Field studies were conducted at the Central Potato Research Institute Campus, Modipuram (India), during two seasons (2003-2004 and 2004-2005), with two processing cultivars (cvs Kufri Chipsona-1 and Kufri Chipsona-2) and nine combinations of potassium source (K-chloride, K-sulphate and K-nitrate) and time of K application (basal dressing, split application and split application + foliar spray) to investigate their effect on tuber yield and processing attributes for crisp production under subtropical conditions. Yearly variations were observed for most of the variables studied. Between cultivars, the tuber and biomass yield was higher in cv. Kufri Chipsona-1, whereas specific gravity, tuber dry-matter percentage and crisp recovery were higher in cv. Kufri Chipsona-2. Stem number, plant height and compound leaf number were not influenced by sources of K fertilizer or application time. Processing-grade tuber yield, total tuber yield and biomass yield were statistically similar for K-chloride and K-sulphate and lower for K-nitrate. K sources affected both specific gravity and tuber dry-matter percentage significantly; Ksulphate and K-nitrate gave significantly higher values than K-chloride. The application time had no significant effect on processing grade and total tuber yield or on tuber specific gravity and dry-matter percentage. Values for crisp colour and reducing sugars were within the acceptable range for all treatments. Crisp yields were calculated to be highest and oil percentage of the crisps to be lowest when Ksulphate was applied as K fertilizer. Net income and benefit:cost ratio were highest for K-chloride followed by K-sulphate and lowest for K-nitrate. The study suggests that for crisping potatoes, K-sulphate is more suited than K-chloride, as it not only increased tuber dry-matter percentage and crisp yield, but also decreased crisp oil percentage.

No abstract

Health diplomacy has remained an important part of foreign policy of major countries to expand their geopolitical influence across the world. Given the outbreak of COVID-19, the inadequate healthcare systems even of the developed countries have been exposed. Although China was blamed for the origination of COVID-19, concomitantly, the same country had exploited the global health emergency by putting its global health diplomacy in practice as a soft power tool to expand its geopolitical influence in term of hegemony, vis-→-vis the USA. Whereas, on the contrary, the USA and European Union (EU) have been critically entrapped in the pandemic and remained at crossroads, how to deal with the same locally and globally. In these contrasting roles and reciprocation, the main argument of the article is that China had made the best use of its health diplomacy to expand its geopolitical influence, while the USA and EU did not rise to the occasion; rather, their roles and reciprocation have remained delayed and inert. In this backdrop, the main focus of this article is to examine how China used its global health diplomacy as a soft power tool? Second, would China become hegemon in the present scenario vis-→-vis the USA?

In light of the devastation caused by COVID-19, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and vaccine research and development (R&D) have been occupying a prominent position in the field of global health diplomacy (GHD). Most countries, international organizations, and charitable organizations have been engaged in the R&D of COVID-19 vaccines to ensure timely affordability and accessibility to all countries. Concomitantly, the World Trade Organization (WTO) provides some provisions and enforcements regarding copyrights, patents, trademarks, geographical indications, and industrial designs. Given these safeguards, it is considered that intellectual property rights (IPRs) have become major barriers to the affordability and accessibility of vaccines/medicines/technology, particularly to the developing/least developed countries. Realizing the gravity of the pandemic impact, as well as its huge population and size, India has elevated this issue in its global health diplomacy by submitting a joint proposal with South Africa to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for a temporary waiver of IPRs to ensure timely affordability and accessibility of COVID-19 medical products to all countries. However, the issue of the temporary waive off had become a geopolitical issue. Countries that used to claim per se as strong advocates of human rights, egalitarianism, and healthy democracy have opposed this proposal. In this contrasting milieu, this paper is aimed at examining how the TRIPS has become a barrier for developing countries’ development and distribution of vaccines/technology; secondly, how India strategizes its role in the WTO in pursuant of its global health diplomacy? We conclude that the IPRs regime should not become a barrier to the accessibility/affordability of essential drugs and vaccines. To ensure access, India needs to get more engaged in GHD with all the involved global stakeholders to get strong support for their joint proposal. The developed countries that rejected/resisted the proposal can rethink their full support.

With over 4 million deaths worldwide, the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)pandemic is regarded as one of the worst pandemics in history. With its wider devastating consequences, even so-called affluent countries could not provide full coverage for COVID-19vaccines and medications to all of their citizens. Against this backdrop, the main aim of this article is to examine how Global Health Diplomacy (GHD) can play a role in prioritizing vaccine equity in the global health agenda in the fight against COVID-19. The majority of developed countries’ healthcare systems have been exposed and have reached a tipping point.After the completion of eighteen months of the pandemic, only five countries were able to produce vaccines for the treatment of COVID-19. This pandemic has divided the world into two blocs: those with vaccines, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and India; and those without, such as the rest of the world. The greatest challenges are vaccine inequalities, inequities and distribution, which undermine the global economic recovery. Many poor countries are still waiting for the initial doses to be delivered to their citizens, while some rich nations are planning for booster doses. GHD plays a critical role in establishing successful global collaborations, funding mechanisms and ensuring international cooperation through the combined efforts of all stakeholders. Besides, global solidarity is necessary to lessen the wider gaps between the vaccination status of rich and poor nations. Therefore, through GHD, the vaccine gaps and inequities can be addressed to strengthen global health security and accelerate global economic recovery.