Among other things, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted governments and international organizations worldwide and set off a powerful domino effect, causing many nations to suffer an economic and societal crisis. Politics is a complex mechanism, with many factors involved in its function or dysfunction. Foreign policy takes center stage when facing such a widespread event, and states had to learn, in regards to this situation, how to cooperate while simultaneously implementing physical isolation policies. The importance of international organizations such as WHO - not the British rock band but the World Health Organization - has been recognized more than ever in the past year. Many citizens have strongly criticized quarantine enforcement and specific public regulations meant to tackle the spread of infection due to their inconsistency and lack of clarity at times. It’s a challenge on both sides; making these regulations and respecting them are equally difficult. I decided to explore different perspectives and opinions on the topic among past and present political science students at the University of Iceland.

Floris Cooijmans is an MA student in EU Studies in Flensburg, Germany. He obtained a diploma in the Small States program at the University of Iceland in the fall of 2019 and is a fierce supporter of EU ideals. For this reason, I asked him how he perceived the EU’s political involvement in the pandemic. According to Floris, “For a disease that ignores borders, a supranational organization such as the EU seems perfect to coordinate the fight against the virus. The EU, however, can only act within its ‘competences,’ and due to the way they are distributed among the EU and its member states, the Union could not fulfill the role many people had expected it to.” He adds that “the EU can only help fight the virus in a way member states allow it to,” which makes perfect sense if we consider that each state has to deal with and organize their own internal health policies. About the aftermath of the pandemic, he continues, “Potentially the most impactful measure the EU deployed to deal with the COVID crisis is issuing ‘Eurobonds’ to help fund the economic recovery of member states. These bonds allow the EU to directly borrow money from the international financial markets on an unprecedented scale (€750 billion).”

Hrafnkell Guðmundsson, on the other hand, thinks that “It is not possible to see into the future, but we know that individuals and societies tend to frame problems with their personal experience and recent history." He is studying for a Masters in International Affairs at UI. His interests mainly focus on China and Nordic-China relations. On the Icelandic response to COVID, Hrafnkell points out that “Iceland did not impose quarantine on overseas arrivals until after the virus had been brought to Iceland. However, it would not have been easy to justify harsh measures to the public before the need for them was already self-evident. Also, we must remember that we know more about COVID-19 now than we did in early 2020.” He observes how “we have seen policies and restrictions implemented that previously seemed unthinkable. Last spring, Icelandic authorities did not think it possible to impose entry controls on the internal Schengen border. That changed, and now everyone entering the country must submit to testing and quarantine. Testing at the border is likely our single most effective weapon against the pandemic.” Looking back knowing what we know now, Hrafnkell says, it is clear that “all hesitation or delay in implementing measures has ultimately been a mistake,” and he cites China as an example of a country that “lost precious days before imposing a lockdown on Wuhan and the surrounding Hubei province.”

*Vífill Harðarson by Ásrún Sara Kristjánsdóttir*

Vífill Harðarson, a political science student at UI, is a bit less critical of the Icelandic measures: “Through [the pandemic], the Icelandic government has, in my opinion, tackled it well. Whether that is by chance or as a result of healthy and developed governance is another matter, though when fighting this particular crisis there is little left to chance. The Icelandic government’s fight against COVID has been most prominently led by the chief epidemiologist. One could therefore say that the government has been led by science, which has been a large factor in our decisive and effective battle against the pandemic.” On a less positive note, he comments on the future of Icelandic politics, “It will be rocky. It’s uncharted territory; how and when will we move past COVID, if ever?” Vífill also mentions the upcoming elections: “The year 2021 is also an election year for Iceland, and COVID will definitely be the main issue throughout the elections. I also think politicians, just like the general population, are very on edge. Every move which is not disease control approved will be scrutinized, as we have already seen with a few politicians who have not followed what they preach. But the COVID vaccine, disease control measures, Directorate of Health, the government, economic relief actions and so on will all be heavy points used for and against parties this year.”

The Future of Politics After COVID: Political Science Students Speak Out