smartcybers786@gmail.com 
#Covid #Political #Economy
Eopolitics, namely the geographical, regional and local dimension of power, are changing. During the Kovide 19 pandemic diseases, a tectonic change occurred when two great powers, China and the United States, made geographical political progress in the unconventional field, namely global health. The World Health Organization suffered suicide damage when a power, the United States, did not censor its rivals, China. The flagship reaction to Covide 19, a multi -solid procedure for global access to the Covix Initiative, Kovide 19 vaccines, closed at the end of 2023, which provided nearly two billion vaccines to 146 economies. GeoPolitics, namely vaccine diplomacy and vaccine nationalism, were subjected to the subtle power levers. The WHO tried to balance the stake with an uneven effect. Will the same be the same with MPOX and so on? The jury is still out.
Global Health Diplomacy (GHD) “is about a multi -level and multi -actor negotiation process that creates and manages the global policy environment for health.”
The Covid-19 global health crisis highlighted its importance as countries discussed the distribution of vaccine to respond better about pandemic disease. As a result, the GHD has emerged as an important tool in the diplomatic tool box. Established powers such as the US -led Western Block and the emerging powers of China can display GHD in different ways. GHD can help them advance their foreign policy goals, improve global health safety and protect their national and global economies. Cooperation between old and new powers can help achieve these goals.
The Brazil-Russia-China South Africa group, which has now joined other countries, has emerged as a coalition with considerable geographical political and economic turmoil. In other fronts, it is challenging the US -led Western block in the global health realm. The latter has been a dominant force with a long -standing leadership role in the rule of global health, but now the scales can be changed. By checking these rival blocks through GHD lenses, we try to see how their negative competition can damage or positively to global health goals. Is
The GHD’s “multilateral and multi -stakeholder” is evident in the US -led Western Block view for global health. For example, they take effectively to the World Fund, such as the World Fund, the World Economic Forum and the group of institutions, to formulate health policies and set global health priorities. For their sake, diagnosed financing that enables the latter to work, but withholding their voluntary funds can lead to a defect. In addition, their commitment to dealing with diseases through the PEPFAR and the World Fund promotes GHD. Nevertheless, it could potentially damage the Primary GHs, namely the WHO and One Nation, a vote of the World Health Assembly.
Similarly, the World Trade Organization can overcome their rules and enforce aspects of the trade of intellectual property rights trade can promote innovation, encourage investment in research and life -saving Enables the pipeline of medicines and vaccines. Nevertheless, the same agreement can prevent developing countries from taking advantage of life -saving products by establishing pricing monopoly.
Individual countries in the group can sometimes break the ranks to promote GH and global health coverage (UHC). It was viewed under Japan’s G7 House.
The global health leadership is ready for a mantle grip. We will see if the result is the result of a joint win for both blocks or if someone gives them a place.
Despite the lack of formal institutions like the Global Fund and the G7, the BRICS countries have shown their potential to restore global health through united South South Cooperation. Under the Belt and Road Initiative, China’s Health Silk Road distributed nearly 1.5 billion doses of covid 19 vaccines to more than 100 countries. Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine was divided into more than 70 countries, providing about $ 1.5 million by mid -2021. The Serum Institute of India is taking advantage of its status as “the world’s pharmacy”, which engaged through its vaccine metal move and promised the important exports of the vaccine initially, due to domestic needs. Distribute about 66 66 million doses before exporting exports.
Vaccine diplomacy refers to the distribution of vaccine to achieve wider diplomatic goals. The vaccine is donated to the economically and technically developed countries or to the low -resource countries. It promotes goodwill, improves global health safety, and sometimes the donor pushes the country’s strategic interests. In the early stages of Kovide 19 pandemic diseases, China, India and Russia used vaccine diplomacy to achieve one or more of these goals. Vaccine nationalism was mostly shown by the G7 economies. Vaccine Nationalism is to give priority to citizens of governments to protect the vaccine, often at the expense of global equity in access to vaccine. Rich countries can build storage at the expense of global solidarity by reducing advance purchase agreements and economically developing countries. As of September 2020, wealthy countries, comprising 13 % of the global population, received 51 % of the vaccine. The purpose of the Covix Initiative is to provide equal access, but short, the vaccine provides only 200 million doses instead of 600 million planned due to nationalism, which highlighted severe inequality in vaccine access.
GHD could play an important role in this matter. This could have been combined with the producers to improve prices and to secure a negotiating licensed production in developing countries. It can also help developing countries to navigate technical and political challenges in issuing mandatory licenses and efforts for volunteer discounts.
In 2024, GHD, however, was a failure. Some nations, refrained from supporting the global pandemic agreement, the excuse of sovereignty. This deal enables them to effectively prevent, detect and respond to global health risks. The purpose of this deal is to create a legally binding promise for countries to protect global health. This collective failure highlighted the waste opportunity to balance national sovereignty with global responsibility.
The recent MPOX announcement of international concern could open a new front between BRICS and US -led Western blocks. In the event of cooperation, the research capabilities of the US -led block and the mass productive capabilities of the BRICS block can promote global health safety. Their confrontation and accusation can lead to global reaction, as seen during the Covade 19 pandemic diseases.
The two groups should take advantage of their economic and political influence in the rule of health globally so that the pandemic agreement can be effectively discussed based on the concept of maximum collective good. How these powers react to this MPOx and will be compatible with the next endeavor in the pandemic agreement, forming a balance of global health and gentle power. Global South has made Dr. Tedros’ historical words in front of the world north, when he said, “Unless everyone is safe, no one is safe.” The global health leadership is ready for a mantle grip. We will see if the result is the result of a joint win for both blocks or if someone gives them a place. The Global South will be closely seen for the nationalists and the outbreaks of the pandemic contract.
Dr. Shiraz Ahmed Khan received a PhD, MPH and MBBS degree. He is an Associate Professor of Global Health at the Health Services Academy in Islamabad.
Dr. Mezza Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan is a lecturer at Medical and Dental College, Lahore.
