The United Nations Security Council, a premier global forum, hasn’t yet held a session on the coronavirus pandemic sweeping the world.

The European Union is trying to limit exports of key medical supplies to nations beyond its borders — while its own members are barely helping one another.

Financial institutions worldwide have only recently started cooperating to mitigate the economic damage from the rapidly spreading illness, but investors are still spooked.

And, the United States, led by President Donald Trump and his America First vision, is focused more on the virus’ internal challenge than its global impact. Instead of rallying the world, as it has in the past on major challenges, the U.S. is brawling with other countries affected by the crisis.

If there’s one thing the coronavirus has shown, it’s that a crisis that affects all of humanity does not necessarily inspire international unity, coordination or leadership. Instead, borders are closing, competition for resources is up, politicians are insulting one another, and no country is taking charge.

“This is a challenge that’s hitting every country at the same time, and we’re all working in our own little silos instead of working together,” said Jeremy Konyndyk, a former Obama administration official who oversaw disaster response. “There’s no attempt at global leadership from anyone right now, and we’re not going to win if ultimately we’re not working together on this.”

The difference in reaction is particularly stark when compared to the Ebola virus crisis, which — while more limited in geographical scope — nonetheless inspired a global response spearheaded by the U.S. under then-President Barack Obama.

As of Friday, the coronavirus had been spotted in over 150 countries, with more than 255,000 confirmed cases and over 10,000 deaths, according to researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

That number has grown quickly in recent weeks as Western officials have struggled to absorb the hard-won lessons of their counterparts in Asia, where draconian measures — in the case of China, which shut down entire regions — and more innovative tactics in Singapore and South Korea have beaten back the disease.

Story continues

As the outbreak's center of gravity shifts to Europe and North America, the deadly illness is straining health care systems, as well as supply lines for medicines, ventilators and other critical items. It is shocking economies as governments close their borders, order quarantines and enact severe “social distancing” measures that are devastating retail businesses and roiling markets.

The Chinese Communist Party, Russia, Iran, and bad actors around the world are spreading misinformation and lies about the Coronavirus. pic.twitter.com/eUgrewkQe7 — The White House (@WhiteHouse) March 20, 2020

Instead of uniting, world powers are squabbling. On Friday, the White House circulated a video of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accusing Russia, China, Iran and others of spreading disinformation about the virus.

Perhaps most glaringly, there’s been no significant international gathering of political leaders tasked with devising a global strategy to tackle the disease.

The closest thing to it came earlier this week when the leaders of countries in the Group of Seven — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States — held a video conference call on the virus.

The discussion reportedly took place at the urging of France’s President Emmanuel Macron. It yielded notable commitments, including pledges to work together on research and a vague promise to “coordinate our efforts to delay the spread of the virus, including through appropriate border management measures.”

But Trump has barely mentioned the call since. His earlier, sudden decision to impose a travel ban on Europe due to the virus had already surprised and upset key G-7 members, who complained that they had not been consulted.

And seeing as the G-7 does not include major affected countries, such as China, its commitments — if carried out — will arguably have limited effect. (The G-7’s foreign ministers are due to hold a virtual meeting next week.)

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, listens as President Donald Trump speaks during a coronavirus task force briefing at the White House, Friday, March 20, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Saudi Arabia has called for an emergency virtual summit next week of the leaders of the Group of 20, which does include China. But as of Friday, it was unclear when — or if — that session would happen. Saudi Arabia currently holds the group’s presidency, but its recent precipitous moves to slash oil prices have not helped soothe financial markets.

During a White House news conference Friday, Pompeo, who has kept an unusually low profile throughout the crisis, praised “the global leadership that America has always delivered” and claimed it “has been great to see countries around the world rally behind what we are doing.”

Pressed for examples, a senior Trump administration official pointed to U.S. plans to spend more than $1 billion to help the international community fight the pandemic.

The official added that the administration “has conducted numerous conference calls with science ministers from around the world, leading to actions on data sharing, clinical trials, enhanced access to data and research publications, and unity among the international science community.”

China’s communist leaders have taken perhaps the most visible moves aimed at burnishing their global credentials during the crisis.

Scientists believe the infectious disease emerged in China’s Hubei province last year. For weeks, the Chinese downplayed the disease, muzzling doctors and resisting allowing in a team from the World Health Organization. Eventually, Beijing used extreme means to limit the spread of the illness, and the country claims to have brought it under control.

In recent days, China has sent supplies and experts to other countries fighting the illness. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has taken a high profile amid the sudden Chinese generosity, and his state-controlled media machine has promoted China’s authoritarian governance model as best suited for dealing with such an enemy.

Still, there are signs that China is reluctant to take too bold a stance. For one thing, China currently holds the rotating presidency of the U.N. Security Council, and yet it has not convened a session on the coronavirus.

When asked why the Security Council hasn’t met to discuss the pandemic, a senior U.N. diplomat told POLITICO: “They just haven’t,” adding, “We’re able to support them either virtually or even if they want to meet in person.”

Chinese officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

While rare, holding a U.N. Security Council session on a health crisis is not without precedent; one was held on the Ebola crisis.

One possible reason no Security Council session has been called this time is the ongoing war of words over the virus between China and another permanent, veto-wielding member: the United States.

Chinese officials have been floating conspiracy theories alleging that the coronavirus may have originated outside their borders, possibly even at the hands of the U.S. military.

In response, Trump, Pompeo and some Republican lawmakers have been calling the illness the “Chinese virus” or similar terms, angering Beijing. U.S. officials also keep hammering China for its original lack of candor about the seriousness of the outbreak, though Trump has praised Xi personally for his handling of it.

At times, Trump has even appeared to welcome the pandemic’s rapidly mounting consequences for the world order, claiming he was happy to see Americans stay home and buy their goods from U.S. factories. There are few signs, however, that he is deeply engaged with cajoling or negotiating with other leaders to coordinate their plans for combating the virus.

At the United Nations, the main organization involved in a global response to the virus is the WHO. On other U.N. fronts, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs are trying to help relief groups navigate the viral terrain as they aid vulnerable populations such as refugees.

But these are largely technical bodies, not ones that can hammer out political agreements — or at least guidelines — on issues like medical supply lines, financial assistance and border policies.

When countries have come to agreements related to the virus, it’s often been bilateral — such as the Canada-U.S. decision to limit border crossings — or through regional blocs, such as the EU.

Those agreements, however, could have negative impacts elsewhere on Earth.

In Europe, countries have been hoarding medical supplies, with some putting up restrictions on exports of items such as face masks. The EU stepped in, announcing limits on exports of such materials outside the bloc in an effort to boost availability within.

Researchers are warning, however, that those new external limits could hurt other, poorer countries that need Europe to supply such equipment. Europe’s move could also prompt nations outside the bloc to restrict their exports of materials European nations will require.

G-7 finance ministers and central bankers pledged on March 3 to use “all appropriate policy tools” to keep their economies afloat. But stock markets continued to fall, and financial institutions across the world have begun stepping up their actions in recent days.

Several central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank, have taken what appear to be coordinated actions to stabilize the markets, such as buying bonds, cutting interest rates and re-opening emergency lending programs last used during the financial crisis of 2008.

The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank said earlier this month that they “stand ready to help our member countries address the human tragedy and economic challenge posed by the COVID-19 virus.”

But such financial promises also run into political realities, such as whether the IMF should lend funds to Venezuela, Iran and other countries whose regimes are opposed by the United States, a major global financial player.

Former U.S. officials and analysts who watch multilateral institutions note that the coronavirus is simply unprecedented in its geographical scope and the resulting implications. The virus, officially called COVID-19, is a new strain that scientists are still trying to understand, and it has even stricken some government officials who would be involved in planning a response.

“Who can muster an international response when no one can travel, when countries are in lockdown? Even within countries you can’t travel,” one former senior State Department official said.

They note, however, that there’s one past model that offers some lessons: The U.S.-led response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. That crisis began in the early months of 2014, with an outbreak in Guinea. Over the next several months, cases appeared in neighboring countries. The WHO stepped in to help, with assistance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In August, as global concern grew over the vicious illness, Obama used a gathering of African leaders in the United States to raise awareness of the crisis and pledge continued U.S. support.

By mid-September, Obama announced that, among other measures, the U.S. would send 3,000 troops to West Africa to help build medical facilities and offer other aid to medical professionals. Obama seemed aware of criticism that he’d moved too slowly, saying, “We have to act fast — we can’t dawdle on this one” and adding that “this is a global threat, and it demands a truly global response.”

That same week, the U.N. Security Council passed a U.S.-drafted resolution declaring Ebola a threat to world peace and security. The meeting was led by the United States, which held the Security Council’s rotating presidency at the time. U.N. observers said it was a rare, possibly unprecedented council session due to its focus on a public health crisis.

Days later, during the annual gathering of the U.N. General Assembly, a special high-level meeting was held on the issue of the Ebola virus. Speaking to those gathered, Obama warned that the global community was “not doing enough.”

In the ensuing weeks and months, other countries joined or stepped up efforts to help West African states contain the illness. Although some Republicans insisted Obama fumbled the response (and Trump was a critic, too), the former Democratic president’s aides defend his approach.

With the coronavirus, “there’s been a complete absence of anything like that,” said Konyndyk, who helped lead the Ebola response under Obama. “Our diplomatic toolbox is more absent despite the fact that it’s more necessary.”

Among those arguing for a more united international front against the coronavirus is U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

In what his office dubbed a “virtual press encounter” Thursday, Guterres called on world leaders to “come together and offer an urgent and coordinated response to this global crisis.”

“Current responses at the country level will not address the global scale and complexity of the crisis,” he warned.