Mukunda Raj Kattel

The world has never been so unequal as it is now. Rooted in the gap between a ‘promise’ and ‘delivery’ that persists right from the founding of the United Nations (UN), the epitome of just and equal world order, global inequality has taken new height since the outbreak of the coronavirus last year.
Born out of the ashes of World War II, the UN had promised, as far back as 1945, that it would save “succeeding generations from the scourge of war … reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small … and promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” These ends would be achieved, as stated in the preamble of the UN Charter, by employing international machinery and the collective strength of the UN members. These were promises to the people of the world who were broken, shocked and devastated by the consequences of the war.

UN instruments
Building on the Charter’s aspirational foundation, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other binding instruments were developed codifying fundamental human rights that would be available to everyone anywhere in the world, irrespective of class, colour, ethnicity, religious faith, political belief and nationality. The right to health was – and continues to be – one of them.
Seventy-six years later, the promises of the UN Charter appear to come hollow, especially as regards the mobilisation of the collective will and strength of the UN members in protection and promotion of fundamental human rights, and ensuring social progress and better standard of life. Nowhere is the hollowness so glaring as in the distribution of and access to the vaccine against COVID-19, which has killed over 3.5 million people around the world as of May 28.
According to COVAX, a UN-backed international mechanism set up to ensure the supply of vaccines to some 190 low-income countries, it is not likely that its aim to vaccinate at least 20 per cent of the population in these countries this year can be realised. It is because the distribution of the vaccines has been “wildly uneven and unfair,” to borrow from UN Secretary-General António Guterres, with high income countries being in the rush to vaccinate their people first and, thus, being responsible for the starkly unproportionate supply of vaccines in the world. For example, the US has fully vaccinated 40.7 per cent of its population administering 289 million doses of vaccines. The UK has vaccinated 36.6 per cent of its population with the supply of 63.3 million doses. The European Union (EU) has vaccinated 17.3 per cent of the population of its member states securing the supply of 240.6 million doses.
The situation of low-income countries that largely depend on the supply through COVAX is pathetic. For example, Nepal has only been able to vaccinate 2.3 per cent of its people due to the shortage of vaccine. Many countries in Africa have not even been able to vaccinate one percent of their population. The countries that have a say over the production system, including knowledge and technology, have controlled the supply. Those without such influence and privilege have had to stand helpless.
This indicates the failure of the human rights system to create a level playing field for all nations to benefit from the progress of science and technology. This is also the failure of the champions of human rights and global justice – the UK, the US and the EU, in particular – to live up to their human rights obligation to ensure equality in the supply of and access to the vaccine. By resorting instead to vaccine chauvinism, they have added to the skepticism that the West is selective in its approach to human rights. This is as unfortunate as an opportunity loss to dispel the skepticism.
A medicine, equipment or a piece of scientific knowledge related to health is a global public good and not a market commodity reserved only for those who can afford to pay. The COVID-19 vaccine and related medicines and therapies are an essential component of the right to health, to speak in the context of the ongoing pandemic, and, as such, should be available to everyone everywhere on the basis of need. Delay in times of emergency is tantamount to denial. And, denial is the worst form of human rights violation.
Concentration of vaccines in one part of the world has left other parts wanting, locked and paralysed, with the people either constrained at home – and, as a result, subjected to the threat of the loss of livelihoods and access to services, including food, water, education and safety – or exposed to the disease. Prolonged restrictions on social interactions, fear of infection and hardships caused by the loss of income have had pervasive psychosocial implications that experts suggest may have long term impacts. The delay in the supply of vaccines has not only violated the right to health, but a chain of rights.
Vaccinating the people of one country or continent and keeping others deprived will not keep the world safe. It would rather add to the risk of virus transmitting and mutating into new variants. As we have already seen, emerging variants are more transmissible and deadly. Other variants to come may even be vaccine-resistant.

Inclusive response
Aware of some wealthy nations rushing to stockpile the vaccine, Bill and Melinda Gates warned as early as in January that their action might not only undermine international efforts to counter the pandemic but also risk turning the world ‘immunity-unequal’. Fearful of the catastrophic result this may lead to, they demanded the wealthiest nations to behave responsibly by employing an “inclusive response [to] save lives and livelihoods now—and create a foundation for a post-pandemic world that is stronger, more equal, and more resilient.” Bill and Melinda Gates could not be more articulate.
The coronavirus has a feature of perverse equality: it affects everyone – rich or poor, white or black, Hindu or Muslim, male or female – with the same fear of force and vitality. It has also exposed its ability to defy unequal, isolated and nationalist responses. The writing is on the wall for the leaders of the world. They have a choice: either keep human rights at the centre of their response and break the chain of infection everywhere in the world or let the virus grow deadlier at their own peril.

(A PhD on human rights and peace, Kattel is a senior research fellow at Policy Research Institute. kattelmr@gmail.com)