In March 2020, following the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic by the World Health Organization, China and Russia provided aid to Italy during the country’s severe outbreak, which served as a precursor to the global impact of the virus. The delivery of medical supplies and the dispatching of virologists raised questions about the motives behind Beijing’s and Moscow’s humanitarian assistance. As the pandemic spread worldwide, discussions on health diplomacy and vaccine nationalism emerged.
In their book “COVID-19 ‘Humanitarianism’: Geopolitical Logics of Chinese, American, and Russian Assistance,” Dr. Mariya Y. Omelicheva and Dr. Brittnee Carter explore the connection between geopolitics and humanitarianism. They argue that COVID-19, in addition to being a global health crisis, can also be seen as a geopolitical event.
In an interview with The Diplomat’s Managing Editor Catherine Putz, Dr. Omelicheva, a professor at the National War College, National Defense University in Washington, D.C., delves into the motivations behind humanitarian aid, the role of geopolitical considerations, and sheds light on their findings regarding the patterns observed in humanitarian aid efforts by the U.S., China, and Russia during the COVID-19 pandemic.
What drives countries to offer humanitarian aid?
Humanitarian aid differs from other forms of foreign assistance in its universal nature, driven by a concern for the well-being of all individuals. Governed by principles of impartiality, neutrality, and independence, humanitarian aid is based on international laws that mandate assistance to any society in need. The severity of human suffering determines the extent of humanitarian aid required. However, in practice, countries often use humanitarian aid to advance their own interests. The U.S., for instance, prioritized allies and partners in distributing COVID-19 aid, while Russia used aid to garner favorable votes at the UN. China blurred the lines between humanitarian aid and development goals under the Belt and Road Initiative.
Countries’ motives for humanitarian aid encompass economic, political, security, and normative considerations, reflecting their aspirations for global leadership within the complex web of international power dynamics.
Why is it crucial to analyze the geopolitical rationale behind aid provision?
“Geopolitical logic” refers to a state’s core beliefs about itself and the world, influencing its policies and actions. Understanding these underlying beliefs is essential as they shape a country’s goals and motives in the humanitarian realm, guiding the geographical allocation of resources and aid efforts.
For instance, the U.S.’s principled approach to humanitarian aid has been influenced by its liberal values and democratic ideals. In contrast, China’s aid strategies are centered around state-centric solutions tied to development projects and geopolitical objectives, while Russia emphasizes its great power identity in its humanitarian actions.
How does China’s preference for state-centric solutions impact its aid provision?
China’s shift from aid recipient to donor in the 21st century has been characterized by a state-centric approach to humanitarian assistance. Beijing prioritizes the state’s role in aid distribution, linking humanitarian projects to broader development goals and promoting a civilizational narrative through its aid programs.
The Chinese government’s belief in state primacy has led to the integration of humanitarian aid with development initiatives, particularly evident in the Belt and Road Initiative. China’s aid infrastructure is primarily state-driven, emphasizing bilateral assistance and aligning with its vision of a global order centered around the state.
China’s aid efforts also serve to counter American influence and uphold its own geopolitical ambitions, presenting a unique challenge to the U.S.’s leadership in international affairs.
How does Russia’s self-perception as a great power shape its humanitarian aid strategies?
Russia’s humanitarian assistance is deeply rooted in its self-image as a great power, with aid actions driven by a desire to project and defend its global status. Moscow’s humanitarian endeavors reflect a tension between projecting responsibility and pursuing self-interest, particularly evident in its post-annexation of Crimea aid policies.
While Russia initially sought integration into the international humanitarian regime, its actions post-2014 shifted towards using aid as a tool to advance political objectives and counter American influence. The geopolitical underpinnings of Russia’s aid provision were evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, where aid allocations mirrored Moscow’s strategic interests and global objectives.
How did domestic U.S. politics impact its humanitarian aid efforts abroad?
The U.S. has historically been a leading provider of humanitarian aid, driven by a moral imperative to assist those in need. However, U.S. humanitarian assistance has also been shaped by national interests, with policies influenced by post-Cold War security dynamics and global power shifts.
Under the Trump administration, skepticism of international institutions and alliances, coupled with a transactional approach to partnerships, affected the flow of humanitarian aid. The administration’s policies created a perception of U.S. disengagement from global leadership, impacting the coordination of COVID-19 response efforts and potentially influencing global views of U.S. aid provision.
Why did countries that received aid from the U.S. tend to also receive aid from China, but not the other way around?
The pattern of aid distribution between the U.S. and China reflects the strategic priorities of both nations and the institutional frameworks guiding their aid programs. While the U.S. has a well-established system of humanitarian assistance through organizations like USAID, China’s aid infrastructure is still evolving and closely tied to state priorities.
The divergent approaches of the U.S. and China to aid provision, shaped by their geopolitical rivalry and differing ideological foundations, explain the unidirectional nature of aid flows observed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
What is missing from current discussions on humanitarian aid?
A critical aspect missing from contemporary discourse on aid is a deeper examination of the ideological underpinnings of humanitarian assistance within the neoliberal framework. Neoliberal principles of efficiency and individualism can sometimes hinder collective responses to humanitarian crises and exacerbate social inequalities.
It is crucial to question the neoliberal foundations of the current global order and humanitarian regime, especially in light of the challenges posed by humanitarian emergencies and the need for sustainable solutions that address social, ecological, and political dimensions.
While China offers an alternative perspective to Western neoliberalism, the geopolitical tensions between Beijing and Washington should not deter collaboration in humanitarian efforts. Constructive dialogue and mutual learning can pave the way for a more effective and equitable humanitarian regime.