By Janpeter Schilling

German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz has described the aid package he has presented to mitigate the effects of coronavirus as a "bazooka", i.e. an anti-tank weapon. Only to then refer to "small arms", which are also available in the fight against the virus. This is an unusual choice of words for the otherwise sober Scholz. Early on in the coronavirus crisis, French President Emmanuel Macron stated "We are at war". Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed US "Wartime President", even speaks of "our big war". Why are important politicians using such martial vocabulary in coronavirus times? And is this okay?

The deliberate parallels to wartime attract attention and underline the level of threat posed by the coronavirus. In addition, a common enemy has a unifying effect and can strengthen social cohesion. The message should reach the population and the markets that "we have recognized the seriousness of the situation and are now doing everything we can to avert the threat". There is nothing wrong with that.

Nevertheless, the war rhetoric in connection with the coronavirus crisis is not only wrong, but also dangerous. The virus is not a conflict actor with the motivation to harm us. Moreover, a virus does not pursue a goal, at least if you trust science and not the numerous conspiracy theories currently circulating on the internet. The virus cannot be dealt with using small arms. A bazooka does not cure people.

This martial rhetoric is dangerous because it leads to a securitization of the virus. Securitization means declaring a process or a group of people to be a central threat to national security in order to subsequently counter this threat with security forces (e.g. military) and violent means (e.g. weapons). The securitization of climate change, for example, is strongly criticized because it suggests that the military is the right actor to respond to climate change. Of course, the military can also play a positive role in the corona crisis, for example in the construction of mobile hospitals, just as it does in the case of climate change, for example by securing dykes. Nevertheless, there is a risk that the securitizationof the coronavirus will be used to justify extraordinary measures and severe restrictions on civil liberties.

So as not to be misunderstood here: According to the current state of science, the mobility restrictions currently in place in Germany and large parts of the world appear to be a sensible means of slowing down the spread of the coronavirus. However, they must be regularly reviewed and explained to citizens without resorting to war rhetoric. Verbal "disarmament" would also prevent additional fears being stirred up among the population in already uncertain times.

We are not at war. We are in a crisis - from which we will emerge, without tanks, without bazookas.