Coronavirus diary – Part 41

This part addresses the emerging debate called “vaccine nationalism”. Credit is due to Dr. Kelvin Ashindorbe of the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria, who messaged me to ask if I had addressed the subject in this serial. Truly, I had adverted to the vaccine question in Parts 34 and 35, but there has not been any focused discussion of vaccine nationalism which ordinarily should be of interest to a political scientist. But his enquiry cleared my thought first along three trajectories that converged around causality. First is the role of the big pharmaceuticals. The second borders on coping with a novel health emergency. And the third is on the safety of alien vaccines. I shall come back to these points but first some conceptual reflection on nationalism.
 
In the field of politics, nationalism is a deep and complex concept. I shall therefore essay at simplification. In his entry in A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, edited by Tom Bottomore et al, V. G Kiernan, then Professor Emeritus at the University of Edinburgh defines nationalism as “a sentiment which professed to transcend social divisions, and blunted class consciousness.” In colonial Africa, we saw nationalism in practice by those forces that were opposed to colonial domination and rule. They rallied in two different categories identified by scholars as plaintive and radical. The former was prescriptive in their approach by expounding the pathway to independence, and the latter wanted the end of colonial rule by the adoption of the logic of colonial domination, namely, the use of force.

In this respect, we can put in perspective the various wars of liberation in our continent, especially in the last century. Europe and American that gave much intellectual content to the concept of nationalism had their nationalist struggles. References are often made to the “Eastern question”, the “Irish question”, and the like. Nationalism as an extension of the word “nation” derives from the notion of birth or nativity. In Latin, nationem refers more to units, clans, or family. The word has since morphed into a reference for territorially-based large groupings called nation. Nationalism is reified when it becomes a devotion to the nation with a clear political agenda. The Oxford Dictionary of Politics differentiates between particular nationalism and universal nationalism. The former reifies a particular nation or identity without reference to the other while the latter emphasizes the universal principles of the transcendence of national identity over class, religion, and humanity. This perspective aligns with Kiernan’s. Nations possess certain differentiating characteristics, namely linguistics, cultural and historical factors among others. The national oppression within plural societies is partly resolved by the acknowledgment of the principle of self-determination. 
 
The notion of vaccine nationalism flows from the idea of ‘my nation first’ or ‘my country first’ or “my people first” in the rationing of the universal common. In the context of the global health emergency, the vaccine has become a universal common to save the entire humanity. Vaccine nationalism negates the required global solidarity to solve mankind’s common scourge. Abhishek De who expressed his views in the Indian Express captured the dynamics of vaccine nationalism According to him, Vaccine nationalism is “When a country manages to secure doses of vaccines for its own citizens or residents and prioritises its own domestic markets before they are made available in other countries; it is known as ‘vaccine nationalism’. This is done through pre-purchase agreements between a government and a vaccine manufacturer.” He further noted that in the second half of last year “Even before the end of final stage human trials or regulatory approval, several wealthier countries like Britain, France, Germany and the U.S. have entered into pre-purchase agreements with COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers, a development that has come to be known as ‘vaccine nationalism’. There are fears that such advance agreements will make the initial few vaccines unaffordable and inaccessible to everyone apart from the rich countries in a world of roughly 8 billion people.”