Vaccines and diplomacy--two concepts that seem fairly dissimilar, but are in fact often paired together in spectacular global feats. Today, we’ll explore the nuances of public health and vaccine distribution, taking a brief dive into history to examine the socio-political implications of critical health care infrastructure like vaccinations.
What is Vaccine Diplomacy?
Vaccination and politics are intimately related. In Afghanistan, after the Taliban’s takeover of the country in 2021, COVID-19 vaccinations have decreased significantly.
Thus, vaccine diplomacy, as its name suggests, is the use of vaccine distribution by a country often to influence medicine, politics, national security, foreign policy, and other international relations--quite literally diplomacy over vaccination. Countries often roll out vaccines to other nations for the sake of increasing their “soft power,” a term used to encompass the apolitical influence and reputation of a certain country (that often can have very political implications).
A Brief History...
As usual, any exploration of the present begins with the past--specifically Edward Jenner’s smallpox vaccine (See “The Flu Shot: What Is It, Really?” to learn more). Even upon the inception of the first vaccine, Edward Jenner was a prime example of a vaccine 'diplomat.' His discovery and distribution of the vaccine made him an unofficial ambassador between France and the United Kingdom despite their troubled relations during the Napoleonic Wars.
At around the same time, President Thomas Jefferson gave Meriwether Lewis and William Clark--the two American explorers renowned for their expedition into the United States’ newly-acquired territory--smallpox vaccines to cultivate relationships with Native Americans.
There are countless other examples of successful vaccine diplomacy that has intervened in the midst of war to prioritize public health: in the 1960s, the World Health Organization's intervention in Ethiopian and Bangladeshi regional conflicts mitigated the effects of smallpox. In 1995, President Jimmy Carter helped facilitate the Guinea Worm Ceasefire during a Sudaneses civil war to afford time to combat the Guinea worm disease--a parasite plaguing civilians. Finally, in the 1980s, UNICEF--the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund--director James Grant helped orchestrate a protected zone for the immunization of over 250,000 children during a civil war in El Salvador.
For good, or for profit?
However, in the past and current geopolitical climate, vaccine diplomacy often teeters between the brink of altruism and greed.
Famously, during the Cold War, both the rival United States and Soviet Union cooperated on polio vaccines to supply the world, but ultimately distributed them in the hopes of gaining influence and strengthening their relationships with countries of interest.
Undeniably, with the outbreak of COVID-19, there was a global race to create an effective vaccine. This logic of competition defined vaccine development and ultimately led to several different outcomes.
While many Western states emphasized national health, China and Russia (not in concert with each other) worked to offer countries with vaccines through bilateral deals. Even though vaccine diplomacy has led to the supply of vaccinations to many low and middle-income countries, it has oftentimes divested the chance for these nations to produce their own vaccines, a small problem that has snow-balled into greater vaccine inequities (See “Race in Science, Pt. 3: Global Vaccine Inequity to learn more).
Final Thoughts
Just as for most public health issues, vaccine diplomacy is a complex strategy that may be weaponized or freely offered for global benefit. It is oftentimes difficult to see the true impacts of such geopolitical chess pieces in the moments they are moved. Nonetheless, concepts like vaccine diplomacy--in both history and the present--only underscore the need to further investigate the social implications of health, domestically and globally.
Resources:
Comments