问与答：多边主义在Covid-19期间“失败了”

根据国际科学委员会来世的负责人的说法，多边制度在COVID-19大流行期间的失败严重，这是一个全球科学学院，将世界科学学院视为其成员。

Former New Zealand chief scientist Peter Gluckman toldscidev.netCOVID-19大流行的经验以及在获得医疗保健和疫苗接种方面出现的巨大不平等，表明需要进行全球大修。

How can we tackle the vaccine inequality that has emerged during the pandemic? Is there any hope of redressing the balance?

可悲的是，短期内。我认为多边主义在Covid-19中失败了，我认为这是失败的……在政治和技术问题不一致的人的早期事件中。我认为，Covax系统（用于公平接种疫苗）的事实并非特别好 - 我的意思是，整个过程并没有真正效果。

我们已经看到在不同民族主义和地缘政治t manifestations throughout, from early on in the pandemic through to issues of vaccine nationalism and now in the distribution of vaccines. Governments are always at the [point of] tension — they have to meet their own electoral needs first so, it is not an easy balance … if you don’t have a strong multinational system.

The fact that neither the UN Security Council or the General Assembly have really had meaty discussions — I don’t think the Security Council has even met at all about COVID — suggests that we are not at the position of the kind of conversation that is needed.

我认为，当人们看一些发展中国家……[他们]更愿意迅速寻求建议，并听取专家的意见，而不是一些发达国家，所以我认为有很多东西要学习。我只是担心课程是否会足够快地学习，足以取得进步。

If the right lessons were learnt from the pandemic, what would they be?

他们将[国家]拥有预先准备的科学咨询机制，而不仅仅是出于紧急情况。他们需要具有完善的知识生成机制，这意味着大学和与专家的访问。他们需要知识综合过程，这可以为咨询机制提供信息。

They need policymakers who are attuned to understanding that [there are] certain forms of issues where the knowledge needs to be taken more seriously, where the reality of the tragedies that can emerge if the evidence is not listened to needs to be weighted more seriously against short-term political or other considerations.

“I think multilateralism failed badly in COVID-19, I think it failed … in the early events at the WHO when politics and technical issues didn’t align.”

Peter Gluckman, president-elect, International Science Council

在Covid碰巧发生这种大流行的不可避免的情况下，很久以来就已经建立了很早就建立了一个人的大流行。很少有国家（可以说是少数经历过SAR的人）真正考虑过并做好了充分的准备。

我们现在知道，对运动的限制是管理大流行的明显部分，但在欧洲的早期不想关闭边界，因为它不想打破其运动自由的咒语，甚至是因为国际的历史卫生法规，谁不建议关闭边界，我认为，回想起来，关闭边界的国家是总体做得更好的国家。

It seems that, when it came to it, the WHO wasn’t able to take the envisaged central role in the pandemic…?

您可以以不同的方式将其剥离，但是国际卫生法规是在2005年写的。它们并不真正适合现代大流行。

The reality is whatever happened in the early days in China, the reporting was slow. The WHO was slow to react in a way that would have energised the world. Yes, it has had a lot of advice, but in fact when we did the early survey for INGSA [International Network for Government Science Advice, which Gluckman chaired until this year] of 120 countries, the WHO wasn’t the primary source of advice that many developing countries appeared to be responding to. They were taking it from some of the larger powers like China, the European countries and so forth.

因此，我认为谁有很多值得关注的人，但是……整个联合国制度是70年前在第二次世界大战后在一个截然不同的世界中设计的。多边系统的整个状态是有关的。我的意思是，除了WHO，WMO [世界气象组织]等技术机构，实际上是进入联合国系统话语的技术机构之外，没有正式的科学过程。然而，现实是，无论是来自自然科学还是人文科学，强大的知识对于政府对地球的未来及其上的人们做出的每个决定至关重要。

为了清晰和简洁，这次采访已被编辑。