BELO HORIZONTE, BRAZIL - MARCH 24: Anna Raquel Ribeiro dos Santos, PhD in Pharmaceutical Sciences, works in the development of serological tests on March 24, 2020 in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The Ministry of Health convened The Technological Vaccine Center of the Federal University of Minas Gerais laboratory to conduct research on the coronavirus (COVID-19) in order to diagnose, test and develop a vaccine. According to the Ministry of Health, as of Tuesday, March 24, Brazil has 1.891 confirmed cases of the coronavirus (COVID-19) and at least 34 recorded deceases. (Photo by Pedro Vilela/Getty Images)
'No single global entity covers the medical, economic, and political elements required to produce a vaccine for all who need it' © Pedro Vilela/Getty
Be the first to know about every new Coronavirus story
The writer is president of Germany. King Abdullah II of Jordan and presidents Halimah Yacob of Singapore, Sahle-Work Zewde of Ethiopia and Lenín Moreno Garcés of Ecuador co-wrote this article
Our nations, societies and economies are slowing down, almost grinding to a halt in the face of a global, external threat that transcends borders, ethnicities, and creeds. Public life has come to a virtual standstill. But these unprecedented measures of social distancing will be hard to sustain over a long period of time.
Nations are turning inward as they try to cope with the coronavirus pandemic, closing borders and imposing drastic executive measures in a retreat that risks leaving every country fending for itself. However, we can contain and counter Covid-19 more effectively by knocking down the barriers that hinder knowledge exchange and co-operation.
Crises like these tend to bring out both the best and the worst in people. It is our responsibility as leaders to encourage the former and contain the latter. Our countries are at varying stages of the crisis but we all see and admire the strong spirit of solidarity and the many people who are passionately trying to save lives or keep indispensable services up and running. They give us hope and offer inspiration that our societies may not only weather this crisis but also grow stronger and more connected.
Similarly, the most convincing way to address the global dimension of this crisis is through enhanced co-operation and solidarity. There is a central lesson to be learnt from human experience: nearly all plagues that took their toll on humankind — tuberculosis, smallpox, Ebola, Aids — have been defeated by modern medicine providing therapies and vaccines. Shared knowledge and accelerated research driven by a global network of scientists will also provide the ultimate answer to our current predicament.
This is a global crisis. Delay in action means death. We all face the same enemy and we stand to gain by bringing the full force of humanity together to fight it. There cannot be victory over the virus in one, or some, countries alone. We all have something to contribute regardless of the size of our economies or populations. A global solution is in everybody’s self-interest.
We welcome the commitment of the G20 leaders to do whatever it takes to address the crisis. We fully support the UN Secretary General’s global humanitarian appeal. But no single global entity covers the medical, economic, and political elements required to produce a vaccine for all who need it. It is our firm conviction that we must assemble a truly global alliance to mobilise human ingenuity and solidarity.
Building on the work of the World Health Organization, we call upon the World Bank Group, the IMF, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the international vaccine alliances, philanthropic foundations, scientists and private-sector pharmaceutical companies to join forces.
This new global alliance should commit to four key objectives. First, we must accelerate research and development of treatments and vaccines through open and transparent science and boosted funding. Second, we should assure rapid production, procurement and fair and equitable distribution of testing kits and critical medical equipment for all. Third, let’s rapidly scale-up production and assure the fair and equitable distribution of future therapies and vaccines to all corners of the world, including vulnerable populations such as refugees. Fourth, we must articulate the immense benefits of a co-ordinated, co-operative global response to the crisis, focusing on the provision of an eventual treatment and a vaccine as an exemplary “global public good”.
We recognise that such a multi-stakeholder alliance will not be easy to construct or manage. But we believe that it is worth the effort. It would tap into the huge reservoir of people’s hopes and better instincts. This is not the time for geopolitical turf battles.
We realise that our societies will not be the same after the crisis and the world we live in will also be different. But we defy all those who pretend to know already today that it will be a poorer, colder world with people and nations keeping their distance from each other. Our decisions over the course of the coming weeks and months will determine what the world will look like tomorrow.
Internationalising the development, manufacture and distribution of treatments and vaccines will not only deliver the antidote to the virus itself, but also to the deepening of political faultlines that has taken place since its outbreak. This pandemic will not spare any country, no matter how advanced its economy, capabilities, or technology. Before this virus, we are all equal and must work together to beat it. We are confident that if we pool our knowledge and our efforts we can and will be saved by human ingenuity. Let’s accomplish this in a spirit of solidarity, caring for everyone, be they poor or rich, old or young, woman or man. It will save lives. It will bring out the best in all of us. And it will make tomorrow’s world a better place.

Get alerts on Coronavirus when a new story is published
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2020. All rights reserved.

Promoted Content

Comment guidelines
Please keep comments respectful. By commenting, you agree to abide by our community guidelines and these terms and conditions. We encourage you to report inappropriate comments.
I think the joint letter is great trying to unite countries and people of different races, cultures and age/gender together to fight a common threat/enemy. This is also a subtle rebuttal to the recent nationalisms, America First, “taking back control” as well as bad behaviour of finger pointing and blaming others etc..
Just because the person/s writing it are famous / powerful / hold offices, does not make anything they write worth publishing.

Bad editorial policy @FT

If only China could develop some sort of brutally repressive surveillance state to discourage and punish those who break animal hygiene laws.
 In reply to Coarse not
I'm not convinced that eating animals is the problem
I truly adore the conclusion of this piece, the FT’s version of John Lennon’s “Imagine.” 
It will bring out the best in all of us. And it will make tomorrow’s world a better place.
Stuff that really warms the soul. What a joke. 
Will Taiwan be included in this global alliance? No? Most likely it will end up as just another corrupt organisation infiltrated by China.
A very eloquent and florid piece. I also learned absolutely nothing from it. It is useless politically correct fluff. 

Mr. Steinmeier can be as silver tongued as he wants when lamenting the “closing of borders” and so on. But the fact of the matter is that the closing of borders worked. In fact, the countries that were the quickest and most stringent in this regard have fared better than most (Israel, North Korea, perhaps Denmark).

Moreover Mr. Steinmeier can morally lecture us about “coming together” till the cows come home
but the fact of the matter is that eventually, the world will have to come apart from China. The country has proven itself to be a huge geopolitical, economic, and health liability for the entire planet. The fact that the west depends on this horrible totalitarian regime for so much is truly appalling. 
 In reply to severus_snape
You can’t just grow apart from one of the largest economies in the world kiddo. Also way more zoonoses are caused by the west’s factory farming than by China’s wet-markets. Till now we were just lucky enough that the most dangerous of them didn’t spread that fast. Further swine flu and avian flu for example didn’t originate in China. It’s always easy to blame others. 
Sadly this article would have carried more weight if co-written by Trump and Xi,  As it is, it is a friendly article with fine words but no impact what-so-ever. 
It’s good to see the signature of Lenin Moreno, tat journalist strangler, among the signature of other “World Leaders”. What about MBS?
In much of the article written on the topic, very  little addresses prevention. This virus, as well as many before it, originated from conditions arising out of poor sanitary and hygiene practices involving animal trade and food production.  There should be a greater focus on developing improved standards and practices for all nations to adhere to.

This entire event and all these deaths were preventable with a modicum of hygiene standards.
 In reply to JJV
Totally agree
Many argue that, as we are about to get our national sovereignty back with Brexit, why would we want a creeping globalised version of the EU, leading to a One World, New World Order organisation Dominated by Globalised Technocrats. 
You have to make sure the cure isn’t worse than the disease. Democracy and liberties are already being suspended to tackle this pandemic. The Public cannot have more than we need.
 In reply to Britannia Te Deum
The sovereignty of the dead, too proud to ask for help with equipment... . . Very insular. Very cruel!
This article obviously pitches itself against the American gangster capitalism trying to steal companies which are developing anti covid19 medicines and vaccines and privatize them for US use only.
 In reply to Stoneware
That is bordering on disrespectful to our closest allies and trading partners.
 In reply to Britannia Te Deum
Bs! You obviously don't want to hear the truth. You'll get more solidarity from all EU nations (maybe with the exception of the Hungarians who are stuck in their own nationalist groove.) than from our great ally under the ultra nationalist isolationist Trump and his alt right coterie.
 In reply to Stoneware
We have no special relationship with the Europeans.
Read More of this Conversation >
 In reply to Stoneware
The EU tarnished their reputation in their handling of Brexit, a heady mix of spite and bungled attempts at cold pragmatism, France begging to pick our bones. But for those with eyes it is clear that closer union applies to the political classes of Europe while they drive a wedge between its people. Take Germany - breaks the trade rules, destroying Southern European manufacturing, underpays its worker, and then has the gall to accuse the nations that they've damaged of laziness. There's not an onuce of solidarity in Europe.
The author is a a representative head of state without power and his only known talent is making mostly boring speeches and selling platitudes. 
Excellent example of political cynicism. The president of the country which is blocking the use of European funds to help with the crisis and has forbidden the export of ventilators to Italy is preaching “solidarity “ . Is he so stupid to believe he is fooling anybody?
Ceasefire must start from now. And start from FT.
Telling world leaders, and not just western world leaders, to look past their self-interest and their narrow political calculus is to tell them to discard their congenital makeup. How do you rip out your DNA?

These politicians didn’t get to their positions by being magnanimous or visionary. People like Mandela are rare, and Steinmeier thinks he’s working with Mandelas when in fact he’s dealing with Garces, Merkels, Trumps, Johnsons, Morrisons, Macrons, Sanchez... you wouldn’t even trust them to take out the rubbish without you watching them
To summarise:

”It’s important to do whatever it takes because doing the right thing is good.“

Superbly informative and unbelievably moving.

Thank you very much
I am assuming the regions to be hit later on are those that will need outside help; regions like South America, Africa, Middle East, and India. Once this has passed, I can see parties trying to make the best out of the situation and the public relieved to continue with their normal lives, but those areas will need assistance. If we must appeal to the selfish, then there is the possibility of this coming around again, if not controlled around the world.    
 In reply to Meson
We will have to end mass travel then. People were happy enough 50 years ago, plus it would be greener and far more sustainable when only the rich could afford to fly and sail abroad.
 In reply to Britannia Te Deum
Try telling that to our 'save-the-planet' celebrities (such as our Prince Harry) who continue to travel by private jets to lecture us on how to save the planet.
At a time people are isolated this article serves a useful purpose. It challenges us to think outside our bunkers.
A fundamental barrier to global co-operation is the refusal to acknowledge the power, influence and global reach of China ( witness US Republican and U.K. Conservative politicians’ comments). 
If we don’t engage with China as a potential global partner we will set up a race for global supremacy that will undoubtedly have unintended and currently unforeseeable negative consequences.
In many ways, it matters what the US does.

In many others, it doesn't. There are 7.7bn people on this planet, just 4% of the world's population are American. Over 80% of the world's economy is non-US GDP. Medical research is just as prevelant in the UK, China, Japan.

If the rest of world do as the writers suggest, even if the US turns its back on the rest of the world, the planet will be a better place.
 In reply to Oxford Professor
Medical research is absolutely not as prevalent in the UK, China, or Japan. Not even close. Please do your research. 

Also from your difficulties with spelling I am forced to doubt your profession as an “Oxford Professor.” 

Follow the topics in this article