Vanguard Magazine

32 APRIL/MAY 2020 www.vanguardcanada.com COVID-19 governance is far more efficient and less disruptive than direct military involve- ment. Since there are no bystanders dur- ing a pandemic, a new command structure for events can be needlessly disruptive and present new challenges in acquiring re- sources and delivering care. Rather than military forces leading the efforts of a pandemic, it is far more impor- tant to plan out how the security scenario changes during a pandemic. The military must continue its primary role of main- taining the security of the citizenry and guarding the borders of the state, especial- ly in times of global geopolitical changes due to the pandemic. Since global trade networks are disrupted and since shelter in place orders drastically change urban land- scapes, the security challenges also change. Societies become more dependent on con- strained trade and transportation networks during pandemics, and as a result the im- pacts of any disruption will have wide- spread impacts in terms of acquiring access to food, medical, and energy supplies. Military resources can ensure that vital supply chains remain uninterrupted dur- ing the crisis. However, increased security for swift operations and ensured mobil- ity of supply chains can in fact present new security threats. The smuggling of illicit or belligerent materials could actu- ally increase in scenarios when scrutiny is reduced in order to ensure efficiency in supply chains. One argument is to sug- gest that since traditional trade and traffic services are reduced, border enforcement agencies would have an increased capacity to apply scrutiny to the networks that are in play. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, several border agencies issued furlough notices to their agents because of the reduced demand for their services. What's more, physical scrutiny at the bor- der may matter less than deeper scrutiny of the management of the trade networks themselves. Maritime shipping and trans- port networks are notoriously porous in allowing deceptive behaviour for smug- gling. Countries like North Korea have mastered the art of it by employing a wide range of shell companies, flags of conve- nience, disingenuous vessel identification behaviour, and even sea to sea transfers. With the need for uninterrupted transport through more limited supplies will occur in a pandemic, there is a role in ensuring that those networks remain secure from il- licit or harmful smuggling. How will governments approach co- operation and partnerships with other nations? Since 9/11 the international se- curity framework has largely been struc- tured to respond to security threats from enemies, rather than situational threats from problems. Just in terms of numbers, the pandemic has cost the world dearly in terms of lives, resources, and prosperity. No terror attack has been able to match the breadth or scale of such damage. While national, and international cooperation se- curity schemes are well set up to handle the comprehensive threats that belliger- ent governments and terrorist groups can produce, what is in place for governments to respond to viral pandemics that make short work of borders and control points. Some have suggested that globaliza- tion itself brought about the COVID-19 pandemic, and that many nations may turn towards insular policies of migration and trade for the foreseeable future. This would be a disappointing outcome, as the increased speed and efficiency in mobil- ity and communications has benefited the lives of billions. Rather, it could be an opportunity to realize that the great- est threats to each and every person will come from global events connected to hu- man and environment health, rather than from limited theatres of conflict. If foreign relations remain open to globalization in the immediate future, those relations will have to deal with "problem-based foreign policy" rather than "enemy-focused poli- cy". In this way, the military has an impor- tant role in taking on coordination roles to which coordinated civilian organizations struggle with. The nature of pandemics has changed greatly since John Poyer closed down America Samoa during the Spanish Flu. Any disruption to global connectivity of the planet presents immediate and real economic, social and security threats to which militaries should be profoundly aware of, and ready to adapt. It may not be the best approach for militaries to "handle pandemic management" outright, but there are clear benefits for militaries adapt- ing to new security geographies during and after a pandemic. During a pandemic, assistance in the transportation of essen- tial goods and materials is vital. So too is to realize that targets and threats change during a pandemic. Conventional targets of terrorism or belligerence from hostile nations could indeed be replaced by new security risks involving transportation net- works that provide much-needed services and equipment in times of disruption. How then can military strategies adapt to problem-based foreign policy that is at- tentive to the human and environmental health threats that the world is likely to face in the 20th century? Answering this call may require serious adaptations to traditional military coordination and plan- ning, but in doing so, it may embolden key strengths of military operations such as getting who and what is needed to where when it is needed the most. Works Cited Auditor General of Canada. (2007). Chapter 4—Military Health Care— National Defence. Retrieved from 2007 October Report of the Audi- tor General of Canada: https://www. Photo: DND

• Cover