Health Diplomacy in Pandemical Times

Abstract

One likely effect of the COVID-19 pandemic will be an increased focus on health diplomacy, a topic that has rarely been taken up by international relations scholars. After reviewing existing literature on health diplomacy, I argue for the utility of distinguishing states’ aims from their practices of health diplomacy in advancing our understanding of when states engage in health diplomacy with a bilateral, regional, or global scope. The recent history of twenty-first century infectious disease outbreaks suggests a possible move away from health diplomacy with global participation. COVID-19 provides numerous examples, from widespread criticism of the World Health Organization to increased bilateral health aid and the creation of a regional vaccine initiative. As pandemics become more frequent, however, more localized health diplomacy is likely to be less effective, given the necessity of global mitigation and containment.

COVID-19 Pandemic as an Excellent Opportunity for Global Health Diplomacy

“…Global coordination and cooperation are critical during pandemics, and the current pandemic showed many signs of its failure and lack of proper leadership at the global level (6). However, a move away from health diplomacy with global involvement is likely to be marked by competition and a lack of coordination (7). In this paper, we discuss the scope of global health diplomacy (GHD) and how it can be applied and practiced for strengthening global arenas, such as International Cooperation, Global Solidarity, Global Economic Trade and Development, Global Health Security, Strengthening Health Systems, and addressing inequities and inequalities.…”

Global Health Governance Post-Covid-19: Time for a Hierarchical Order?

“…It is hard to imagine that a country, acting alone, would be able to respond effectively to health threats like the COVID-19 in a globalized world. While island states like New Zealand and Cuba can control their borders with increased efficacy, most countries are not islands to secure mitigation successes through isolationism (Fazal 2020). Additionally, misrepresenting caution in terms of embracing policies drawn abroad with unreceptiveness or unjustified skepticism can have disastrous outcomes.…”

“…A question that arises is whether this finding is not persuasive to grant the WHO the authority it needs to exert a more directive role in global governance. For the WHO does not have the power to sanction states for reporting failures, China lagged to report SARS; Saudi Arabia to report MERS; Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea were slow to report Ebola (Fazal 2020). Even though most nations benefit from it, the dynamics of open-source anarchy allow states and non-state actors to resist international rules and pose risks to the whole global community.…”

“…Authors like Tanisha Fazal emphasize that when the novel coronavirus abated over the Western, countries turned to the WHO but did so overestimating the organization's role and capacity (Fazal 2020). In Moon's words, some seemed to think the WHO had leverage over the Chinese Government and could even conduct independent investigations within its territory to get information about the disease.…”

COVID-19 and a Window of Opportunity: Guiding Principles for a Health-Promoting Trade Agenda

“…Persistent shortages in the global demand of health and other commodities will continue to retract trade for national stockpiling, causing tensions among trade partners, reinforcing existing calls for protectionism and nationalism, and making global cooperation more challenging for other areas of foreign policy and health diplomacy. 19 Conflict between IPR provisions in trade agreements and national and global procurement mechanisms may slow the spread of necessary health innovation, including those directly aimed to mitigate COVID-19, and monopolies may arise due to overdependence on certain sectors of the economy to the detriment of others. A potential opportunity for public health that may result from the COVID-19 pandemic is an increase in the perceived importance of public health to ensuring economic continuity of the international trade system.…”