The name of Russia’s COVID-19 vaccine is telling. Sputnik is of course the first satellite launched into low earth orbit in 1957, heralding the space age and race between the Soviet Union and America. Sputnik V is, according to its website, the first registered COVID-19 vaccine.
One can be forgiven for losing track of the different vaccines and their effectiveness thrown at us by various pharmaceutical companies. Despite talk against ‘vaccine nationalism’ the pharmaceutical companies are ultimately beholden to investors and shareholders. Their effectiveness percentages are pitches. They will sell to those who can afford to buy. And naturally that’s wealthy countries. Selling at cost is likely only to cover the initial rollouts, with future sales to be priced for profit. Whilst many hoarded toilet paper in the early days of the pandemic, vaccines are now being hoarded by the wealthiest nations.
Amnesty International has called for a human rights approach to prioritising vaccines, pointing out the vulnerability of communities such as Indigenous people in the Amazon who face a higher risk due to shortages of water, food and medical resources. Refugees living in unsanitary and crowded camps are also at increased risk. Some have even called out ‘vaccine thieves’.
There is an ethical question that surely needs to be addressed. Does it make moral sense for a country like say New Zealand to vaccinate its population when there is no community spread and when a country like Peru is seeing the second highest death case fatality ratio of the pandemic?
The ‘me first’ mentality which has dominated Western vaccine policy and investment has come under criticism by Amnesty and is emblematic of the non-cooperation that exists in the race to develop a vaccine. This non-cooperation is unsurprising. Rivalry in science logically reflects rivalry in economics and politics. Those who have primacy in a field can dictate the terms of its use. And so, the vaccine rat race is both local competition reflecting the ideals of innovative capitalism and a global articulation of political mistrust and fault lines.
Even the Chinese and Russians who generally find themselves closer politically because of their opposition to US hegemony, seem to practice a ‘me first’ philosophy. Despite Russia claiming that they had the first registered vaccine, China in fact has been vaccinating people earlier throughout 2020. Absent controlled published trials such conduct by China is worrying to say the least.
'Political scores have and continue to be played out in the shadow of the pandemic and towards the vaccination finish line.'
The US and the West have maintained their grip on scientific primacy for decades. If you’re an ally they will share that with you, if not then they will deny it to you. One only has to look at Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology. But this isn’t about weapons, military superiority or economic dominance. It’s a pandemic, and a universal approach is invariably the only way out of it. EU blockades on vaccine exports empower some governments to dictate to others, heralding in a politics of Eurocentrism.
Why not have the WHO allocate vaccines according to an ethical and equitable model underpinned by need and vulnerability rather than geography and wealth?
If there ever was a time for multilateralism than this is it. Instead, we had the sole superpower unilaterally withdraw its membership from the WHO only to be reversed by a centrist in Biden who by most measures subscribes to the idea of American exceptionalism and by extension an America first ideology — this is despite its southern neighbour Mexico having the highest case fatality ratio in the world at 8.5 per cent.
It’s difficult to not draw a parallel between the COVID-19 vaccine contest and the Human Genome Project, a project setup to decode the human genome. This project was primarily in the hands of Western scientific labs and academies. There was Chinese involvement, but it was in the minority, if not tokenistic. The HGP highlighted the conflict between public and private interests with a private company, Celera, endeavouring to patent sequences of the human genome. Bill Clinton, despite his political failures, managed to underscore Celera and declare the human genome part of our common heritage. That is unlikely however to be the case in relation to COVID-19 vaccines, especially if one goes by the conduct of nations.
Political scores have and continue to be played out in the shadow of the pandemic and towards the vaccination finish line. While there were numerous claims that the virus does not discriminate, healthcare, access to medical treatment and ultimately vaccination will. It does so based on where you live, the resources you have and your government’s ability to provide for its citizens. A universal effort should have been the immediate response, one that takes as its central principle a calculated concern for others, and a humanistic rather than a contested supremacy. The human interest deserves better.
Daniel Sleiman is a freelance writer and journalist based in Canberra.
Main image: Woman receiving vaccine (Unsplash)