The Illusion of Closing Off Borders
Published in La Presse
(Canada) on 18 October 2014
by Ariane Krol (link to original)
(Canada) on 18 October 2014
by Ariane Krol (link to original)
Translated from
by Marie-Bernadette Reyes.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
The worst danger that awaits rich countries facing the threat of Ebola is to look for cheap reassurance, concentrating their efforts on their own territory.
Many are raising their voices in the United States to call for the closing of borders to flights and persons coming from countries where the epidemic is out of control. An understandable reaction; a Liberian citizen was the one who brought the illness to American soil, and, from contact with him, two American nurses contracted the virus. The episode is simple, linear. And it's the only incident in North America. It's tempting to raise the drawbridge to keep the infected at a distance — except it's impossible.
In the United States, Canada, the majority of Europe and several other regions of the world, impenetrable borders are an impossible fantasy. A territory that receives a constant flow of travelers — of which a certain number are illegal — by air, sea and land will never be able to claim perfect screening. Such a lockout will instead incite people having traveled through blacklisted countries to cover their tracks and take medications to hide any trace of illness.
The epidemic has already led to a reduction in air connections with Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. Closing more borders will have an even greater effect on the supply of commercial flights, which will drive up the costs of sending medical/sanitation personnel and supplies.
During this time in West Africa, do we seriously believe that the virus is going to contain itself in the same square of sand? As much as we leave this epidemic uncontrolled, it's only a matter of time or bad luck before it spreads to other countries. Do we really want to see this happen in India or China? With this kind of logic, the country that aims to close its borders to at-risk travelers will soon find itself completely cut off from the world.
That said, when we look at the situation dispassionately, we understand the temptation to close oneself off. The effort required on the ground is far more demanding.
The aid has been completely overtaken by the 9,000 registered cases since the spring. How would it be in the beginning of December, if we find ourselves with 5,000 to 10,000 new cases a week, as the World Health Organization predicts? According to the U.N., it would take $1 billion to put an end to this epidemic. We could discuss the bill, but with only $20 million promised so far, it is evident that more money is needed.
Let's hope that the rich countries know how to count, and that they realize that it would be less costly to intervene sooner, before the epidemic reaches such extent. Let's also hope that they retain the lesson. Ebola, long considered an obscure African disease, has become a tangible threat with which we must now compromise.
Many are raising their voices in the United States to call for the closing of borders to flights and persons coming from countries where the epidemic is out of control. An understandable reaction; a Liberian citizen was the one who brought the illness to American soil, and, from contact with him, two American nurses contracted the virus. The episode is simple, linear. And it's the only incident in North America. It's tempting to raise the drawbridge to keep the infected at a distance — except it's impossible.
In the United States, Canada, the majority of Europe and several other regions of the world, impenetrable borders are an impossible fantasy. A territory that receives a constant flow of travelers — of which a certain number are illegal — by air, sea and land will never be able to claim perfect screening. Such a lockout will instead incite people having traveled through blacklisted countries to cover their tracks and take medications to hide any trace of illness.
The epidemic has already led to a reduction in air connections with Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. Closing more borders will have an even greater effect on the supply of commercial flights, which will drive up the costs of sending medical/sanitation personnel and supplies.
During this time in West Africa, do we seriously believe that the virus is going to contain itself in the same square of sand? As much as we leave this epidemic uncontrolled, it's only a matter of time or bad luck before it spreads to other countries. Do we really want to see this happen in India or China? With this kind of logic, the country that aims to close its borders to at-risk travelers will soon find itself completely cut off from the world.
That said, when we look at the situation dispassionately, we understand the temptation to close oneself off. The effort required on the ground is far more demanding.
The aid has been completely overtaken by the 9,000 registered cases since the spring. How would it be in the beginning of December, if we find ourselves with 5,000 to 10,000 new cases a week, as the World Health Organization predicts? According to the U.N., it would take $1 billion to put an end to this epidemic. We could discuss the bill, but with only $20 million promised so far, it is evident that more money is needed.
Let's hope that the rich countries know how to count, and that they realize that it would be less costly to intervene sooner, before the epidemic reaches such extent. Let's also hope that they retain the lesson. Ebola, long considered an obscure African disease, has become a tangible threat with which we must now compromise.