The Covid-19 pandemic that emerged in late 2019 has had profound impacts on international relations, revealing both tensions and sources of cooperation between nations. As the virus spread globally in early 2020, countries largely turned inward, closing borders and scrambling to secure supplies of medical equipment and vaccines. With the health and economic crises ongoing, complex dynamics between conflict and cooperation have emerged in international relations. This paper will provide an overview of how the pandemic reshaped geopolitics, analyzing key areas of conflict and cooperation in international relations through the lens of prominent international relations theories.
Realism – Conflict in the Scramble for Resources
The realist theory of international relations emphasizes conflict between states driven by self-interest and the distribution of power. Realism views the international system as anarchic, with no overarching authority to govern relations between sovereign states. From a realist perspective, the pandemic intensified competition between major powers as they sought to control resources and maximize relative power.
One prominent area of realist conflict was the global scramble for personal protective equipment (PPE) and vaccines. As the virus spread in early 2020, countries imposed export restrictions on PPE, and later vaccines, in a nationalist attempt to meet domestic demand first (Evenett, 2020). The U.S. invoked the Defense Production Act to ban exports of PPE and respirators, while the EU imposed export authorization requirements (Bown, 2021). The vaccine race also prompted allegations of vaccine nationalism, as major powers like the U.S., UK, EU and China prioritized domestic inoculation campaigns over equitable global distribution through COVAX (Hafner et al, 2021).
Realists argue this represented self-interested, zero-sum competition for security from the virus over a scarce supply of resources. States saw an interest in maximizing national control over vaccines to inoculate their own populations first. From a realist logic, this secures the state and maximizes national power relative to others. Yet it came at the expense of international cooperation and global public health.
Great power competition between the U.S. and China escalated during the pandemic within a realist struggle for power and influence. Former U.S. President Donald Trump frequently scapegoated China as the source of the “China virus” (Taylor, 2020). China meanwhile sought to boost its soft power by providing PPE and vaccines globally, although these “mask diplomacy” efforts were met with skepticism (Chaziza, 2021). The two powers also clashed over influence at the World Health Organization, with the U.S. accusing the WHO of pro-China bias and halting funding (Lee & Gostin, 2020).
The pandemic did not fundamentally change the realist dynamics of great power rivalry. But it did intensify existing tensions, while creating new domains of competition in trade and vaccine diplomacy. From a realist lens, the scramble for vaccines and PPE exemplified the self-interested, conflictual nature of international relations amid global crisis.
Liberalism – Growing Multilateral Cooperation
In contrast to realist views of unavoidable conflict, liberalism sees possibilities for mutual cooperation between interdependent states. Liberals argue shared interests provide incentives for states to collaborate through international institutions. From this view, the pandemic sparked renewed cooperation in some areas, revealing liberal dynamics at work.
Much headlines focused on vaccine nationalism, but overlooked growing vaccine multilateralism through COVAX. By 2021, 190 countries had joined the COVAX initiative for equitable vaccine distribution led by the WHO, GAVI and CEPI (WHO, 2021). COVAX exemplified liberal interdependence theory in action – recognition by states they cannot end the pandemic alone, but require cooperation for collective health security. By early 2022, COVAX had delivered its one billionth Covid vaccine dose, with 46% of doses administered in low-income countries (WHO, 2022). Such burden sharing represents a public good of health security.
The pandemic also bolstered other forms of multilateral cooperation. The IMF and World Bank Group provided $230 billion in financial assistance to developing countries for pandemic response and recovery (IMF, 2022). The World Bank fast-tracked $2.4 billion for vaccine procurement and distribution in low-income countries (World Bank, 2021). And the WHO coordinated vital surveillance and research into vaccines, treatments and the origins of the virus.
According to liberals, these initiatives demonstrate how shared interests induce international cooperation. Shared vulnerability to a global pandemic gave states incentive to collaborate through international institutions on vaccine distribution, financing, research and coordinated responses guided by global health expertise. Rather than uniform conflict, liberal dynamics of multilateral cooperation advanced alongside competition.
However, the practical impact of Covid multilateralism was limited by continued barriers between states. WHO recommendations were often ignored by major powers who sustained travel bans longer than epidemiologically warranted (Ahern et al, 2022). COVAX remains underfunded and billions in low-income countries lack vaccine access (WHO, 2022). Liberals concede the persistence of state-centric nationalism that constrains global collective action. Yet the pandemic revealed both realist conflict and liberal possibilities for cooperation.
Constructivism – Shifting Global Norms and Identity
Constructivist theories focus on the power of ideas, shared norms and identity in shaping state interests and behavior in international relations. Constructivists examine how the pandemic led to normative shifts in conceptions of health, the role of the state andglobalization.
The unprecedented scale of the crisis expanded public expectations for government responsibility over healthcare and fueled new norms of state intervention. Many countries implemented new universal health coverage programs and reaffirmed health as a public good (Ruger, 2021). Post-pandemic, citizens may expect a more expansive health security role for the state.
New norms also emerged around notions of global community and interconnectedness. Transnational advocacy campaigns like the People’s Vaccine reinforced norms of global solidarity and health equity (Kelly, 2021). The pandemic led populations and some leaders to identify more with a shared global community facing a common threat. Constructivists argue such normative shifts could re-shape interests and identity in favor of greater cooperation.
However, countervailing norms were also strengthened by the pandemic experience. Movements against immigration and globalization gained influence across Europe and the U.S. amid rising anti-China sentiment (Verhaegen, 2021). Nationalism and xenophobia increased in many societies. As populations turned inward, the pandemic experience entrenched inward-looking norms and nationalism in some contexts.
Rather than definitive normative change, constructivists see ongoing contested norm dynamics shaped by how societies interpret the pandemic experience. Conceptions of health security, the state, and global community remain intersubjective constructs subject to narrative struggles over meaning. The pandemic’s impacts on global norms and identity remain ambiguous and contested. But constructivists will examine these normative impacts as a key way the pandemic may reshape international relations.
Critical Theory – Spotlight on Global Inequality
Critical theories analyze how global power structures shape international relations. Applying ideational lenses, critical theorists see the pandemic magnifying pre-existing inequalities in the global system along lines of race, class, gender and colonial history.
The pandemic had disproportionate health and economic impacts on marginalized groups, both within and between countries. It highlighted global disparities in vaccine access, with low vaccination rates persisting across the global south (Yamin, 2022). Addressing such inequality remains under-prioritized by major powers, critical theorists argue.
Critical race theory scholar Dorothy Roberts (2021) examines how Covid mortality concentrated along racial lines due to historic discrimination and limited healthcare access for minority groups. Globally, indigenous communities also faced elevated Covid risks amid chronic underinvestment in health services (United Nations, 2020).
Feminist theorists highlight the pandemic’s gendered impacts, including the rise in women leaving the workforce due to caregiving pressures under lockdowns (Alon et al, 2020). Global supply chain disruptions also concentrated in gendered sectors like garment manufacturing where women predominate (Bhasin, 2021).
Applied to international relations, critical theorists contend the pandemic exposed entrenched dynamics of inequality rooted in colonialism and neoliberal globalization. Critical perspectives can inform alternatives based on ethics of care, human security, and justice within and between states.
Key Impacts on International Relations
Examining the Covid-19 pandemic through diverse international relations theories illuminates different dynamics between cooperation and conflict in evidence. Several key impacts on international relations stand out:
- Escalating great power competition – The pandemic intensified U.S.-China strategic rivalry including clashes over influence, trade, and virus origins. Realists see great power conflict as endemic.
- Renewed strains on multilateralism – After initial cooperation, vaccine distribution exposed divides between the global north and south. But experiments like COVAX reveal possibilities.
- Shifting public expectations of the state – Citizens now expect a larger government role in providing healthcare and economic security, influencing state interests.
- Contesting nationalism and globalism – The pandemic variously heightened nationalism but also advocacy for global solidarity, contesting norms.
- Exposing global inequalities – Critical theorists spotlight pandemic impacts concentrating along racial, gender and economic divides neglected by major powers.
Which impacts endure depends partly on ideas and norms, not just material power distributions. Ongoing normative debates continue on the lessons of the pandemic for healthcare, economic justice, and the need for global cooperation versus nationalist retrenchment. These ideational impacts shape how the pandemic experience may redirect international relations moving forward.
Geopolitical Shifts: U.S., China and Regional Dynamics
The pandemic also prompted major geopolitical shifts with long-term implications for international relations. Most significantly, the pandemic accelerated U.S.-China strategic competition and intensified debates over the global leadership role of the United States. Regional impacts reshaped relations in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America as well.
United States: Retrenchment or Renewed Leadership
The U.S. role in international relations has been debated as its domestic pandemic response exposed weaknesses and political divisions. Critics argue the U.S. abdicated global leadership by withdrawing from the WHO and adopting “America First” policies while failing to provide public goods by aiding other countries (Wertheim, 2020). But others contend the U.S. ultimately reasserted leadership in driving COVAX funding and global vaccine supply while coordinating major economies in stimulus efforts.
Looking ahead, pandemic impacts on U.S. politics could support renewed commitments to multilateral cooperation on shared issues like pandemic preparedness and climate change (Slaughter, 2021). But this depends on divisive domestic politics and upcoming elections. The lasting geopolitical impact on U.S. global positioning remains uncertain. America’s tarnished pandemic response weakened its legitimacy as a leader by revealing domestic failures. Yet the enduring realities of U.S. power caution against exaggerated predictions of hegemonic decline. The pandemic placed the global leadership role of the United States into sharper relief but did not fundamentally overcome geopolitical realities.
China’s Rise: Challenges and Backlash
In contrast to perceptions of U.S. retreat, China sought to expand its influence by providing aid, trade and vaccines after containing its outbreak. Beijing also signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), strengthening economic integration in Asia (Liao, 2021). The pandemic boosted Chinese “wolf warrior diplomacy” combining assertive diplomacy with nationalistic messaging (Lee, 2021). These dynamics reflect an increasingly confident and ambitious China.
However, China also encountered heightened threat perceptions and backlash from major powers. The U.S., EU, Britain, Australia and Japan all restricted Chinese investments and 5G technology over security concerns (Fravel & Yuan, 2021). India banned Chinese apps and tightened scrutiny of Chinese firms after border clashes. Chinese “mask diplomacy” sparked suspicion of propaganda motives. While presenting opportunities to expand influence, China’s rise also fostered “anti-China” counterbalancing coalitions on issues from trade to human rights. The pandemic magnified both facets of China’s contested rise.
Europe – EU Solidarity vs Nationalism
In Europe, the EU’s collective pandemic response was challenged by member state nationalism, revealing tensions over sovereignty versus solidarity. The EU secured an unprecedented €750 billion recovery fund in 2020, signaling solidarity (Bayer et al, 2021). But border restrictions between EU states renewed tensions, and vaccine procurement remained largely nationalistic initially.
The pandemic’s impact on the EU remains ambiguous. It demonstrated capacities for cooperation but also exposed tensions between northern fiscal hawks and debt-stressed southern states, and between Brussels and nationalist capitals. Ongoing European debates continue whether the EU will emerge from the crisis with strengthened integration or exacerbated divides. The pandemic was a stress test for European integration. While not rupturing the EU, it highlighted internal strains.
Asia – Regionalization Accelerates
In Southeast Asia, the pandemic accelerated existing trends of regionalization, especially around pharmaceuticals and supply chains. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) signaled pandemic-era growth of Asian economic integration (Baviera, 2022). However, U.S.-China tensions also sharpened divides within ASEAN on issues like the South China Sea, preventing a unified position. So the pandemic provided mixed impacts on Asian regional dynamics.
The Middle East – Leadership Struggles
The Middle East emerged as an epicenter of the pandemic by 2021. The region’s outbreak was exacerbated by low state capacity, conflicts and oil dependence (Huber, 2021). Saudi Arabia struggled to assert leadership given economic constraints and low vaccine distribution. Iran was overwhelmed by cases. Gulf states turned increasingly inward. The pandemic dealt a blow to regimes already seen as struggling for regional leadership and legitimacy.
Africa – Increasing Debt Burdens
In Africa, the economic impacts were especially severe given commodity price shocks, tourism declines, and pre-existing debt burdens. IMF financing gave some fiscal relief but sustained concerns about debt sustainability (Muchadenyika, 2021). The AU collaborated with the Africa CDC on vaccine access, uniting efforts across the continent’s regional bodies. But divisions remained between AU leadership and national governments pursuing autonomous pandemic responses. Overall the pandemic strained African economies and highlighted gaps in public health capacities.
Latin America – Populist Governments Under Pressure
Latin America suffered some of the world’s worst outbreaks with public health systems overwhelmed in Brazil and Mexico. Countries with populist leaders like Brazil and Mexico reported among the highest global caseloads, undermining public faith in these regimes (Niedzwiecki & Pribble, 2021). Protests surged against leaders seen as mishandling the crisis. The pandemic’s severe regional impacts added to economic and political dissatisfaction that pressured populist governments.
Conclusion
The Covid-19 pandemic has had complex repercussions for international relations that will continue to unfold in years to come. It has prompted both conflict and cooperation between states responding to interdependence and collective threats. By illuminating inequalities and contestation over global norms, the pandemic has set in motion ideational impacts that could recast interests and identities in international relations over the long-term. Meanwhile, the crisis accelerated pre-existing geopolitical trends like U.S.-China competition and European integration, even as it reshaped regional orders worldwide. Further research should continue probing these variegated impacts as the pandemic experience filters through a changing global system.
References
Ahern, M.M., Wadhwani, C. & Sauer, L.M. (2022). Did countries with travel bans have lower COVID-19 case counts during the early months of the pandemic? A comparative interrupted time series analysis of the top 50 countries by COVID-19 confirmed cases through May 2020. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research 11(5): 379-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocer.2022.04.005
Alon, T., Doepke, M., Olmstead-Rumsey, J. & Tertilt, M. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 26947. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26947
Bayer, L., Bernitz, N. & Malang, T. (2021). The European Union’s response to the coronavirus: How multilevel governance survived the stress test. European Policy Analysis 7(2): 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1091
Baviera, A. (2022). The changing geopolitics of Asia in the time of COVID-19. Asia Policy 16(3): 6-17. https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2022.0029
Bhasin, T. (2021). COVID-19: Impact on women in global value chains. Journal of International Women’s Studies 22(1): 1-5. https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol22/iss1/1
Bown, C. P. (2021). How COVID-19 medical supply shortages led to extraordinary trade and industrial policy. Asian Economic Policy Review 16(2): 262-278. https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12355
Chaziza, M. (2021). China’s mask diplomacy and growing influence in the Middle East. Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies Insight No. 1483. https://besacenter.org/chinas-mask-diplomacy-middle-east/
Evenett, S. J. (2020). Sicken thy neighbour: The initial trade policy response to COVID‐19. The World Economy 43(4): 828-839. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12945
Fravel, M.T. & Yuan, L. (2021). After the pandemic: China’s relations with other major powers. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 14(3): 469-490. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poab010
Hafner, M., Yerushalmi, E., Fays, C., Dufresne, A. & Van Stolk, C. (2021). COVID-19 and the cost of vaccine nationalism. Cambridge: RAND Europe. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA769-1.html
Huber, D. (2021). The neglected region: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Middle East and North Africa. Globalizations 18(8): 1361-1378. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1856499
International Monetary Fund [IMF]. (2022). The IMF’s response to COVID-19. https://www.imf.org/en
