Politics is being increasingly tainted with protectionist policies that pitch national interests against the well-being of the global community. Initially, governments that failed to manage the effects of trade globalisation on their people started to ratchet up their rhetoric about the need to protect their national interests through protectionist trade strategies.
But, today, we see a more dangerous strain of protectionism: vaccine nationalism. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has rightly expressed its concern that the world is on the brink of a “catastrophic moral failure”.
The COVID medical crisis has had devastating effects on most global economies. It cruelly exposed the incompetence of many governments to mitigate the worst effects of the crisis.
When it became evident that all countries had to distribute millions of vaccines, which need to be stored at super-low temperatures, to clinics where people could be inoculated, the logistical challenge already seemed very difficult to surmount.
Then, an unexpected shock hit the EU particularly hard. The pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and AstraZeneca both hit production problems that has affected the delivery timelines agreed with the EU.
Suspicions and conspiracy theories soon erupted, not least at the highest governance levels of the EU. The knee-jerk reaction of the European Commission was to accuse AstraZeneca of favouring the UK government by exporting vaccines produced in the EU to the UK while temporarily cutting contracted supplies to Europe.
The commission decided to invoke a clause in the Brexit agreement to establish a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. It did this to ensure that EU-produced vaccines would not go first to the UK. This decision was politically chaotic and medically self-defeating.
The commission also showed how quickly the value of solidarity could be discarded to hide failures in the political decision-making process. What it should have done was to admit to the mistakes it had made in contracting for the quick delivery of vaccines from all suppliers. Instead, it chose to resort to short- sighted every-country-for-itself tactics.
The commission’s insistence for transparency in how pharmaceutical companies honour their contracts at a time of limited supplies is, of course, justified. The implications of any breach of contract should also be studied and legal action taken where necessary. But resorting to vaccine nationalism is not a viable option.
The WHO argues that vaccine nationalism as contemplated by the EU would, among other effects, “ultimately prolong the pandemic”. The saying that we will only be safe when everyone is safe is not just a slogan.
If rich countries continue to “hoover up” all available supplies, the poorer nations will continue to suffer unjustly. This will only increase the economic and social consequences of the pandemic on poor nations and promote more global inequality.
It is encouraging that the EU has now reversed its decision to control exports of the vaccine to third countries.
On the positive side, a number of member states, including Malta, have expressed their intention to help poorer countries secure some of the vaccines they need from their extra supplies. India is being held up as an example of global cooperation, using its strong pharmaceutical sector to gift COVID-19 vaccines to several countries.
One hopes that the true face of the EU can be seen in its role in Covax, the WHO-led international initiative set up last year to provide fair and equitable access to COVID vaccines to every country in the world.
The EU should now concentrate on building bridges with vaccine producers to ensure that as many people as possible, both in the EU and beyond, get their vaccinations at the earliest.