COVID-19: What Does UN Chief’s Call for Ceasefire Mean for Countries in Conflict?

Samira Sadeque reports on the complications of enforcing a ceasefire in the middle of a pandemic. 

Sprawling settlement of Yida, South Sudan. (Jared Ferrie/IPS)

By Samira Sadeque 
at the United Nations

Conflict experts are concerned the the global ceasefire called for by the United Nations amid the coronavirus outbreak may not work and could lead to a rise in violence.

Coronavirus or COVID-19 continues spreading, having passed 400,000 cases globally and claiming more than 17,000 deaths. Countries around the world are putting in measures to ensure they can contain the disease. Many countries such as Canada, the United States and Kenya have closed their borders to non-citizens and/or non-essential travels.

On Monday, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres appealed for a global ceasefire.

“This is crucial,” he said, “to help create corridors for life-saving aid, to open precious windows for diplomacy, to bring hope to places among the most vulnerable to COVID-19.”

  • Last week, the U.N. Refugee Agency and the U.N. Migration Agency, the International Organisation of Migration or IOM, announced that they are “suspending resettlement departures for refugees.” 
  • This was especially urgent as the disease continues to spread with people in transit, and would thus risk refugees in transit, according to the spokesperson’s office. 

Guterres further called attention to the fact that “the most vulnerable — women and children, people with disabilities, the marginalised and the displaced — pay the highest price” in times of armed conflict, combined with a global health crisis.

Experts have noted this concern as well. 

Joanne Mariner, senior crisis response adviser at Amnesty International, says they’re monitoring the gender aspect of the pandemic and how it can disproportionately affect women and girls. 

“Female-headed households, for example, often make up a sizeable proportion of refugee communities, and may be particularly hard hit,” she told IPS. “Many women, including migrant domestic workers, face the possibility of being unprotected caregivers; they also may be at higher risk of losing their jobs.”

It’s thus crucial to encourage countries from further advancing any form of oppression upon others. But what would this kind of ceasefire mean for the countries ravaged by war and conflict as they deal with threats of coronavirus?  

Clionadh Raleigh, executive director of Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) says there are layers to this issue. 

“The ceasefire is a great initiative and while I certainly hope it works, the data suggests otherwise,” she told IPS. “I also expect that mob violence and xenophobia will rise.”

She pointed out that there are some armed groups who are capitalizing on this opportunity, such as the Islamic State, and hoping to profit out of it. 

“There are … other indications that some groups will try to deal with this through unorthodox means (like kidnapping doctors),” she said. 

Meanwhile, Amnesty International expressed concern, in light of the secretary general’s remarks, about the situation in Yemen, South Sudan and Syria. A ceasefire would, at least to a limited extent, give countries in conflict a little more room to put aggressive efforts into preparing for the potentially devastating impact of the virus.

“Displaced persons, fleeing conflict, often live in crowded and unsanitary camps, in which social distancing is very difficult if not impossible, and which clean water may be in short supply,” Mariner of Amnesty, told IPS.

Furthermore, many of these countries caught in conflict have healthcare systems that require a lot of improvement. 

“The health care infrastructure in countries facing armed conflict is often extremely weak, particularly when, as in Syria, hospitals have been bombed and doctors killed,” says Amnesty’s Mariner.

Meanwhile, there are different types of conflict that can arise as a result of the pandemic itself, according to a report last week by ACLED. 

“Governments may also rely on alternative forces to impose restrictions, and in doing so, increase the use of repressive violence,” reads a part of the report, which also includes other kinds of violence or conflict such as gang violence arising out of the financial instability that the world is witnessing. 

“If income from these means is reduced, it is possible that crime and looting will increase in areas of Central and South America,” says the report. 

To halt a conflict or enforce a ceasefire can be a complicated process, so it’s a matter of time to see if it will be enforced. However, as per the experts’ analyses, global leaders will likely need to also combat how to address the violence that might arise out of the coronavirus.

Samira Sadeque is a correspondent for Inter Press Service.

This article is from Inter Press Service.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Please Donate to Consortium News.

Before commenting please read Robert Parry’s Comment Policy. Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers will not be published.  If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons, please refrain from inserting links in your comments, which should not be longer than 300 words.


2 comments for “COVID-19: What Does UN Chief’s Call for Ceasefire Mean for Countries in Conflict?

  1. March 26, 2020 at 16:14

    I would need to search for more informative links. Because of “erasure” principle, one has to guess the situation from pithy articles. The rough story is that a mosquito born infections causes a lot of deaths and severe illnesses short of death in Hodeida, a city under UN supervised ceasefire. Most of the city is under Houthi control, and authorities there try to fill the pools of stagnant water where the mosquitoes are breeding, but they cannot do it on the ceasefire lines. One has to infer that UN cannot convince American-supported “coalition” not to shoot when the “rebels” try to perform simple measures to stop the epidemic.

    At the very least, UN officials should make shaming reports on that atrocity, but the “erasure principle” removes all details that are inconvenient to USA from reports, and articles in our media. As the nature abhors vacuum, the empty spaces are filled with fakes.

  2. Noah Way
    March 26, 2020 at 12:52

    To answer the question posed in the headline – nothing.

Comments are closed.