A century ago, an influenza pandemic killed more people than died in World War I. Today, the COVID-19 pandemic has killed more Americans than died in all US wars since 1945. A big difference, however, is that science did not have a vaccine for the influenza virus back then, but several companies and countries today have created vaccines for COVID-19.
A number of wealthy democracies, including the US and the UK, have vaccinated over half their adult populations, and seen a dramatic reduction in the number of new cases and deaths. Other places, such as India, Brazil and parts of Africa, have low vaccination rates and high rates of new cases and deaths. The Economist estimates that the pandemic’s true global death toll might be about 10 million people, or more than three times the official number reported by national authorities.
Given these grim statistics, should leaders of wealthy countries export vaccines and help vaccinate foreigners before they finish the job at home? When former US president Donald Trump proclaimed “America first,” he was being consistent with democratic theory, according to which leaders are entrusted with defending and advancing the interests of the people who elected them.
However, as I argue in my book Do Morals Matter?, the key question is how leaders define national interest. There is a major moral difference between a myopic transactional definition, like that of Trump, and a broader, far-sighted definition.
Consider former US president Harry Truman’s espousal of the Marshall Plan after World War II. Rather than narrowly insisting that the US’ European allies repay their war loans, as the US had demanded after World War I, Truman dedicated more than 2 percent of the country’s GDP to aiding Europe’s economic recovery. The process allowed Europeans to share in planning the continent’s reconstruction and produced a result that was good for them, but that also served US national interest in preventing communist control of Western Europe.
There are four major reasons a Marshall Plan-like effort to vaccinate people in poor countries is in the US national interest.
First, it is in Americans’ medical interest. Viruses do not care about the nationality of the humans they kill. They simply seek a host to allow them to reproduce, and large populations of unvaccinated people allow them to mutate and evolve into new variants that can evade the protections of vaccines. Given modern travel, it is only a matter of time before variants cross national borders. If a new variant arose that was capable of bypassing our best vaccines, we would need to develop a booster targeted at the new variant and vaccinate again, which could lead to more fatalities and more strain on the US medical system, as well as lockdowns and economic damage.
Our values provide the second reason that a vaccine “Marshall Plan” is in the US national interest. Some foreign policy experts contrast values with interests, but that is a false dichotomy. Our values are among our most important interests, because they tell us who we are as a people.
Like most people, Americans care more about their compatriots than foreigners, but that does not mean they are indifferent to the suffering of others. Few would ignore a cry for help from a drowning person because she calls out in a foreign language. While leaders are constrained by public opinion in a democracy, they often have considerable leeway to shape policy — and considerable resources to influence public sentiment.
A third national interest, related to the second, is soft power — the ability to influence others through attraction rather than coercion or payment. American values can be a source of soft power when others see our policies as benign and legitimate.
Most foreign policies combine hard and soft power. The Marshall Plan, for example, relied on hard economic resources and payments, but it also created a reputation for benignity and far-sightedness that attracted Europeans. As the Norwegian political scientist Geir Lundestad has argued, the US’ role in postwar Europe might have resembled an empire, but it was “an empire by invitation.” A policy of helping poor countries by providing vaccines, as well as aiding the development of their own healthcare systems’ capacities, would increase US soft power.
Finally, there is geopolitical competition. China quickly recognized that its soft power suffered from the origin story of COVID-19 in Wuhan. Not only was there lack of clarity about how the virus originated, but in the early stages of the crisis, Chinese censorship and denial made the crisis worse than necessary before its authoritarian lockdown proved successful.
Since then, China has assiduously pursued COVID-19 diplomacy in many parts of the world. By donating medical equipment and vaccines to other countries, China has been working to change the international narrative from one of fault to one of attraction.
The administration of US President Joe Biden has been playing catch-up, announcing that it plans to release 60 million doses of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, as well as 20 million additional dozes of Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines. In addition, the administration has pledged US$4 billion in funding for COVAX to help poor countries purchase vaccines, and supports a temporary waiver of intellectual property to help poor countries develop capacity.
In short, for four good reasons consistent with US history, values and self-interest, Washington should lead a group of wealthy countries in a plan to vaccinate the rest of the world now, even before the job is finished at home.
Joseph Nye is a professor at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
The bird flu outbreak at US dairy farms keeps finding alarming new ways to surprise scientists. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that H5N1 is spreading not just from birds to herds, but among cows. Meanwhile, media reports say that an unknown number of cows are asymptomatic. Although the risk to humans is still low, it is clear that far more work needs to be done to get a handle on the reach of the virus and how it is being transmitted. That would require the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to get
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
On April 11, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida delivered a speech at a joint meeting of the US Congress in Washington, in which he said that “China’s current external stance and military actions present an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge … to the peace and stability of the international community.” Kishida emphasized Japan’s role as “the US’ closest ally.” “The international order that the US worked for generations to build is facing new challenges,” Kishida said. “I understand it is a heavy burden to carry such hopes on your shoulders,” he said. “Japan is already standing shoulder to shoulder