A postcolonial analysis on vaccine diplomacy during the Covid-19 pandemic

Marize Dreyer [23700661@sun.ac.za]

International Relations Theory771
Stellenbosch university
24 APRIL 2023
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................1
Conceptualization..............................................................................................................2
Postcolonial critique of vaccine diplomacy.........................................................................3
International organization’s role in Vaccine Diplomacy.....................................................6
Conclusion........................................................................................................................8
Bibliography......................................................................................................................9

1
Introduction
The Covid-19 pandemic has taken the whole world by surprise, and no-one was ready for
such a large-scale global health crisis. With this crisis, large amounts of vaccines were needed
in an effort to combat the pandemic fatal effects. In due course vaccines started to appear and
with that a bigger problem arose which brough in vaccine inequality between developed and
developing states. However, this perfectly set the stage for developed states to undertake
“vaccine diplomacy” to counter the pandemic and also to conveniently boost their
international standings with developing states and in the global community. This essay will
look at how vaccine diplomacy highlights the ways in which colonial power relations still
holds great influence in shaping the global political sphere and how it impacted vaccine
inequality in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. The theoretics framework of postcolonial
theory will be used to analyze these power relations and how it affected the distribution of
Covid-19 vaccines.

Conceptualization
The vaccine inequality was evident from the onset of vaccines starting its rollout around the
world where more developed states had an advantage over developing states. It was estimated
that high-income countries (HICs) purchased nearly 5.4 billion doses of vaccines while only
610 million doses were obtained by low-income countries (LICs) (Qodo et al, 2022:11). That
is a staggering contrast between the two and also immediately shows the inequality gap
between which states could afford to buy the vaccines and which could not to the extent that
the HICs were gobbling it up. Another important factor to note is that 16% of the global
population that falls into HICs had access to more than 60% of the vaccines that were
available at the beginning of 2021 with the rest of the international community, especially the
African continent, only received less than 2% of the doses that was administered worldwide
(Qodo et al, 2022:11). As Covid-19 had no regards for borders and affected everyone
globally, the solution provided should have also helped everyone equally but this was not the
case. Yet again, it is evident that there is a great vaccine inequality gap between the Global
North and South which started debates on how this imbalance can be overcome through the
use of vaccine diplomacy.

Vaccine diplomacy has in itself become a very contested word in the international community
during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some may have positive views towards it while others might

2
see it as the “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. The wolf being referred to as some states’ hidden
agendas behind their benevolent vaccine diplomacy actions. Nevertheless, the prominent idea
behind the use of vaccine diplomacy, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, was to
provide a successful and sustainable solution to the growing vaccine inequality (Su et al,
2021:7). Vaccine diplomacy was enabled as a way in which vaccines can be distributed from
HICs to LICs and could consequently used as a diplomatic tool from different states to gain
mutual benefits where possible. Subsequently states could choose to deliver vaccines
unilateral or through multilateral initiatives like the COVAX program. However, going back
to the start of the discussion, the term vaccine diplomacy has become rather multifaced and
different actors perceive the term in different ways.

One aspect of vaccine diplomacy can be the use of vaccine delivery as an aid to humanitarian
crisis like a global pandemic and to be used as a way in which global solidarity can be
fostered (Paul and Duckham, 2023:3). This shows the more positive association one can have
with the term but there is also another which end goals is entirely different. Another aspect
can be understood as the development and delivery of vaccines to actors in the global
community to the gain of their pursuits of national interest and of an economic return on the
vaccines (Sparke and Levy, 2022:89). Therefore, this side of vaccine diplomacy plays more
into the hands of countries seeking profits and status in the international community over the
health of people in dire need of vaccinations. In the context of this essay, vaccine diplomacy
will be defined as the tool that was used by HICs to nationalize and geopoliticized vaccines
during the Covid-19 pandemic for strategically seeking diplomatic advantages globally and
how a postcolonial theory framework can be used to examine and understand this
development (Sparke and Levy, 2022:87).

Postcolonial critique of vaccine diplomacy

The use of a postcolonial theory lens could provide a very insightful look into the
circumstances surrounding vaccine inequality and consequently the motives behind vaccine
diplomacy. Postcolonial theory in the study of International Relations is the consideration of
how colonial power relations still hold great influence in the global sphere and how it still
continues to shape international interactions and perpetuate inequalities (Yang et al,
2006:282). This suggests that while our world is in a “postcolonial” age, that the
consequences of the colonial era has not entirely disappeared. A comment made by
Grosfoguel stated that the global colonial structures from 450 years ago did not disappear

3
through decolonization, but that we are still living in the same “colonial matrix” just in a
different form through neocolonialism (Richardson, 2019:103). This reinforces the idea that
although colonialism by its definition through oppressive conquests is not visible in the
present context, but the use of neocolonial political and economic oppression is. This
substantiates the fact that “colonial powers” has changed shape in the form of “neocolonial”
powers that uses its economic and political influence over other less powerful states.

Postcolonial theory also observes these disparities specifically in the historical context of
colonialism that looks at how states’ national interests were placed above the colonized states
that left them at a disadvantage because of it (Nair, 2017:4). With this, the colonized states
have had difficulties in various aspects and even after decolonization, many of the existing
structures that were inherited where, plagued with this inequality model, continued on from
the independent governments that took over. As such an analysis of a postcolonial critique on
the current power relations further shows how characteristically their roots in colonialism has
continued to be evident in the new era of neo-colonialism (Bouman et al, 2021:32).
Therefore, a postcolonialist analysis can provide an understanding of current inequalities in
the world through a historical context of colonialism which brought in these inequalities in
the first place. By integrating this interpretation on the global health security of vaccine
inequality, an argument can be made that vaccine diplomacy further perpetuates these
colonial power relations through the unequal distribution of vaccines during the Covid-19
pandemic. Bouman et al (2021:37) argued that vaccine inequalities are inherently a
consequence of the “coloniality of power and medical colonialism” that subsequently placed
states in the Global North in a position of political, economic, and social dominance and left
the Global South at a disadvantaged position especially in the public health sphere. Hence,
the inequality of vaccines can be associated to the historical imbalances of the ongoing
colonial power relations that created this system where the Global South is always left
behind.

There are many ways in which vaccine diplomacy instills colonial power dynamics however
this section will look at the unequal distribution of vaccines under vaccine diplomacy and
also at vaccine nationalism in many prevailing states. When the first vaccines started to
appear, many HICs started to hoard up on all the vaccines available which became very
problematic as this made it difficult for vaccine diplomacy to be efficient. This hoarding of
vaccines spilled over into vaccine nationalism when states prioritized the health and safety of
4
their own citizens before thinking of the rest of the world (Paul and Duckham, 2023:9).
Examples of states that did this was specifically from the Global North like The United States
(US) and most of its allies. Particularly in the case of the US they conducted vaccine
nationalism through Operation Wrap speed which was a program initiated to accelerate the
distribution of Covid-19 vaccines (Paul and Duckham, 2023:9). This vast accumulation of
vaccines brought in an unequal distribution of vaccines globally and led to vaccine inequality.
Consequently, through vaccine nationalism, many states that could not afford to buy or
manufacture their own vaccines were left at a great disadvantage in the fight against the
pandemic. So, vaccine nationalism exposed the cracks in global systems between HICs and
LICs where there is a high inequality gap especially in the public health sector (Qodo et al,
2022:11). To further examine this gap, the colonial power relations can also be taken into
account to show how these inequalities were inherited by the previous colonial constructs.

Bouman et al (2021:34) noted that medical colonialism had laid the foundations for colonial
principles in the present time that constituted vaccine inequality. That is that during the years
of colonialism, healthcare disparities were created between the colonizer and the colonized
which still evident and can be seen through vaccine inequalities as HICs still have greater
access to vaccines than LICs. An example of this is many African states do not have the
resources to either buy or manufacture their own vaccines which make them totally reliant on
more developed states that have the capacity to provide it for them (Paul and Duckham,
2023:7). Bouman et al further pointed out that the “coloniality of power is a critical lens
through which the Covid-19 pandemic and vaccine inequality can be understood” (2021:34).
Signifying that the power held by dominate states in the global community is based upon a
form of hierarchy which constitutes the way in which vaccines are distributed and that less
dominant states are dependent on these states for aid and consequently on their vaccine
diplomacy efforts.

With this dependency, developed states knew that they hold the power over how and how
much vaccines could be distributed to other less developed states, but this did not hinder them
from vaccine nationalism and in essence extended the effects of the pandemic. Vaccine
nationalism seriously impacted the notion of global solidarity by prolonging the effects of the
pandemic on developing states and allowing for various mutations to form that increased
preventable deaths (Qodo et al, 2022:19). Accordingly, the acquisition and distribution of
vaccines from various states exemplified their true priorities through vaccine nationalism and
5
meant that the unequal distribution of vaccines did exacerbate the effects of Covid-19 in the
Global South and could lead to the virus “becoming yet another virus of the tropics in the
Global South” (Paul and Duckham, 2023:5). Therefore, the visible power relations between
the Global North and South made the call for vaccine diplomacy so much more imperative
but it also gave the dominant states more power to decide if they are willing to distribute their
vaccines - which through vaccine nationalism many were not – or if they want to use it as a
diplomatic tool to gain transnational benefits. As noted through vaccine nationalism, it is
evident that vaccine diplomacy conducted by some states were closely linked to their pursuit
of geopolitical advantage by deploying “diplomatic” vaccines while also securing profits and
soft-power influence over developing states (Sparke and Levy, 2022:88)

Furthermore, postcolonial theory also examines and critiques the Neo-colonial narratives of
aid in the Global South. This is that humanitarian aid from HIC states comes out of a place
geopolitical prominence for themselves than out of a benevolent act to the receiving states.
Therefore it was noticeable that during the pandemic, power shifts were happening in which
vaccine diplomacy was used very strategically by certain states to “weaponize” its position in
the global community to coerce other states for their benefit (Suzuki and Yang, 2022:4).
Through vaccine diplomacy, states had the opportunity to share their vaccines with
disadvantaged states through multilateral programs like COVAX. Although there were not
specific conditions liked to the distribution of these shared vaccines, it definitely boosted a
state’s prominence in the international community as mentioned by Suzuki and Yang where
they could weaponize their international standing. Therefore postcolonial theory argues that
these interventions of vaccine diplomacy is presented as a benevolent act in sharing vaccines
but is consequently reinforces the power dominant states have over less-dominant states
through the control of vaccine distribution.

China was quick to use this geopolitical opportunity to distribute their own vaccines to LICs,
especially African states. This strategic vaccine diplomacy from China leveraged on the
vaccine inequality to promote their vaccines and also their economic and political standing in
the international sphere (Ting Lee, 2021:70). For instance China donated to 20 African states
between February and March of 2021, where some countries were receiving vaccines for the
first time since the start if the pandemic (Lee, 2021:9). Although China is not associated with
the Global North to which many vaccine diplomacy efforts can be coupled to, they have been
seen as an emerging neo-colonial power in Africa to which most of their vaccine diplomacy

6
efforts were directed to. Nonetheless this signifies that China used their vaccine diplomacy to
not only offer solutions for vaccine inequality but also to advance their geopolitical position.

International organization’s role in Vaccine Diplomacy

The World Health Organization (WHO) passed a vaccine distribution program called
COVAX with the commitment to try and reduce the growing vaccine inequality by providing
a vaccine sharing platform. The values of vaccine diplomacy were incorporated into the
COVAX initiative that focused on Covid-19 vaccine manufacturing and fair distribution
thereof, primarily focusing on resource-poor states (Hotez, 2021:2237). The main goal was to
accelerate the development and thereafter distribution of vaccines in a fair and equitable way.
Furthermore, through the multilateral distribution plan, COVAX could potentially provide a
solution to the vaccine nationalism problem as well. This was to be tackled through the
creation of global solidarity where states can share vaccines worldwide to reduce the
casualties of the pandemic and to achieve immunity from Covid-19 (Paul and Duckham,
2023:4). This would try to appeal to states by allowing a specific number of vaccinations to
reach specific states before the donor states starts to ramp up their own vaccine distributions.
Moreover, it could then allow for a more sustainable vaccine distribution structure where the
pandemic can be controlled globally and advance global solidarity as well. Through COVAX,
contributing states took a pledge to ensure that all states should first reach a 20% vaccine
coverage target before scaling up on their own efforts to vaccinate their citizens, but many
disregarded this and hoarded up most of the vaccines available at the time (Rackimuthu et al,
2022:2). However even with the optimistic initiatives from the COVAX program, there were
many shortcomings.

COVAX was to some degree successful in channeling over 90% of their donations coming
from countries like Germany, Italy, France, Norway, and Canada and redistributed it to LIC’s
mainly in African states (Puyvallée and Storeng, 2022:4). This did help to moderate vaccine
distribution more equitably but was not so durable as was anticipated in the early stages. The
COVAX initiative really had a great motive to reduce the vaccine inequality gap through its
vaccine diplomacy, but it unfortunately also had its limitations. The WHO stressed that only a
universal worldwide vaccination arrangement would bring the spread of Covid-19 under
control (Sparke and Levy, 2022:86). As was evident, many contributing states did not in the
beginning adhere to this premise but chose to hoard their vaccines for their own populations

7
and implement vaccine nationalism. Countries like Canada and especially America hoarded
up doses to almost 5 times the size of their populations where North America could vaccinate
about 30,7% of their populations leaving the rest of the rest of the Global South like African
states to only vaccinate about 1.01% of their population in the same timeframe (Su et al,
2021:2).

The most prominent limitation of all was through the vaccine nationalism of donor states and
non-donor states in general. Most states had a blatant disregard for the COVAX principles
regarding the distribution of vaccines where they did not deliver doses on time, on an ad hoc
basis or did not even deliver vaccines as they pledged to do but instead hoarded it up for their
own use (Puyvallée and Storeng, 2022:1). These inconsistencies made it very difficult for
COVAX to successfully roll-out vaccines to the receiving states and affected the program’s
efficiency in general. Along with this, many states did not share their vaccine doses because
of vaccine nationalism that further fostered colonial power relations where some states just
have more recourses than the other and also the power to control whether someone is eligible
to receive a vaccine or not.

Another factor to consider that limits the COVAX program is how the influence of powerful
states can undermine the efforts from COVAX to promote equitable distribution of vaccines.
It was established that COVAX was not equipped with the strongest governance mechanisms
that could stand firm in the face of dominant states. Puyvallée and Storeng (2022:2) noted
that there was a lack of transparency and accountability within COVAX to ensure that states
would adhere to their principles and not practice vaccine nationalism. However, COVAX
adopted a very pragmatic stance that essentially adhered to states national self-interests whilst
seemingly promoting global solidarity (Puyvallée and Storeng 2022:2). As such this
balancing of the two interests did not endure and vaccine distribution looked to be slowing
down. Therefore, COVAX presented itself as a global vaccine coordination that stands for
solidarity tool but acted in a way that serves specific values and preferentially served the
interest of other Global North states above the other Global South states (Puyvallée and
Storeng 2022:2). This signifies the power of dominant political and economic states to how
they can shape the economic and political relations to their benefit at the cost of other, less-
dominant states. Not even a seemingly independent initiative like COVAX could have fully
resisted the power and influence of primarily Global North states that showed how they can
use vaccine diplomacy for their benefit.

8
Conclusion
It can be established that postcolonial theory can provide a valuable theoretical framework
for analyzing the effects of vaccine diplomacy during the Covid-19 pandemic. This was
evident when considering the historical context of colonialism and how it brought in
inequality disparities especially in the global health sphere. These inequalities then opened up
the way for vaccine inequality to grow and was particularly noticeable in the context of the
Covid-19 pandemic. The surging vaccine inequalities encouraged the development of vaccine
diplomacy which had some positive contributions but could not necessarily provide a solution
to the growing vaccine nationalism, which further widened the gap in vaccine inequality and
in essence prolonged the effects of the pandemic for developing states. The postcolonial
critique further identified that vast iniquities like vaccine inequality simply cannot be
overcome by a “band-aid” approach in which quick solutions are pursued, but rather there
needs to be a discussion on the root causes of global health disparities and how neocolonial
power dynamics needs to be challenged that perpetuated these disparities.

9
Bibliography
Bouman., N. Plomp., T. De Waard., C., Van Beers., K., 2021. The inequality Virus: How do
inequality and the international distribution of Covid-19 vaccines interact? Published Thesis.
Utrecht University.

De Bengy Puyvallée, A., Storeng., K.T. 2022. COVAX, vaccine donations and the politics of
global vaccine inequity. Globalization and Health. 18(26): 1-14.

Hotez, P.J. 2021. Restoring Vaccine Diplomacy. American Medical Association. 325(23):
2237-2238.

Lee., S.T. 2023. Vaccine diplomacy: nation branding and China’s COVID ‐19 soft power
play. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 19: 64-78.

Nair., S. 2017. Introducing Postcolonialism in International Relations Theory. E-

International Relations. Available: https://www.e-ir.info/2017/12/08/postcolonialism-in-
international-relations-theory/. Accessed 20 April 2023.

Paul., N. Duckham., NA. 2023. Contextual Issues on Covid-19 and its Vaccination
Diplomacy: A Critical Discourse of the Impact in Africa. Vuna Journal of History and
International Relations. 7(1): 1-13.

Qobo., M., Soko., M., Setlhalogile M. 2022. The Political Economy of Global Vaccine
Nationalism: Towards Building Agency for Africa’s Drug Manufacturing Capacity. African
Security, 15(1): 4-25.

Rackimuthu ., S., Narain., K., Lal., A., Nawaz., F.A., Mohanan., P., Essar., Y.E., Ashworth.,
H.C. 2022. Redressing COVID-19 vaccine inequity amidst booster doses: charting a bold
path for global health solidarity, together. Globalization and Health. 18(23): 1-4.

Richardson., E.T. 2019. On the coloniality of Global Public Health. Medicine Anthropology
Theory. Think Piece. 6(4): 101-118.

10
Sparke., M. Levy., O. 2022. Competing Responses to Global Inequalities in Access to
COVID Vaccines: Vaccine Diplomacy and Vaccine Charity Versus Vaccine Liberty.
Clinical Infectious Diseases. 75(1): 86-92.

Su., Z, McDonnell, D., Li, X., Bennett, B., Šegalo, S., Abbas, J., Cheshmehzangi, A., Xiang,
YT. 2021. COVID-19 Vaccine Donations - Vaccine Empathy or Vaccine Diplomacy? A
Narrative Literature Review. Vaccines 2021, 9 (1024): 1-10.

Suzuki,. M., Yang,. 2022. Political economy of vaccine diplomacy: explaining varying
strategies of China, India, and Russia’s COVID-19 vaccine diplomacy, Review of
International Political Economy. 20(4).

Yang, G; Zhang, Q., & Wang, Q. 2006. The Essence, Characteristics and Limitation of Post-
Colonialism: From Karl Marx's Point of View. Frontiers of Philosophy in China. 1(2): 279-
294.

11