Strategic vaccine diplomacy the way forward

The world is witnessing new international dynamics this year. Realignments, reconsiderations and re-engagements are occurring. India has moved closer to the US, the European Union (EU) and the G7 and is expanding its role as a responsible G20 member.

The India-EU leaders’ meeting in May, followed by the G7 meeting in June, sought India’s role through a preferred strategic convergence. This envisages collaboration in managing the pandemic, its economic fallout, creating resilient value chains, and enhancing vaccine production and accessibility.

Such enhanced partnerships cannot wish away extant contradictions. Western partners like to set higher standards for India as for instance, on climate change, WTO issues, and investment rules. India would for its own interests like to be on the side of developing countries.

Vaccine production, distribution and wider availability challenge the summits’ consensus as in practical terms, national interests come to the fore. The India-EU leaders’ meeting noted the “importance of effective and inclusive rules-based multilateralism for tackling current and future global challenges.” This has to navigate the shoals of varied national interests since India alone cannot adjust itself to deepening partnerships.

In October 2020, at the WTO’s TRIPS Council meeting, India and South Africa sought a waiver amid the pandemic for broader access to vaccine technologies. Scaling up local production can ensure affordable and effective access to vaccines. India can use its manufacturing capabilities, expand production with western partners and increase accessibility, including through COVAX.

Six vaccines approved by WHO received COVAX focus and mainly Pfizer and AstraZeneca doses have been delivered so far. Most COVAX orders went to the Serum Institute of India (SII). European or US manufacturers did not contribute much to COVAX as they built their own reserves, catering to national requirements. As of May 2021, India contributed 107 million doses in bilateral grants, 357 million commercially and 198 million under COVAX. This halted when the second wave hit India. The realisation dawned that manufacturing capacities needed expansion as Europe, the UK and the US faced inadequacy of their own manufacturers in fulfilling commitments. The concept of sharing started falling prey to vaccine nationalism, while multilaterally, countries committed themselves to vaccine globalisation. The same EU leaders who in May 2020 spoke about the vaccine as a ‘global public property’ are now resisting the TRIPS waiver.

Over 100 countries now support the waiver, including the US. With the EU nations, there is little meeting ground because they believe that vaccine producers like India should invoke compulsory licensing instead of seeking waivers.

The EU sees the US as playing to the gallery by supporting the waiver without contributing to actual resolution in WTO negotiations. The WTO has been the place where the EU and developing countries, particularly India, have had several showdowns. These continue despite the strategic consensus at the India-EU and G7 summits.

Another issue is of vaccine passports. The EU, as always, wants to protect itself from everybody else. Its Green Pass is a noble thought for its own citizens. Increasing trade and investment ties mean a larger number of business people travelling between India and the EU. Germany, France and other European countries have attracted a larger number of Indian students who now face problems related to access, despite obtaining admissions. These need empathetic resolution while upholding the safety of citizens. But, is the European Medical Agency (EMA) the right authority for the purpose? For EU people to travel freely within Europe, the EMA can set standards, like the Green Pass, for themselves. Extending that as a vaccine passport to non-European countries is a challenge.

At the G7 Health Ministers’ meeting in June, India opposed this concept as discriminatory. The WHO is not in favour of such a vaccine passport, which would benefit only limited countries and restrict travel to people with access to vaccines. The Green Pass is limited to vaccines in operation in the EU and is meant to facilitate movement within Europe. It ought not be linked to restricting wider access.

The Green Pass covers four EMA-approved vaccines, not all the six approved by the WHO. For a global travel pass, something like a WHO-approved yellow fever certificate is preferable, once vaccine access is credible, not earlier. If the EMA wanted to deal with non-EU travellers, it should have moved quickly to work with WHO-approved vaccines, including Covishield, which EU countries have funded under COVAX for many countries. Providing a vaccine and then prohibiting access to its users is problematic.

Undoubtedly, the SII had not applied to EMA. It is unclear whether applications were being called for, or a determination was being done by the EMA itself. A market authorisation application would invoke EMA consideration. India need not go the EMA route; it should persist with a WHO-led format.

Since India is carrying out a major vaccination exercise and Indians are important partners to countries like Germany, Estonia and Spain, nine Schengen countries decided to accept the Covishield CoWin certificates. Thus, individual EU countries moved to not let the EMA become an irritant with India.

If the spirit of a new strategic consensus to combat the pandemic prevails, vaccine-producing EU countries like Germany could consider a vaccine initiative with India. This could be like the Quad vaccine proposal and work alongside to establish the norms with mutual acceptability. A surge in production requires a supply chain of over 300 ingredients. This will not emerge from a TRIPS waiver but from a thought-out collaborative effort. The Quad idea is moving slowly but in the right direction. EU countries could parallel it.

India could choose its battlefields more selectively, as it did on the Green Pass. Consensus-building outside the framework of contentious institutions is a better choice that will contribute to making vaccines a truly ‘global public property’.