The Tribune

Amid speculation and criticism recently about delays in obtaining supplies of the coronavirus vaccine, the headline in The Tribune a couple of weeks ago that the rollout would take months was both mystifying and depressing. How was it, people wondered, that The Bahamas, with our relatively small population, was so far behind other countries in procuring and administering the vaccine? So, imagine what a pleasure it is to write today about the good news that a vaccination programme is now underway here at home.

The rollout was officially started last Wednesday using the 20,000 doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine received recently while a further 30,000 doses are expected to be delivered by the end of the month followed by another shipment before the end of May. Beginning with key people like health workers and care home staff, it is welcome news for those concerned, like my wife and myself and certain friends, that the over-65s have now also been included.

It almost goes without saying that, for the general good and for the protection of everybody, mass vaccination throughout the country is desirable on health grounds alone. But it is now looking increasingly likely that proof of vaccination will also be needed to enable people to travel, as earlier predictions about the airlines and cruise ship companies requiring vaccination certificates are becoming a reality.

It is the case, of course, that, in a free and democratic country, taking a vaccine has to remain a matter of personal choice. But it seems to me the government has been been notably successful in reassuring the public about the safety and effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccine - after doubts about it had earlier been raised though proved baseless - and in persuading people to take a vaccine at all. It appears to have ensured that publicity has been given to the views of prominent public figures like the Commissioner of Police and the Catholic Archbishop who have encouraged the taking of the vaccine, with Archbishop Patrick Pinder advising that those ‘who are eligible and able to receive the vaccine should do so willingly’.

In addition, the Governor General was given a first dose last week and he has said publicly that others should also take it. But, on the basis that a picture is worth a thousand words, perhaps most effective of all in convincing the doubters was the photograph on the newspapers’ front pages of the Prime Minister himself being vaccinated, as well as a photograph of the leader of the PLP opposition, Philip “Brave” Davis, receiving his shot this past weekend. Thus, happily, it is a case of so far, so good - and surely everybody should recognise and be grateful for the organisational skills and sterling efforts of the many people who have made this possible.

The story in Britain is equally satisfactory. Government ministers there are claiming the UK vaccination programme has been a huge success with some 28 million people – or more than 50 percent of adults including Prime Minister Boris Johnson himself – now having received the first COVID dose. The latest figures show that a few days ago a record of no less than 844,285 vaccinations were administered last Saturday, and the figures for new cases and deaths have dropped substantially.

The situation in the European Union is, however, very different. Its rollout to its 27 member states has been described as nothing short of a disastrous shambles. While the UK, as a newly-independent country after leaving the EU in January 2020, appears to have moved with lightning speed to obtain supplies of the different vaccines, the EU was too slow in signing contracts.

The UK’s vaccine drive has far outpaced the EU’s efforts, with the latest figures showing only some 12 percent of adults in France, Germany and Italy having had jabs while the UK total is greater than that of those countries and Portugal combined. This can partly be explained by their temporary suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine on safety grounds because of what turned out to be a false claim that it caused blood clots. 

These countries, therefore, soon reversed their policy and approved its use after the World Health Organization and both British and European regulators declared the AstraZeneca product to be both effective and safe. But the damage had been done. Countries which suspended this vaccine are now struggling to control a surge in coronavirus cases. Moreover, their action was deemed irresponsible since it undermined others’ confidence in it.

All this has caused a huge row because the EU’s reaction has been to threaten to ban exports of vaccines – despite the companies’ contractual obligations – until the EU’s own requirements for them have been met. This could even lead to seizure of production plants of both Pfizer and AstraZeneca in Europe. The possibility of such EU action has precipitated a fierce reaction and accusations of bullying and intimidation. In the words of Britain’s Foreign Secretary, a threat to interfere in legitimate trade in this manner is the action of a dictatorship showing contempt for international law.

Meanwhile, what a far cry this is from the efficient rollout of the vaccine in The Bahamas, which my wife and I have witnessed first-hand and which promises to continue in the coming weeks and months. All concerned – both the officials and Rotary volunteers working so effectively in a variety of ways in support – should surely be congratulated for their efforts. What is more, in company with others I cannot help wondering whether there might be lessons to be learned from the success so far of this vaccination programme which might be applied to other parts of the government machine that are less efficient.

Although Grand Bahama has seen a recent uptick of cases, the number of new infections in The Bahamas remains low. This is presumably attributable to sound social distancing measures including the wearing of masks and lockdown measures like the nightly curfew. So, more than a year since the start of the pandemic, is it too optimistic to think that with a full vaccination programme there is a reasonable expectation of controlling the virus – if not eradicating it, though the experts say that is unlikely – so that the country can return to at least some sort of normality? Perhaps so, but the realists suggest life will never be quite the same again!

Britain sets out its stall for dealing with the world

In my column last week about China, I suggested that as far as Britain was concerned it presented, principally, a challenge as an economic competitor. This assertion was based on up-to-date research. But I was, of course, unaware at the time of the findings of a 100-page review published later in the week by the UK government entitled ‘Global Britain in a Competitive Age’. This was the product of a year’s work of study and consultation and is defined as ‘The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy’.

Having left the European Union, Britain has started a new chapter in its history. For years, the nation’s place in the world was defined by its membership of the EU and its relationship with the US. But it is now looking to play a global role, and the review describes the government’s vision for this new post-Brexit status over the next decade. It sets out the country’s overarching national security and international policy objectives, stressing three fundamental national interests that bind the UK together; namely, sovereignty, security and prosperity alongside the country’s values of democracy, commitment to universal human rights and the rule of law, and freedom of speech, faith and equality.

While the US will remain the UK’s most important strategic ally and partner - and NATO remains the bedrock of defence and security in the Euro-Atlantic sphere - the review contains a pledge to shift, partially, Britain’s focus towards the Indo-Pacific region, describing it as ‘increasingly the geopolitical centre of the world’ - countries such as India, China, Japan and Australia among others - which are home to a quarter of the world’s people and make up 40 percent of global GDP.

What I found particularly interesting, however, was what was said about China itself in the midst of growing internal pressure on the government - by some of Boris Johnson’s vocal backbenchers in the House of Commons - to harden its position on China over issues like persecution of the Uighur Muslims and the assault on democratic rights in Hong Kong. But the review states ‘China’s growing international stature is the most significant geopolitical factor in the world today’ and recognises that as an authoritarian state with different values it presents challenges for the UK and its allies but will contribute more to global growth than any other country. The Foreign Secretary has said Britain does not want to return to an outdated Cold War mentality but rather build on the ‘positives’ in its bilateral relations with China, in particular over trade and investment.

This is in contrast to Russia which is described in the review as an ‘acute threat to our security’ and is labelled as a hostile state. In the words of the review, ‘until relations with its government improve, we will actively deter and defend against the full spectrum of threats emanating from Russia’. This is, of course, against a background of issues like Russia’s annexation of Crimea, its military involvement in Ukraine, its build-up of forces on the borders of the Baltic states and the recent poisoning attacks on British soil as well as its attempted assassination of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Perhaps it also partly explains President Biden’s extraordinary and unprecedented personal attack, during a recent TV interview, on Russian leader Vladimir Putin, calling him a ‘killer who will pay a price’ - hardly the stuff of careful and constructive diplomacy!

Nonetheless, this emphasis on Russia puzzles some commentators who wonder why Biden is indulging in gratuitous public criticism of Putin while apparently ignoring what some regard as the greater threat to US interests from China which, it is claimed, seeks to dominate the US and the rest of the world economically, militarily and technologically - and, in so doing, poses the greatest threat to America and to democracy and freedom worldwide since the Second World War.

While all are aware of the threat China presents with its military activity in the South China Sea and intimidation of Taiwan, what is less well known is what the FBI describes as the counterintelligence and economic espionage activity by China which employs tactics to target academia, businesses and lawmakers to seek to influence public opinion to achieve US policies that are more favourable to China. This is seen as a grave threat to the US’s economic well-being and democratic values. Thus, Russia monopolizes the headlines as a military and security threat to the West but the threat from China constitutes an economic challenge and is broader and more insidious.

In such circumstances, the UK government’s emphasis on building on the positives of its relationship with China in terms of trade and investment - while protecting its industrial and technological secrets - seems to many observers to be the right policy. In an earlier article about the 20th anniversary of Britain’s handover of Hong Kong to China, I wrote about the revelation by the last colonial Governor, Chris Patten, in his book entitled ‘East and West’, of the blunt advice given to him by the bluff former Labour Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, James Callaghan, that the British interest was simple – to make sure their businessmen could do a lot of trade with China. After the handover in 1997, realistically Britain could not prevent the Chinese from acting any way they wanted to in Hong Kong. As I said then, this is an oversimplification perhaps, but uncomfortably close to the truth – and now on the broader front of the relationship as well.