Global Cooperation in a Time of COVID-19
COVID-19 has exposed both the best and worst aspects of human nature. It has shown our innate selfishness, as well as our ability to cooperate and accomplish great things. Even as global scientific cooperation has produced numerous successful vaccines in record time, the global scramble for vaccines has left rich nations with a huge excess, while poorer nations struggle to vaccinate even their most vulnerable populations. Though vaccine nationalism has been the rule, rather than the exception, there have been efforts to expand global cooperation, such as China’s “vaccine diplomacy,” which provides much-needed vaccines for the rest of the world. Nonetheless, much work remains to be done, even as we possess a vaccine against the virus. There is hope that global cooperation, though lacking in the first half of the race, will carry the world across the finish line in the second half.
Though much coverage of China’s vaccine diplomacy involves accusations of malevolent intent, or insinuations of a sinister plot, the simple fact is that Chinese vaccine diplomacy is able to deliver to other countries what Western vaccine nationalism cannot. The US chose to vaccinate its entire population first, including its low-risk population, before exporting any doses abroad. The EU, to its credit, has exported many doses abroad in the early days of the pandemic, but this has resulted in a slow vaccine rollout at home. Finally, India, one of the major vaccine producers, has halted exports to meet its own surge in cases. This leaves China as one of the few, if not the only supplier of vaccines to the rest of the world. One should not fault these countries, therefore, for accepting Chinese-made vaccines, as they must look out for their own interests and protect their population. Even when such diplomacy is carried out bilaterally- between China and the recipient countries-, rather than multilaterally, it is beneficial for both parties.
Perhaps it is a net positive that China has chosen to pursue its vaccine diplomacy bilaterally, rather than multilaterally. As one of the few suppliers of vaccines available to poorer countries, China has an open stage to build diplomatic goodwill by donating vaccines abroad. It’s successful handling of the pandemic early on has enabled it to vaccinate its own population while concurrently earmarking doses for export. While multilateral facilities such as COVAX exist, they may not possess the logistical capabilities to procure, allocate, and distribute doses for all seven billion people on the planet. Though they may collect donations from many countries around the world, they may not have the ability to increase vaccine supplies quickly enough. In this sense, the choice is not binary- between multilateralism and bilateralism. Both approaches are needed to meet the global demand, allow more nations to participate, and to provide more choices to countries. For this reason, China has joined the COVAZ initiative, even as it continues its bilateral vaccine diplomacy efforts as part of its “Health Silk Road.” Furthermore, bilateralism may be able to accomplish what multilateral efforts cannot. For its part, China has helped certain countries which have participated in clinical trials for Chinese vaccines, establish local vaccine production capabilities. It also exports vaccines to nations with which it has close relations, as well as to nation with which it hopes to establish closer bonds. Such diplomatic gestures, therefore, encourage nations to export more vaccines, since they would realize the diplomatic gains from doing so. If China can win more friends abroad through vaccine diplomacy, then it has an incentive to export more vaccines, rather than using them at home, where they are not in great need. In this sense, bilateral efforts may encourage nations to act in the global interest, if only to advance their own interests. Indeed, the US has recently announced efforts to share vaccines with the rest of the world, after a prolonged period of vaccine nationalism. Much of this, it can be inferred, is to counter China’s own efforts at vaccine diplomacy. Such competition, however, reflects a positive-sum game in which the two players will seek to gain advantage by exporting more vaccines than the other player, thereby increasing the number of doses available for all countries. This will accelerate the end of the pandemic, and save countless lives, which is in the interest of all nations.
This is not to say multilateralism has no place in the global fight against COVID-19. The world cannot depend on the involvement of the superpowers only when it suits their interests. It also cannot rely on only a handful of countries to solve a global problem. Multilateralism, therefore, can serve as a platform for all countries, regardless of size, to get involved and to make their voices heard. A recent petition at the WTO to waive patents for vaccines, for instance, illustrates how smaller nations can unite and pursue their interests on the global stage. It can also help corral major powers into mutually beneficial cooperation. Indeed, multilateralism is needed where there is a collective action problem. For instance, creditor nations have no incentive to provide debt relief to their debtor nations if no other creditor nation is doing so. Thus, when G20 nations agreed to a common protocol on debt relief for debt distressed nations, it signaled a victory for multilateralism. Such a protocol would allow heavily indebted poor countries, whose economies have been further battered by COVID-19, to reallocate funds earmarked for debt repayment to meet their healthcare needs and to rebuild their economies. This works to the benefit of all, as a speedier recovery for poor nations will ease supply chain disruptions and enable trade to continue flowing unimpeded. Recent projections from the IMF estimate that a prolonged pandemic would cost the world economy an estimated $9 trillion, while the short term investments needed to expand vaccine distribution would cost a measly $50 billion. The upcoming G7 meeting provides an opportune occasion for world leaders to make pledges for contributions to this investment. The returns would far outweigh the costs, and it would be foolish to neglect this small investment and incur a much larger cost later on. In a globalized world economy such as ours, there simply cannot be a two-track recovery. The developing world provides commodities for the industrialized world, and the industrialized world serves as a market for the developing world’s imports. Any recovery from the pandemic, therefore, must be global and not regional.
