• Home
  • About RSIS
    • Introduction
    • Building the Foundations
    • Welcome Message
    • Board of Governors
    • Staff Profiles
      • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
      • Dean’s Office
      • Management
      • Distinguished Fellows
      • Faculty and Research
      • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
      • Visiting Fellows
      • Adjunct Fellows
      • Administrative Staff
    • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
    • RSIS Endowment Fund
    • Endowed Professorships
    • Career Opportunities
    • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
    • Research Centres
      • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
      • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
      • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
      • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
      • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
    • Research Programmes
      • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
      • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
    • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
    • [email protected] Newsletter
    • Other Research
      • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
    • Graduate Programmes Office
    • Overview
    • MSc (Asian Studies)
    • MSc (International Political Economy)
    • MSc (International Relations)
    • MSc (Strategic Studies)
    • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
    • PhD Programme
    • Exchange Partners and Programmes
    • How to Apply
    • Financial Assistance
    • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
    • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
    • Alumni
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
    • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
    • SRP Executive Programme
    • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
    • RSIS Publications
      • Annual Reviews
      • Books
      • Bulletins and Newsletters
      • Commentaries
      • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
      • Commemorative / Event Reports
      • IDSS Paper
      • Interreligious Relations
      • Monographs
      • NTS Insight
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • RSIS Publications for the Year
    • Glossary of Abbreviations
    • External Publications
      • Authored Books
      • Journal Articles
      • Edited Books
      • Chapters in Edited Books
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • Op-Eds
      • External Publications for the Year
    • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
    • Great Powers
    • Sustainable Security
    • Other Resource Pages
    • Media Highlights
    • News Releases
    • Speeches
    • Vidcast Channel
    • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsis.sg
Linkedin
instagram instagram rsis.sg
RSS
  • Home
  • About RSIS
      • Introduction
      • Building the Foundations
      • Welcome Message
      • Board of Governors
      • Staff Profiles
        • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
        • Dean’s Office
        • Management
        • Distinguished Fellows
        • Faculty and Research
        • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
        • Visiting Fellows
        • Adjunct Fellows
        • Administrative Staff
      • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
      • RSIS Endowment Fund
      • Endowed Professorships
      • Career Opportunities
      • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
      • Research Centres
        • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
        • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
        • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
        • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
        • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      • Research Programmes
        • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
        • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
      • [email protected] Newsletter
      • Other Research
        • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      • Graduate Programmes Office
      • Overview
      • MSc (Asian Studies)
      • MSc (International Political Economy)
      • MSc (International Relations)
      • MSc (Strategic Studies)
      • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
      • PhD Programme
      • Exchange Partners and Programmes
      • How to Apply
      • Financial Assistance
      • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
      • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      • Alumni
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      • SRP Executive Programme
      • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      • RSIS Publications
        • Annual Reviews
        • Books
        • Bulletins and Newsletters
        • Commentaries
        • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
        • Commemorative / Event Reports
        • IDSS Paper
        • Interreligious Relations
        • Monographs
        • NTS Insight
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • RSIS Publications for the Year
      • Glossary of Abbreviations
      • External Publications
        • Authored Books
        • Journal Articles
        • Edited Books
        • Chapters in Edited Books
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • Op-Eds
        • External Publications for the Year
      • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      • Great Powers
      • Sustainable Security
      • Other Resource Pages
      • Media Highlights
      • News Releases
      • Speeches
      • Vidcast Channel
      • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
  • instagram instagram rsis.sg
Connect

Getting to RSIS

Map

Address

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

View location on Google maps Click here for directions to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
    RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
    instagram instagram rsis.sg
      RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    RSIS Intranet

    S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
    Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University

    Skip to content

     
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • Global Health Security: COVID-19 and Its Impacts – EU’s Pandemic Management: Why More Credit Is Due
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO21098 | Global Health Security: COVID-19 and Its Impacts – EU’s Pandemic Management: Why More Credit Is Due
    Frederick Kliem

    23 June 2021

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    SYNOPSIS

    The EU has turned from ostensible pandemic underachiever to COVID-19 management role model. Increasingly apt at containing COVID-19 at home, the EU is now providing substantial global assistance, too.

    Source: Pixabay

    COMMENTARY

    THE EU ─ European Union ─ is no stranger to being the scapegoat for pretty much anything that goes wrong in Europe. When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit the continent, the EU’s value-added in times of crisis was questioned once again, and criticism was harsh.

    A recent study found that Europeans’ trust in EU institutions has decreased substantially over the cause of the pandemic. Despite initial mishaps, this lack of trust is not justified. The EU has proven itself as a slow, but remarkably successful and hands-on crisis manager ─ for its members and in support of its global partners.

    EU Missing in Action

    Partly because EU bureaucracy can be sluggish and aloof, partly because the EU was caught off-guard, and, most importantly, because health governance rests with the nation states, the EU was virtually absent across the board in the early days of the pandemic. Whenever it did act, such as with vaccine procurement, Brussels looked inept, damaging the EU’s reputation.

    National governments were left to do as they pleased. Some reacted not at all, others with draconian measures. Many were driven by a short-sighted national self-help instinct. For example, when badly COVID-affected, Italy activated an EU crisis support mechanisms (CPM), it was met with woeful silence.

    Although this lack of European solidarity was not Brussels’ fault and also immediately rectified, it reflected badly on the EU. Initial European COVID management resembled, as the Commission President called it, a “painful story” of “only-for-me responses”.

    But as her predecessor, Jean-Claude Juncker, used to say, when the EU goes through crises, it always emerges stronger from them.

    Exhibit A: Travel

    Extremes characterised shockingly uncoordinated European travel restriction measures, ranging from unilateral border closures — a sensitive topic in Europe — to laissez-faire approaches to travel, leading to some super-spreader vacations.

    Following this cacophony, with Brussels’ help, EU members gradually found the right balance between the de jure guaranteed freedom of movement —a fundamental pillar of European regionalism — and prudent movement controls. The EU is now emerging as a role model for international travel, neither exceedingly cautious nor reckless.

    Just as is the case in ASEAN, numerous EU countries depend on tourism, some to the tune of 15% to 20% of GDP. Countries such as Spain are now cautiously reopening in order to save their travel industry and the European aviation market in tandem.

    This is perhaps risky, but an absolute necessity in order to avoid an uneven recovery, which would further increase unhealthy economic asymmetry in Europe, both across sectors and countries. Ultimately, this also symbolises that in Europe, health can never trump other fundamental civil rights for a prolonged period of time.

    A prudent resumption of international travel is aided by coordinated instruments, such as a mass-testing and vaccination passports, potentially a blueprint for other regions grappling with the pandemic travel dilemma.

    Exhibit B: Vaccinations

    With the intent to prevent vaccine nationalism, EU leaders entrusted the Commission with vaccine procurement for the entire bloc. They sought to avoid asymmetric distribution across the EU and to counter the narrative of an ostensibly resurgent European nationalism.

    Joint procurement proved less efficient as compared to the United States or Britain, and criticism ran wild. Although somewhat unfair, critics had a point: The Commission was inexperienced with large-scale procurement. Negotiators were slow and miserly and failed to secure sufficient and stable vaccine supply.

    Predictably, supply became the inoculation programme’s bottleneck. For example, by the end of April, Germany had only been able to vaccinate 7.5% of its people, half of Singapore’s rate.

    Despite the serious consequences of a slow vaccination roll-out, preventing European vaccine nationalism was noble and ultimately successful, on three accounts.

    First, the EU demonstrated internal solidarity; two, it helped containing transnational infection chains across Europe’s notoriously porous borders; and three, despite the slow start, the EU’s inoculation programme is catching up fast as bottlenecks are loosening: EU-wide, 31% are now fully, 55% partially vaccinated. Germany vaccinates up to 1.4 million people in a single day.

    Despite some outliers (Malta’s vaccination rate is nearly 70%, Bulgaria’s only 13%), most countries are on par. The EU is expected to even exceed its ambitious target of a 70% inoculation rate by September.

    Exhibit C: Global Solidarity

    Just like everyone else, the EU must look after its citizens first. And yet, despite false claims to the contrary, the EU remains the only Western bloc that exports vaccines on a large scale.

    Granted, Brussels blocked the export of some AstraZeneca doses to Australia when the company failed to fulfil its delivery commitments to the EU, while exporting their product at the same time.

    But this is an isolated case, and it is worth noting that these vaccines were largely donated to the COVAX Facility, the global coalition to support equitable access to vaccines, to which the EU is collectively one of the largest contributors.

    Moreover, via its “Team Europe” initiative, the EU offers substantial pandemic support to partner countries, thus far amounting to some €40 billion.

    Over €800 million of this went to ASEAN in support of regional health infrastructure and technical assistance, paying specific attention to vulnerable and marginalised communities. The EU also supports the WHO Southeast Asia with €20 million, and Germany alone contributed €5 million to ASEAN’s COVID Response Fund.

    From Zero to Hero

    There are several lessons here: One, perceiving political success in extremes, as either total failure or success, is usually a fallacy; two, anything involving the EU bureaucracy and complex power dynamics between institutions and member states is often slow, risk-averse, and overly complicated.

    But once it gets going, European regionalism is capable of remarkable progress. Most importantly, EU solidarity is alive. Even under immense pressure, Europe practised internal solidarity and crisis management.

    Equally important, it offered a counter-narrative to the ostensibly globally resurging nationalism and national “me-first” attitude. The EU demonstrates that international cooperation and mutual support are not lofty values for good weather only.

    About the Author

    Frederick Kliem is a Research Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. This is part of a series.

    Categories: Commentaries / Country and Region Studies / Non-Traditional Security / East Asia and Asia Pacific / Global / South Asia / Southeast Asia and ASEAN

    Last updated on 23/06/2021

    comments powered by Disqus
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    SYNOPSIS

    The EU has turned from ostensible pandemic underachiever to COVID-19 management role model. Increasingly apt at containing COVID-19 at home, the EU is now providing substantial global assistance, too.

    Source: Pixabay

    COMMENTARY

    THE EU ─ European Union ─ is no stranger to being the scapegoat for pretty much anything that goes wrong in Europe. When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit the continent, the EU’s value-added in times of crisis was questioned once again, and criticism was harsh.

    A recent study found that Europeans’ trust in EU institutions has decreased substantially over the cause of the pandemic. Despite initial mishaps, this lack of trust is not justified. The EU has proven itself as a slow, but remarkably successful and hands-on crisis manager ─ for its members and in support of its global partners.

    EU Missing in Action

    Partly because EU bureaucracy can be sluggish and aloof, partly because the EU was caught off-guard, and, most importantly, because health governance rests with the nation states, the EU was virtually absent across the board in the early days of the pandemic. Whenever it did act, such as with vaccine procurement, Brussels looked inept, damaging the EU’s reputation.

    National governments were left to do as they pleased. Some reacted not at all, others with draconian measures. Many were driven by a short-sighted national self-help instinct. For example, when badly COVID-affected, Italy activated an EU crisis support mechanisms (CPM), it was met with woeful silence.

    Although this lack of European solidarity was not Brussels’ fault and also immediately rectified, it reflected badly on the EU. Initial European COVID management resembled, as the Commission President called it, a “painful story” of “only-for-me responses”.

    But as her predecessor, Jean-Claude Juncker, used to say, when the EU goes through crises, it always emerges stronger from them.

    Exhibit A: Travel

    Extremes characterised shockingly uncoordinated European travel restriction measures, ranging from unilateral border closures — a sensitive topic in Europe — to laissez-faire approaches to travel, leading to some super-spreader vacations.

    Following this cacophony, with Brussels’ help, EU members gradually found the right balance between the de jure guaranteed freedom of movement —a fundamental pillar of European regionalism — and prudent movement controls. The EU is now emerging as a role model for international travel, neither exceedingly cautious nor reckless.

    Just as is the case in ASEAN, numerous EU countries depend on tourism, some to the tune of 15% to 20% of GDP. Countries such as Spain are now cautiously reopening in order to save their travel industry and the European aviation market in tandem.

    This is perhaps risky, but an absolute necessity in order to avoid an uneven recovery, which would further increase unhealthy economic asymmetry in Europe, both across sectors and countries. Ultimately, this also symbolises that in Europe, health can never trump other fundamental civil rights for a prolonged period of time.

    A prudent resumption of international travel is aided by coordinated instruments, such as a mass-testing and vaccination passports, potentially a blueprint for other regions grappling with the pandemic travel dilemma.

    Exhibit B: Vaccinations

    With the intent to prevent vaccine nationalism, EU leaders entrusted the Commission with vaccine procurement for the entire bloc. They sought to avoid asymmetric distribution across the EU and to counter the narrative of an ostensibly resurgent European nationalism.

    Joint procurement proved less efficient as compared to the United States or Britain, and criticism ran wild. Although somewhat unfair, critics had a point: The Commission was inexperienced with large-scale procurement. Negotiators were slow and miserly and failed to secure sufficient and stable vaccine supply.

    Predictably, supply became the inoculation programme’s bottleneck. For example, by the end of April, Germany had only been able to vaccinate 7.5% of its people, half of Singapore’s rate.

    Despite the serious consequences of a slow vaccination roll-out, preventing European vaccine nationalism was noble and ultimately successful, on three accounts.

    First, the EU demonstrated internal solidarity; two, it helped containing transnational infection chains across Europe’s notoriously porous borders; and three, despite the slow start, the EU’s inoculation programme is catching up fast as bottlenecks are loosening: EU-wide, 31% are now fully, 55% partially vaccinated. Germany vaccinates up to 1.4 million people in a single day.

    Despite some outliers (Malta’s vaccination rate is nearly 70%, Bulgaria’s only 13%), most countries are on par. The EU is expected to even exceed its ambitious target of a 70% inoculation rate by September.

    Exhibit C: Global Solidarity

    Just like everyone else, the EU must look after its citizens first. And yet, despite false claims to the contrary, the EU remains the only Western bloc that exports vaccines on a large scale.

    Granted, Brussels blocked the export of some AstraZeneca doses to Australia when the company failed to fulfil its delivery commitments to the EU, while exporting their product at the same time.

    But this is an isolated case, and it is worth noting that these vaccines were largely donated to the COVAX Facility, the global coalition to support equitable access to vaccines, to which the EU is collectively one of the largest contributors.

    Moreover, via its “Team Europe” initiative, the EU offers substantial pandemic support to partner countries, thus far amounting to some €40 billion.

    Over €800 million of this went to ASEAN in support of regional health infrastructure and technical assistance, paying specific attention to vulnerable and marginalised communities. The EU also supports the WHO Southeast Asia with €20 million, and Germany alone contributed €5 million to ASEAN’s COVID Response Fund.

    From Zero to Hero

    There are several lessons here: One, perceiving political success in extremes, as either total failure or success, is usually a fallacy; two, anything involving the EU bureaucracy and complex power dynamics between institutions and member states is often slow, risk-averse, and overly complicated.

    But once it gets going, European regionalism is capable of remarkable progress. Most importantly, EU solidarity is alive. Even under immense pressure, Europe practised internal solidarity and crisis management.

    Equally important, it offered a counter-narrative to the ostensibly globally resurging nationalism and national “me-first” attitude. The EU demonstrates that international cooperation and mutual support are not lofty values for good weather only.

    About the Author

    Frederick Kliem is a Research Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. This is part of a series.

    Categories: Commentaries / Country and Region Studies / Non-Traditional Security

    Last updated on 23/06/2021

    Back to top

    Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
    OK
    Latest Book
    Global Health Security: COVID-19 and Its Impacts – EU’s Pandemic Management: Why More Credit Is Due

    SYNOPSIS

    The EU has turned from ostensible pandemic underachiever to COVID-19 management role model. Increasingly apt at containing COVID-19 at home, the EU ...
    more info