Effective Pandemic Management as a New Soft Power Instrument

Alex Alexanyan,
School of Governance and Politics, MGIMO University

Dina Khderi,
School of Governance and Politics, MGIMO University

Efim Shusterman,
School of Governance and Politics, MGIMO University

Abstract

In 2020 the whole world faced the new pandemic that was caused by COVID-19 and led to such serious consequences as a health crisis, more than three million deaths, sharp global economic decline and disruption of democracy and governance worldwide. Many countries had to shut down their economies and many international organizations showed their inability to handle such complex problems. However, in times of unprecedented crisis still some states were able to cope with the pandemic successfully, having established all the processes within the country, as well as providing aid to other countries in the fight against the coronavirus. The objective of the research is to prove that effective pandemic management may be viewed as a new soft power instrument in the post-pandemic environment. Firstly, the authors will unlock the concept of pandemic management as a brand-new phenomenon. Secondly, the article will provide you with examples of the practical application of pandemic management as a soft power instrument. For this purpose, the authors will use the case studies of South Korea, Vietnam and Russia. Finally, it will end up with findings to which we have come in the course of our research.

Key words: COVID-19, coronavirus, soft-power, pandemic management, pandemic.

As it stands now, there are two approaches to pandemic management: “herd immunity” that implies the opportunity for a largely uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population, while actively protecting the vulnerable, with the ultimate goal of achieving immunity in such a large portion of the population that the spread of the disease eventually ceases, and the preventive COVID-19 measures, which entail fighting the spread of the disease by all possible means, including lockdowns, fines for failure to wear masks and leaving the house and unstable cross-border regime which may vary depending on a current situation with the disease.

There are some examples of three countries that have not only successfully fought against the COVID-19 pandemic but also converted this success into a political tool, namely a soft power instrument.

The first country to mention is South Korea whose strategy that includes the three major principles of “test, trace and treat” was acknowledged as the best example of COVID-19 management by global media^[1]. Moreover, the co-founder of Microsoft Bill Gates said: “The Republic of Korea is becoming a role model for the whole world, demonstrating success in countering coronavirus”^[2]. In South Korea, everyone who has been in close contact with an infected person is tested, regardless of having symptoms.  In case of a positive test result, a person is sent to quarantine and carefully monitored using the geolocation function on the smartphone.  Violation of quarantine rules is punished by a fine of up to $ 2,500.  Moreover, according to the new bill a person will have to pay up to $ 9,000 or spend up to one year in prison^[3]. South Korea managed to contain the spread of the virus without imposing a ban on leaving the house and severe restrictions on the movement of people, though public life is significantly limited and everyone must keep a distance when communicating with each other. The South Korean government used diplomatic connections to send medical supplies to foreign countries by special aircraft and to bring South Korean residents overseas back home in return. The major export item that was requested by over 120 states turned out to be South Korean test kits, that were given by such multinational companies as Samsung and Hyundai to the US, Indonesia etc.

The second country whose success results from the ability to effectively respond to emergencies, using all available resources and coping with multitasking, is Russia. The domestic health care system and the government made their best to combat COVID-19 spreading across the country in the shortest possible time, using different methods: the construction of new hospitals from scratch, the production of the most necessary products from the simplest personal protective equipment to mechanical ventilation, strict lockdown for several months but most importantly, Russia registered the world’s first vaccine against new coronavirus infection. Moreover, Russia also gave a helping hand to states most affected by the pandemic and the total amount of such countries is 46 using bilateral and multilateral assistance channels and sending such types of aid as test-systems for diagnosing the disease, personal protective and medical equipment, medical staff, medical supplies and some other types^[4].

The third country, namely Vietnam, has chosen the implementation of a strict quarantine, making identification of all links of the infectious chain and using well-equipped security agencies. Thus, people who were not only in close relations with the infected but also in not so close relations were registered and people who came from the infected countries were quarantined for two weeks. Moreover, the Vietnamese army immediately allocated soldiers, material reserves and mobile medical units to fight the virus. Total control didn’t allow anyone to avoid the measures prescribed by the government and such success was achieved by disempowerment among the citizens. As for aid, Vietnam sent to Laos and Cambodia protective suits against coronavirus, medical and antibacterial masks, test systems and rapid tests for the COVID-19 virus amounting to about $ 600,000.  Vietnam donated 500 coronavirus rapid tests to Indonesia and 5,000 tons of rice to Cuba, and also $ 50,000 to Myanmar.  Earlier, at the beginning of the outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic, the government provided China with medical products, including respirators, protective suits, gloves and medical masks, amounting to $ 500,000.  In addition, the Vietnamese Red Cross Society called on various organizations and individuals in the country to provide the Chinese people with material assistance in the amount of $ 100,000 to fight the epidemic. Vietnam gave part of its resources to help the governments of Japan, Russia, France, Germany, Spain, Great Britain, the USA and Sweden.

So, why can effective coronavirus management be considered a soft power instrument? Firstly, providing humanitarian and economic aid is one of the tools of soft power, and as difficult as the aforementioned countries were to deal with the crisis situation, they found the means and opportunity to help countries in need cope with the "plague" of the 21st century. Secondly, by developing their own medicine, showing progress in science, the states were able to attract not only the sympathy of the international community, but also foreign direct investment. Thirdly, South Korea, Russia, and Vietnam have managed to build new friendly relations with the assisted states.

References

1. Young-in, L. South Korea’s Corona-Diplomacy in the Soft Power [Electronic resource] / L. Young-in // INSTITUTE FOR EUROPEAN STUDIES. — 2020. — Available from: https://www.korea-chair.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/KFVUB_Policy-Brief-2020-06.pdf
2. Билл Гейтс назвал Южную Корею примером для подражания в борьбе с коронавирусом [Электронный ресурс] // ТАСС. — 2020. — Режим доступа: https://tass.ru/obschestvo/8208525
3. Борьба с коронавирусом: многообещающий опыт Южной Кореи [Электронный ресурс] // DW. — 2020. — Режим доступа: https://www.dw.com/ru/борьба-с-коронавирусом-многообещающий-опыт-южной-кореи/a-52926502
4. Гуманитарная помощь против коронавируса. Кому и как помогала Россия во время пандемии COVID-19? — М.: ЦПУР, 2020. — 17 с.