Diplomatic Practice in the COVID-19 Era: are we witnessing the emergence of a "health" diplomacy?

Diplomatic Practice in the COVID-19 Era
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Diplomatic Practice in the COVID-19 Era
Diplomatic Practice in the COVID-19 Era
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Diplomatic Practice in the COVID-19 Era
Diplomacy is an old-age concept that has existed for as long as human civilization. In ancient times, envoys traveling facilitated frequent contact between neighboring civilizations while modern diplomacy is characterized by professional diplomatic services, international law, and embassies. Despite its long-lived existence, diplomacy has rarely taken health with the gravity it deserves up to until at the very least, the current COVID-19 pandemic the globe faces. The COVID-19 situation has brought the discussion on health diplomacy into the fold. In this case, health diplomacy refers to “international aid or cooperation that is meant to promote health or that uses health programming to promote non-health-related foreign aims” (Fazal, 2020, p. 1).
The discussion begins by stating the nation’s role during a pandemic. Onwards, a couple of dynamics are apparent in the quest to achieve a seamless level of international cooperation among states. Understanding these dynamics demands the articulation of the international theory and its four debates that offer an insight as to why there is a complex interdependence in an international organization. The next section will highlight the diplomacy and the application of soft power among countries that have managed to take control of the pandemic within their boundaries. Such countries provide the international community on how to approach this predicament. Health diplomacy appears to be an important aspect albeit theoretical and it appears that it would be challenging to integrate it internationally as different countries elicit different cultural dispositions and values as well as economic priorities that they would be reluctant to abandon.
The Role of the State during a Pandemic
In pandemic times, the primary role of the state is to ensure that their citizens’ physical and economic health is protected. State administrators aim to achieve this position through the implementation of regulations to guide their citizens and work with stakeholders such as Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs). These institutions are in a unique position where they can articulate various health issues to the public. This method is one dimension in which health diplomacy is practiced with the results of such actions increased information sharing as well as reduced transaction costs. An enhanced level of information sharing is a specific aim of the World Health Organization concerning its present International Health Regulations (Worsnop, 2017). On the other hand, countries cannot only employ health diplomacy in building goodwill and soft power but also in pursuing humanitarian aims. Nye (2004, p. 11) defined soft power as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather coercion or payment.” This possibility was highly predicated upon a country’s “attractiveness of its culture, its domestic, political and social values, and the style and substance of its foreign policies” (Wang & Lu, 2008, p. 426).
Health diplomacy is vital during pandemics because it is this avenue that enables the state in assessing its most urgent needs as well as the most effective means towards achieving them. Therefore, health diplomacy cannot be disregard. Nevertheless, the catch lies in the level of cooperation that states can offer their institutional structures and whether they perceive them as adequate in addressing those needs. In situations where nations disregard global health institutions particularly when it comes to pandemics, their actions are generating a recursive effect that is bound to undermine the institution’s ability to handle familiar situations in the future.
International Relations Theory
Before tackling the state of public diplomacy and soft power arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to analyze the relevance of international relations (IR) theory as well as politics. The aim is to showcase how IR theoretical debates affect people’s lives and more importantly, enable people to tap into the in-depth analysis of the concerns and dilemma that many individuals find themselves amidst the prevailing pandemic. The theory remains acquainted with the current situation because of an overview of the complexity arising not only from a technical and moral position but also from cultural and identity appreciation. The theory endears to offer a livid analysis of international interactions theoretically. Today, the discipline has expanded its scope of research agenda emerging from the initial focus on conflict and peace. The international organization is quite dependent on humans as they establish international norms and regulations with a preconceived idea on the beneficiary. They legitimize certain behaviors too. For instance, there are two network systems through which the virus has spread; the local and international networks system (Siegenfeld & Bar-Yam, 2020). The former consists of closer circles, relatives, and family while the latter encapsulates long-range links and transportation and global connectivity. It is people that have established the international system in such a manner and thus, the IR theory will make efforts to explain this position through four related debates.
One of the most fundamental debatable aspects is solidarity and responsibility. This aspect is evident when South and Nordic European countries are compared concerning the impact of the virus on their demographics. The former argue that the European Union (EU) ought to elicit much more solidarity when it comes to the fight against the virus. In this regard, there is a need to share the burden that is apparent in economic and social costs. In principle, the latter agrees but is coy based upon responsibility; the resources can be availed only if responsible spending can be assured. Secondly, there is the concern over who is responsible for the blame or burden. The Nordic nations are concerned over the payments of the accumulated debts. European countries are facing a precarious situation when it comes to their finances meaning that this proposition will take a significant amount of time before it is actualized.
The second debate that emerges when facing COVID-19 is that of communitarianism and cosmopolitanism. A significant number of people are of the idea that international cooperation is the most appropriate and effective strategy against COVID-19. They hold similar views when it comes to artificial intelligence developments, environmental degradation, and nuclear conflict. To them, cooperation among individuals is an indispensable and instrumental element of other nation’s success. On the other hand, and as mentioned earlier, states are quick to be protagonists relegating WHO and even the EU to secondary roles when it comes to the virus. This development confers the case for communitarianism where a particular group (people of independent national borders) are given priority over other global individuals. The viewpoints have their gravity and will pose as a major predicament to intentional response towards the pandemic.
Another aspect in which to gauge the prevailing dynamics is the case for nationalism and globalism. Nationalism gains much relevance from realist scholars while globalism is highly associated with the liberalists (John, 2018). Nationalism is a deeply-rooted ideal and thus, is the primary driver of international behavior. Many may question this, but it is the truth in most parts of the globe. In essence, this position justifies why state responses are the most predominant COVID-19 responses currently. Most nations are concerned with their citizens’ health and less of economic prosperity to the extent that dedicating their limited resources to other people’s cause sounds ridiculous.
The final aspect to perceive diplomacy amidst the COVID-19 pandemic is security and uncertainty. People are more open to security while the progressive contemporary imposes the other. Most organizations have argued that a post-pandemic life will elicit fewer certainties. People will be compelled to be attuned to changes and thus, flexibility will be fundamental. It this mantra that has been central to modernization and more precisely, the technological sector. On the other hand, human beings want the opposite, which includes certainties, predictability, and security. It is human nature to seek security and protection; a position that aligns with economic theory although the reality is something else (Manne & Zywicki, 2013). Uncertainty facilitates possible mis-reaction, anxiety, insecurity, and fear. People must analyze how the COVID-19 pandemic can be useful in creating a curated path onwards.
The issues emerging from IR theory, political and social sciences, as well as humanities, will do little to provide a vaccine against the virus. Moreover, they will not have a direct input towards the generation of resources for the reconstruction. However, they offer people an analysis of areas they have underperformed and ultimately, ways in which they can improve. They offer a basis upon which people can re-think and re-organize their societies and international milieu. Further, stakeholders can address the much-maligned fundamental questions on the future of the entire species. To this end, it is important to realize that this theory can contribute massive knowledge towards avoiding another pandemic or coping better with it even though it will not defeat it.
Narratives Related to the Virus in its Initial Phase: Public Diplomacy and Soft Power
There...