International Cooperation During the Covid-19 Pandemic Crisis: A Realist Analysis

Abstract

COVID-19, ulusal sınırları tanımayan ve güçlü bir uluslararası işbirliği gerektiren küresel bir sağlık krizini beraberinde getirse de dünya aktörleri beklenilenin aksine uluslararası işbirliğini gerçekleştirememiştir. Devletler, diğer ülkelerin ihtiyaç ve endişelerini göz ardı ederek bencilce hareket etmiş ve uluslararası sistemdeki rollerini ve güçlerini artırmaya çalışmışlardır. Sonuç olarak bu durum, bu çalışmayı realist Uluslararası İlişkiler kuramının anarşi, kişisel çıkar, güç dağılımı vb. ile ilgili varsayımlarını kullanmaya yöneltmiştir. Bu makalede, söz konusu kavramlarla ifade edilen koşullar ve güdülerin, devletleri sağlık krizi sırasında iş birliğine odaklanmak yerine kendilerini korumaya ve güçlerini artırmaya yönelttiği sonucuna varılmıştır. Ayrıca, ABD ile Çin arasındaki iki kutupluluğu ifade eden güç dağılımındaki mevcut durum geçerliliğini korumuştur.

Keywords

• COVID-19
• uluslararası işbirliği
• realizm
• Çin
• ABD

International Cooperation During the Covid-19 Pandemic Crisis: A Realist Analysis

Abstract

Although COVID-19 has brought about a global health crisis that does not recognize national borders and requires a strong international cooperation, contrary to expectations, the world actors could not achieve international cooperation. States have acted in a selfish way by ignoring the needs and concerns of other countries and tried to foster their role and power in the international system. Consequently, this situation has made this study to use the assumptions of realist theory of International Relations regarding anarchy, self-interest, distribution of powers and so on. In this article, it is concluded that the conditions and motives expressed by these concepts have made the states tend to protect themselves and increase their power instead of focusing on cooperation during the health crisis. Additionally, the current situation in distribution of power, which refers to the bipolarity between the US and China has remained in effect.

Keywords

• COVID-19
• international cooperation
• realism
• China
• the USA

References

1. Alhammadi, A. (2022). The Neorealism and Neoliberalism behind international relations during Covid-19. World Affairs, 185 (1), 147-175.
2. Baier, W. (2020). We must re-invent Europe. In Xiangyang, X. and Yun, G., I. (Ed), China’s fight against the COVID-19 epidemic: Its international contribution and significance in the eyes of the world. Paths International Ltd., 211-227.
3. Balfour, R., Bomassi L. and Martinelli, M. (2022). Coronavirus and the widening global-north south gap. Carnegie Europe, 25 April 2022. Retrieved 2 June 2022 from: https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Balfour_etall_Southern_Mirror_Final.pdf.
4. Bhala, R. (2005). Modern GATT law: A treatise on the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I. Eds. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
5. Bollyky, T. J. and Bown, C. P. (2020). The tragedy of vaccine nationalism: Only cooperation can end the pandemic. Foreign Affairs, 99 (5), 96-108.
6. Börzel, T and Zürn, M. (2021). Contestations of the liberal international order: from liberal multilateralism to postnational liberalism, International Organization, Vol. 75, Special Issue 2, 282-305.
7. Braw, E. (2020). The EU is abandoning Italy in its hour of need, Foreign Policy, 14 March 2020. Retrieved 2 Jan. 2022 from: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/14/coronavirus-eu-abandoning-italy-china-aid/.
8. Burchill, S. (2013). Liberalism. In Linklater, A., V. Eds. Theories of international relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 57-87.

9. Catone, A. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic marks a turning point, in the world history. In Xiangyang, X. and Yun, G., I. Eds. China’s fight against the COVID-19 epidemic: its international contribution and significance in the eyes of the world. Paths International Ltd., 55-84.
10. Chorev, N. (2020). The world health organization between the United States and China. Global Social Policy, 20(3), 378-382.
11. Connolly, K. (2021). Sputnik V: How Russia’s covid vaccine is dividing Europe, BBC News, 17 April 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2022 from: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56735931.
12. Correia, T. and Willis, K. (2021). Applying critical Realism to the COVID-19 pandemic to improve management of future public health crises. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 37, 599-603.
13. Deters, H. and Zardo, F. (2022). The European Commission in Covid-19 vaccine cooperation: leadership vs. Coronationalism? Journal of European Public Policy, DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2022.2064900.
14. Donnelly, J. (2013). Realism. In Linklater, A. V. Ed. Theories of International Relations, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 32-56.
15. Drezner, D. W. (2020). The song remains the same: international relations after COVID-19, International Organization, 74 (S1), E18-E35.
16. Euractiv Network, (2021). How effective is China’s ‘mask diplomacy’ in Europe? 26 March 2021. Retrieved 2 Jan. 2022 from: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/capitals-special-edition-how-effective-is-chinas-mask-diplomacy-in-europe/.
17. Everett, S. J., Hoekman, B., Rocha, N. and Ruta, M. (2021). The Covid-19 vaccine production club: Will value chains temper Nationalism? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 9565.
18. Fay, T. (2021). Applying classical Realism, institutional Liberalism and normative theory to the development and distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine. Gettysburg Social Sciences Review, 5 (1), 200-216.
19. Fetahu, A. (2021). An era of ‘vaccine diplomacy’, and the geopolitical stakes of the state actors in the time of health crisis. Group for Legal and Political Studies, 6 August 2021. Retrieved 2 Jan. 2022 from: https://www.legalpoliticalstudies.org/an-era-of-vaccine-diplomacy-and-the-geopolitical-stakes-of-the-state-actors-in-the-time-of-health-crisis/.
20. Gauttam, P., Singh, B., and Kaur, J.. COVID-19 and Chinese global health diplomacy: geopolitical opportunity for China’s hegemony? Millennial Asia, 11 (3), 318-340.
21. Gill, I. and Ruta, M. (2022). Why global vaccine equity is the prescription for a full recovery. Brookings, 11 Feb. 2022. Retrieved 31 May 2022 from: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2022/02/11/why-global-vaccine-equity-is-the-prescription-for-a-full-recovery/.
22. Gordon, S. (1991). The history and philosophy of social science. London and New York: Routledge.
23. Grieco, J. M. (1990). Cooperation among nations: Europe, America and non-tariff barriers to trade. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
24. Gupta, N.; Singh, B.; Kaur, J.; Singh, S. and Chattu, V. K. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic and reimagination of multilateralism through global health diplomacy. Sustainability, 13, 11551.
25. Inglesby, T. (2020). Make pandemics lose their power. In Brands, H. & Gavin F. J. Eds. COVID-19 and world order: the future of conflict, competition, and cooperation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 75-92.
26. Keohane, R. O. (2012). Twenty years of institutional Liberalism. International Relations, 26 (2), 125-132.
27. Korab-Karpowicz, W. J. (2017). Political Realism in international relations. Standford Encyclopedia of Philosopy, 24 May 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2022 from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/.
28. Kovalev, P. (2021). Factbox: How countries approved Sputnik V anti-coronavirus vaccine. Tass: Russian News Agency, 11 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2022 from: https://tass.com/world/1324643?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com.
29. Kowalski, B. (2021). China’s mask diplomacy in Europe: seeking foreign gratitude and domestic stability. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs 50 (2), 209-226.
30. Mearsheimer, J.J. (1994). The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19, 5-49.
31. Moreno, J. D.; Sándor J. and Schmidt, U. (2021). The vaccination Cold War. Hastings Center, 51 (5): 12-17.
32. Morgenthau H. J. (1949). The primacy of the national interest. The American Scholar, 18 (2), 207-212.
33. Morgenthau H. J. (1952). Another great debate: the national interest of the United States. The American Political Science Review, 46, 961-988.
34. Pannu, J. and Michele B. (2021). The state inoculates: vaccines as soft power. The Lancet Global Health, 9 (6), e744-e745.
35. Qi, Ji.; Joye, S and Van Leuven, S. (2022). Framing China’s mask diplomacy in Europe during the early Covid-19 pandemic: seeking and contesting legitimacy through foreign medical aid amidst soft power promotion. Chinese Journal of Communication, 15 (2), 205-226.
36. Silk, J. (2021). Coronavirus: one year on from the WHO’s pandemic declaration. Deutsche Welle, 11 March 2021. Retrieved 9 May 2022 from: https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-one-year-on-from-the-whos-pandemic-declaration/a-56842247.
37. The Guardian (2021). White House Says Russia and China are Spreading Anti-Western Vaccine Misinformation on Social Media. Retrieved 2 Jan. 2022 from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/jul/16/us-politics-live-covid-coronavirus-wildfires-biden-latest?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-60f1c8628f0814e7a3169be1#block-60f1c8628f0814e7a3169be1.
38. Tkachuk, M. (2020). A world changed by novel coronavirus. In Xiangyang, X. and Yun, G., I. Eds. China’s fight against the COVID-19 epidemic: its international contribution and significance in the eyes of the world. Paths International Ltd., 202-210.
39. Trade Map (2021). Retrieved 2 Jan. 2022 from: https://www.trademap.org/Index.aspx. Van Beusekom, M. (2020). Deeply concerned WHO declares Covid-19 pandemic. University of minnesota center for infectious disease research and policy (CIDRAP). Retrieved 23 May 2022 from: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/03/deeply-concerned-who-declares-covid-19-pandemic.
40. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
41. Waltz, K. (2000). Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25 (1), 5-41.
42. WHO, (2022a). Weekly epidemiological update on Covid-19 - 25 May 2022. Retrieved 31 May 2022 from: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update-on-covid-19---25-may-2022.
43. WHO, (2022b). Covid-19 vaccine tracker, 3 June 2022. Retrieved 4 June 2022 from: https://covid19.trackvaccines.org/agency/who/.
44. WHO, (2022c). Covid-19 vaccine tracker and landscape, 27 May 2022. Retrieved 4 June 2022 from: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines.
45. WHO (2020). Updated WHO recommendations for international traffic in relation to COVID-19 outbreak. 29 Feb. 2020. Retrieved 2 Jan. 2022 from: https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak.
46. Wishnick, E. (2021). China and Russia: Vaccine competitors or partners? The Diplomat, 23 Feb. 2021. Retrieved 2 Jan. 2022 from: https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/china-and-russia-vaccine-competitors-or-partners/.
47. Wong, B. (2020). China’s mask diplomacy. The Diplomat, 25 March 2020. Retrieved 16 May 2022 from: https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/chinas-mask-diplomacy/.
48. WTO, (2020). Export prohibitions and restrictions, 23 April 2020. Retrieved 2 Jan. 2022 from: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/export_prohibitions_report_e.pdf.
49. Zhang D. and Jamali A. B. (2022). China’s “Weaponized” vaccine: intertwining between international and domestic politics. East Asia, 21 January 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-021-09382-x.