Hong Kong will probably account for a declining percentage of global cases. It appears the disease will continue its worldwide spread, which should help alleviate the discrimination, especially in Europe, against travellers from Hong Kong.
Having been the victim of 'leper treatment' meted out to Hong Kong people in Switzerland, I know that paranoia in Europe is very high. That may be nothing new. Take the mad cow disease scare, which gripped the imagination and the media, but in reality should have ranked rather low on public health priorities in Europe.
The Sars panic will pass, but it will leave a legacy; a lingering fear of visiting places associated with developing nations - which thanks to the 'one country, two systems' principle now includes Hong Kong, as well as the likes of Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia.
Trade could be hit even harder in the long run. Buyers will return to Guangdong before long, but the Sars outbreak has added to perceptions by some major retailers, who are at the end of long supply chains, that they have become too dependent on single sources. The combination of Chinese labour, Taiwanese manufacturing expertise and Hong Kong logistics and marketing may be unbeatable in price and flexibility terms. But the Sars crisis is the kind of thing that awakens businesses to surprise risks and, hence, to diversify risks at the cost of immediate profit. Some buyers would rather manufacture goods closer to home.
Meanwhile, China's incompetent and dishonest response to the Sars outbreak will be a deterrent to new foreign investment, at a time when it appeared to have peaked anyway. All this comes on top of the increased transaction costs in trade which followed September 11, with tighter screening of cargoes and surveillance of financial flows.
The globalisation which seemed to be a triumph for America and its commitments to free trade, information and capital flows is now at risk. September 11 produced a temporary surge in international co-operation, which saw the Doha agreement for a new round of trade negotiations and improved Sino-US relations. But it has all been downhill since then, with growing estrangement between the US and most of the once-sympathetic world. The Iraq invasion was not just a one-off outrage. It represented the starkest rejection so far by the US administration of the internationalism and multilateralism which had characterised US policy since 1945. It also marked the supremacy of US military and certain strategic interests over commercial and diplomatic ones.
It is now more likely that if the US economy remains weak, a unilateralist administration will resort to unilateralist measures with little regard for prior commitments to the World Trade Organisation, the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development and North American Free Trade Agreement partners, for example. Meanwhile, the Doha round has become bogged down in transatlantic bickering. Europe and its agricultural lobby is the biggest obstacle to progress, but the sense among all other nations - developing countries included - that the US is no longer committed to multilateral systems adds to their unwillingness to compromise.
The bottom line of globalisation is that it increases the risk of the transmission of disease, as well as of drugs, terrorists, guns and other undesirables. The risks are actually quite small. But the reaction to them is getting increasingly out of proportion. The work of the anti-globalisation lobby is being done by homeland security, with its fixation on 'terrorists under the bed', grotesque racial (that is, racist) profiling and disease manias spread by the media.
Philip Bowring is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator
