Faced with the relative shortage of vaccines due to production problems, more and more EU countries are turning to to the Russian Sputnik V vaccine: the government of Hungary was the first to buy it and now he has joined Slovakia. In parallel, others, such as Germany O Italy, they plan to produce it in their own territory.
In an ideal world, none of this would be a problem. As the mantra says, the virus is a global threat that demands global solutions. But the reality is that vaccines have become political. The Russian authorities deliberately politicized Sputnik V from the start – its very name is designed to remind the world of the glories of the Soviet space race. And the rush to import and even produce it in the EU could undermine the extent to which Europeans will see it as a viable option. While the European Union now plays a central role in health policy, what it does next could prove critical both in vaccinating its citizens and in ensuring confidence in the process.
Europe’s battle for health sovereignty
Health policy is not within the competence of the EU, which is one of the reasons why was slow to act at the beginning of the pandemic. But in the face of an unprecedented crisis, the Twenty-Seven assumed a more important role than ever in defending a joint health agenda. Very soon the notable differences between the national health systems of the member states came to light, along with often antagonistic views on the need to Europeanize health policy. In the end, the European Comission took the initiative to try to coordinate actions – if not political – regarding patient mobility, ‘ad hoc’ solidarity in cross-border regions or the exchange of scarce medical equipment, among others.
David Brunat Daniel Iriarte
–
Health is now a core element of EU security, together with the defense or infrastructure sectors. But it is an area in which Brussels lacked strategic autonomy, and to achieve this the EU acted on several levels: creating common strategic actions, diversifying and relocating supply chains, reinforcing investment in innovative companies, investing in research and development, and coordinating efforts in multilateral forums. In short, it needed to limit its dependence on third countries, especially those that it increasingly viewed as geopolitical rivals. With that goal in mind, the European Comission it also took the lead in the joint procurement of vaccines. One year after the pandemic, deployment is much slower than expected and criticism from EU member states rained down on Brussels for not meeting expectations for the first quarter. In parallel, they have started to develop their own strategies, undermining the EU’s common approach.
Entra Sputnik
Last August, Russia was the first country in the world to register a vaccine against covid-19 for home use. Russian state propaganda picked up speed, even though the actual vaccination program only started in December. By announcing the vaccine even before trials ended – while the data was still questionable – and running an aggressive public relations campaign full of mixed messages, confidence in Russia’s vaccine was seriously damaged. The latest polls from the Levada Center, an opinion polling organization in Russia, show that only about 2% of Russians reject vaccines in general but 62% do not want to inject Sputnik V. This figure has risen steadily despite recent data showing that the vaccine is highly effective and despite the fact that it has been endorsed by much of the international scientific community.
The EMA is still waiting for important data from Sputnik
–
In addition, despite having absolute control over the production and export of a vaccine, so far Russia It has only administered 9.15 injections for every 100 citizens, in comparison with 118.04 in Israel, 55.83 in UK and the average of the EU of 19.93. On the other hand, in a strangely opaque way, without a photo session or detailed information about it, it was revealed that Vladimir Putin had been vaccinated on March 23, 2021 and it is not even clear if it was with Sputnik. Meanwhile, Russia has actively and passively tried sell your vaccine to as many countries as possible, while denying that it seeks to gain political influence and accuses others of politicizing the issue. While the EU waits for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to examine the vaccine, the Commission president has stated that Russia should explain why it does not immunize its own citizens.
EFE
–
Effective vaccine or threat?
Despite controversies and delays by Western producers, Hungary and Slovakia have purchased the Russian vaccine, a scandal that caused a change of government in the latter country. In recent days, Austria and Germany have also made known their willingness to buy the Russian vaccine. These decisions are controversial because Sputnik has not yet obtained EMA approval. More generally, parallel agreements outside the EU scheme harm European solidarity. There are also concerns about how the Kremlin could use its influence through vaccines to further undermine this solidarity, as the EU continues to fight to agree a common policy on Russia.
Ukraine he has indicated that he sees Sputnik as a political tool and even as a threat to national security. While Moscow was eager to sell its vaccine to Kiev, the Ukrainian Parliament vetoed its approval in the country. It is the only nation in the world that has. While this position may respond to an obvious emotional reason, it is also not surprising that Ukraine does not want to depend on vaccines from a country with which, essentially, is at war. For the EU it is different: it is not at war with Russia and Sputnik would be just one of the many vaccines available. However, the Ukrainian decision casts doubt on whether Russia could abuse its position as a supplier of vaccines.
Trust is essential
While vaccination campaigns are a race against time, public confidence in vaccines is critical. And this trust is fragile, as can be seen with AstraZeneca. Even before suspicions of a link to blood clots arose, statements by public figures and authorities in France and Germany had prompted EU citizens to they will distrust receiving these doses. This, despite the fact that this vaccine has been developed by the University of Oxford, has obtained authorization from the EMA and continues to receive the support of the health authorities, who ensure that it is safe and effective. But, since vaccinations are not mandatory, some people choose to wait for other options to become available. The AstraZeneca saga does not bode well for the acceptance of Sputnik by the European population. Given the time it took to obtain reliable scientific information on this, how could cooperation and information exchange with vaccine suppliers and Russian authorities be in the future if doubts arise about side effects or on its effectiveness against new variants?
Agencies
–
To start building this trust, Sputnik should be cleared by the EMA for use in the EU before any member state bought it. Unfortunately, the decisions of Hungary and Slovakia They have undermined this, but public authorities can still play a role by reporting the scientific data supporting their authorization, should it be granted. Buying Russian vaccines for the simple fact of buying vaccines will not necessarily help vaccination campaigns in the EU.
Greater autonomy
For the future, the EU should invest in more facilities and supply chains to produce your own vaccine. Covid-19 is likely here to stay and scientists warn that this will not be the last pandemic. Vaccines are the best hope and the main solution to such crises and vaccine factories are an indispensable infrastructure. Relocation of part of the pharmaceutical industry to the EU is one of the tools at the disposal of this geopolitically focused commission. You will have to decide which countries or regions to approach for products whose supply chains could operate on the European periphery, such as the Balkans or North Africa. Diversification is also necessary. Vaccines depend on critical components from a variety of vendors and the more options you have Brussels, best. The EU could decide to work only with certain partners, as well as condition vaccine production in some countries on certain guarantees. Decisions on the protection and expansion of the EU’s pharmaceutical supply chains are an integral part of its efforts to strengthen its strategic health autonomy.
Covid-19 is likely here to stay and scientists warn that this will not be the last pandemic
A year ago, the EU had no competencies in health. It has come a long way since then, although it remains informal: for health to become part of the EU’s remit a reform of the treaties would be necessary. But the EU is now the obvious platform for decisions on vaccines, strategic medical resources and research. It has received criticism for its management of the vaccination campaign and in the future it will need greater transparency and open communication about its health policy, among other challenges: availability of vaccines for the European population, a more precise calendar on how to deploy vaccines. 27 vaccination campaigns will lead to the goal of immunizing 70% of the population that the commission has set for July and a clearer mapping of the public and private partners that the EU is prioritizing in the framework of its strategic health planning. Improving the health autonomy of the EU is an ongoing experiment, but worth following. The alternative is the strategy of “for himself who can” that prevailed at the beginning of the pandemic and that, in reality, did not save anyone.
* Analysis published in the European Council on Foreign Relations por Joanna Hosa y Tara Varma y titulado ‘Sputnik in Europe: What Russia’s vaccine could mean for European health sovereignty’.
–
