The unequal distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has left 80 percent of global vaccine stocks in the hands of just 10 countries.
This situation was exacerbated by the administration of former US president Donald Trump, which last year attempted to withdraw from the WHO.
This opened a political vacuum that China immediately filled, allowing Beijing to engage in “vaccine diplomacy,” enhance its soft power and promote Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) vision of a Chinese “community of shared human destiny.”
Beijing used its vaccine diplomacy to project China as an ethical force for good, as opposed to “selfish” Western nations, which stockpiled vaccines for themselves. The Chinese Communist Party sought to build a narrative that China was working to provide every country access to COVID-19 vaccines, as a public commodity.
Using this message, Beijing was able to shift attention toward production capacity and distribution, and away from the efficacy of the vaccines in inoculating people against the disease.
Is China really more benevolent than Western nations?
According to US research, China only donated a small quantity of vaccines to specific markets or nations for trial purposes. Most Chinese vaccines were sold, not donated, to foreign nations.
A research paper published by Springer Nature titled “Vaccine diplomacy: nation branding and China’s COVID-19 soft power play” shows that of the 656 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine Chinese pharmaceutical companies exported to foreign nations at the time of the study, only 8.6 million, or 1.31 percent, were donated; the rest were sold.
Moreover, most sales have been concentrated in Latin American, Southeast Asian and African nations. Since most of these countries lack robust cold chain storage technology, China’s inactivated virus vaccines were more attractive than Western messenger ribonucleic acid — known as mRNA — vaccines, since inactivated virus vaccines are easier to store, requiring only conventional refrigeration.
Sinovac’s CoronaVac vaccine retails for US$13.60 per shot, while the most expensive of China’s COVID-19 vaccines sell for US$60 per shot. Compared with US$4 per shot for the AstraZeneca vaccine, China’s offerings are considerably more expensive.
For simplicity, if China sold the CoronaVac vaccine at US$13.60 per shot, it made US$8.8 billion from export sales through this one vaccine.
While other countries have donated vaccines to the COVAX scheme, China has sold its vaccines to the program. Beijing has also provided economically weak nations with loans to purchase its vaccines, using every available opportunity to make money from the crisis.
China is quietly lining its pockets, yet has the temerity to criticize Western nations and cast itself as the savior of the world.
Yang Chun-chieh is a graduate student at National Tsing-Hua University’s Institute of Sociology.
Translated by Edward Jones
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and