We are still suffering from the disaster of COVID-19. A look into the experience of the cholera pandemic during the 19th-century would give us a great deal of insight on how to deal with the existing crisis. The cholera pandemic was a literal “pandemic” that swept the world six times in the 19th century. It was an unparalleled plague that had a profound effect on the progress of history. As it is well known, cholera was “endemic” to the Bengal region of India. However, for some reason, it became malignant and spread not only in India, but throughout the world, resulting in it becoming a pandemic. By reviewing the discussions of the International Sanitary Conferences, which began in 1851, this paper found fierce disagreements over how the European countries at the time prevented the spread of cholera from the east. First, we take up the controversy concerning the implementation of maritime quarantine during the cholera pandemic, meaning, the dilemma that arose between the epidemic prevention measures and economic activity. This issue translated to there being a conflict between continental European countries (such as France), which insisted on a strict quarantine measure, and Britain, which insisted on a loose quarantine measure called “medical inspection” because of free trade. Second, we focus on the issues surrounding the Red Sea route. There were growing concerns that the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca would result in the spread of cholera to Europe, especially through this route. There were conflicts between the continental European countries (such as France), which insisted on discriminatory and strict quarantine measures against Muslim pilgrims in the Red Sea, and Britain, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, and Persia, who opposed the continental European countries. The conflicts were so fierce from the 1st (1851) International Sanitary Conference to the 6th (1885) one that they did not see any agreement in the form of concluding an International Sanitary Convention. However, since the 7th conference (1892), consensus building started progressing gradually, and finally, during the 11th (1903) conference, it became possible to conclude an international sanitary convention in a cohesive manner. The international standard for the quarantine system, embodied in the International Sanitary Convention ratified in 1904, made a clear distinction between the medical inspection carried out in European waters and the quarantine implemented in the Red Sea. In the Red Sea in particular, the pilgrims to Mecca were subjected to “discriminatory treatment”. Thus, it is fair to say that it was a clear case of “double standards” and “Eurocentrism.” Finally, I would like to make the following statement: although hegemonic Britain was characterized by an “ethnocentric” diplomatic stance, it may also be possible to make a certain positive evaluation that it adhered to “realism.”