'Vaccine nationalism' a new global low

People in Europe, where I am at present, and pretty much everywhere else where COVID-19 infections and deaths are creeping or rapidly increasing, may be marveling at China for having largely contained the novel coronavirus, and reassuring each other that one or more of the more than 150 vaccines, including 31 in human trials in China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and other countries, would save us from the deadly virus.

While I keep telling people that when a vaccine is developed, we will all be set free, an ugly phenomenon has been highlighted by World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. It's called "vaccine nationalism".

Not right for each nation to act for itself

"Vaccine nationalism" means every country acting for itself rather than for the global common good when it comes to securing vaccines. Which is the polar opposite of what President Xi Jinping said in his speech, "Work Together to Build a Community With a Shared Future for Mankind", at the United Nations Office in Geneva, where the WHO is headquartered, on Jan 18, 2017.

"Vaccine nationalism" reminds us of what US President Donald Trump said in his inauguration speech two days after Xi spoke in Geneva: "From this day on a new vision will govern our land－from this day onwards it is only going to be America first－America first!"

"Vaccine nationalism" includes "supply nationalism", which we have seen between cities and states in the US, and between countries globally, as they competed against each other, often selfishly and ruthlessly, to obtain face masks, personal protective equipment, ventilators and other medical products. We know this beggar-thy-neighbor approach is inhumane, and doesn't work in a world where supply chains cross many borders and oceans, especially at a time when we are battling a oncein-a-century health crisis.

Experts generally agree that in an ideal world based on need, frontline healthcare workers should be vaccinated first, members of other high-risk groups such as senior citizens second, people in areas where the virus is rapidly spreading third, and then the rest of the population. But in our real world of "vaccine nationalism", everything generally boils down to money.

West's selfish approach not a new phenomenon

For example, a cocktail of antiviral drugs that revolutionized HIV treatment in the West was developed in 1996, but it took seven years for it to be widely available in HIV/AIDS-ravaged Africa. More recently, during the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, the US and many European countries donated 10 percent of their vaccine inventory to poorer countries－but only after they had stocked sufficient quantities for their own populations.

We are watching "vaccine nationalism" with a sense of déjà vu. AstraZeneca has confirmed the UK's $79 million investment in the vaccine it is developing with Oxford University bought the country the initial 30 million doses. More recently, the US pledged as much as $1.2 billion to secure a minimum of 300 million doses as part of the US president's "Operation Warp Speed". America first, indeed!

The WHO recently introduced a program called COVAX Facility, designed to collect funding from rich countries and philanthropists to give all countries, whether rich or poor, rapid, fair and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, in order to make rapid progress toward containing the pandemic. The WHO plans to help develop and distribute 2 billion doses of vaccines equitably by the end of 2021. Sadly, even though the deadline to join the initiative is Aug 31, many details remain to be decided and the response has been underwhelming.

US no longer the go-to country

Many of the global institutions Washington is trying to destroy were created and/or led by it to help build a new world order after the end of World War II. And for seven decades, the US was the go-to country in times of crisis for global leadership. No longer.

So this is the time to deconstruct and reassemble these creaking institutions to meet the demands of a very different world and of very different times. This is also the time to fill the vacuum created by US' withdrawal from global leadership and multilateral organizations and agreements irrespective of who wins the US presidential election scheduled for November.

The WHO should be first in line for a makeover, because it is underfunded and overwhelmed with responsibilities but without any binding authority. Its remit encompasses virtually all global public health issues, but its funding in real terms hasn't changed for decades.

Scientists had been warning for years about a pandemic of epic lethal proportions, yet the WHO couldn't get all the member countries to chalk out a plan of action to prevent such a scenario. Worse, the scientists say the COVID-19 outbreak is not the big one.

WHO needs reform but also much bigger budget

Yes, the WHO needs reforms, but it also needs proper funding. Its two-year budget (for 2020-21) is $6.7 billion, of which $957 million is mandatory and the rest voluntary. Contrast that with HCA Healthcare, the largest US for-profit hospital operator, whose revenue for 2019 alone was $51.3 billion and net income $3.5 billion－or with the price of a US B-2 stealth bomber, $2.1 billion. Yet instead of helping solve the WHO's problems, the US has pulled out of the global health body amidst the pandemic.

The World Economic Forum estimates that the pandemic will cost the world economy between $8.1 trillion and $15.8 trillion. In the US, according to City University of New York, the healthcare costs of recovering COVID-19 patients with lingering symptoms alone, an increasing number of whom are coming to light, could add up to $50 billion.

So deciding to increase the WHO budget by multiple times is a no-brainer. You don't have to be a Nobel Prize winning economist to recognize what a bargain the WHO would be if it is equipped to anticipate when the next pandemic will occur and take foolproof measures to prevent it. And, as another dividend, there would be no need for "vaccine nationalism".

The author is a senior research fellow at Beijing-based think tank Center for China and Globalization.

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.