The fever of global panic has broken. Mexico is receding from the headlines, though H1N1 continues to claim lives—85 worldwide as of May 22nd. With the luxury of some hindsight, several trends are becoming apparent. My posts over the next few days will discuss some of the more salient trends.
First, the Calderón administration deserves more credit. The Mexican government has frequently been criticized for its dilatory, “woefully inadequate” response to the emergence of H1N1. Mexico may have been slow in recognizing the threat it was facing. Once it did, the government moved swiftly, coordinating a response with the CDC, shutting down Mexico City, and appealing to the international community for assistance. Many nations that were strident in their initial criticisms have been less outspoken regarding Mexico’s successes, even though the WHO has praised Mexico for its “responsibility and transparency”. The proscriptions of the Mexican government slowed the spread of the virus and enabled the outside world to marshal a suitable response. Whether other nations did this or not—and thankfully a good many did—was not a product of Mexican dithering.
This stands in contrast to other nations’ responses to similar crises and to Mexico’s own crisis response in the past. China denied the emergence of SARS from November 2002 through March 2003, then shunned outside assistance. As a result, the death toll surpassed 700 before SARS was quelled. Mexico has also done a commendable job given its previous record. In September 1985 a massive earthquake struck Mexico, killing at least 5,000. The one-party PRI-controlled state stifled news coverage and even refused an offer of assistance from the US.
This ordeal underscores why democracies are crucial to the world’s security and prosperity. Despite stiff economic repercussions, Mexico combated H1N1 with transparency, external cooperation and sound public health policies. The reaction of China and the PRI to other crises was secretive, suppressive and intransigent. No system of government can be inoculated against natural disasters, but relatively stable democracies have proven more adept at negotiating such calamities with fewer lives lost and less disruption to the international system as a whole.
