Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://cris.library.msu.ac.zw//handle/11408/5762
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFarai Joseph Chidhumeen_US
dc.contributor.authorTaderera Herbert Chisien_US
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-28T12:45:01Z-
dc.date.available2023-08-28T12:45:01Z-
dc.date.issued2023-07-03-
dc.identifier.urihttps://cris.library.msu.ac.zw//handle/11408/5762-
dc.description.abstractThe Covid 19 pandemic has brought an unprecedented litany of challenges diplomatically and in the procurement of vaccines globally. Among the nations and regional blocs that it affected, the pandemic greatly exposed the weaknesses of the diplomatic ties between BRICS nations; Russia, China, Brazil, India, and South Africa. As the pandemic broke out three of them, Russia, China and India quickly reacted with the invention of vaccines which were donated and circulated to many countries throughout the world and Africa in particular. Surprisingly while Brazil quickly accepted the readily available Sinopharm vaccine from China which is a fellow BRICS bloc member, South Africa though being the worst affected country in Southern Africa seemed to dither on finding a solution from either China or Russia. South Africa put more faith initially in AstraZeneca ahead of Sinopharm and Sinovac vaccines from China and Sputnik V from Russia. She relied enormously on Johnson & Johnson (Netherlands/USA), AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. In the light of these developments, this paper seeks to explore the seeming South African reluctance to procure vaccines from her BRICS allies Russia and China. The South African attitude towards vaccines from fellow BRICS bloc members and the time taken to approve the Sinovac vaccine leaves analysts with many questions. We ask in this paper; why was South Africa sceptical about receiving medical assistance or procuring vaccines from China and Russia? In an attempt to answer the question this paper used various published sources including books and journal articles, newspaper articles, and abundant online reports on the pandemic. It concludes that being aware that as part of the arsenal of soft-power diplomacy, big powers including China and Russia tend to bolster their diplomatic presence in Africa and other developing regions through strategies such as vaccine diplomacy, South Africa made the bold move as a way of maintaining unfettered sovereignty.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Johannesburgen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of BRICS Studiesen_US
dc.subjectVaccineen_US
dc.subjectDiplomacyen_US
dc.subjectSovereigntyen_US
dc.subjectCooperationen_US
dc.subjectCovid-19en_US
dc.titleVaccine diplomacy and the South African Sovereignty Maintenance Struggle within BRICS cooperationen_US
dc.typeresearch articleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.36615/jbs.v1i2.638-
dc.contributor.affiliationPeace and Security Studiesen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationHistory and International Studiesen_US
dc.relation.issn2519-7460en_US
dc.description.volume1en_US
dc.description.issue2en_US
dc.description.startpage10en_US
dc.description.endpage18en_US
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairetyperesearch article-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1en-
Appears in Collections:Research Papers
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Vaccine diplomacy and the South African Sovereignty Maintenance Struggle within BRICS cooperation.pdfAbstract6.66 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

12
checked on May 17, 2024

Download(s)

2
checked on May 17, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in MSUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.