But what has often been overlooked in the crisis is the acknowledgment of how different groups of Yemeni citizens are experiencing the conflict differently. In particular, the extreme circumstances of the country’s seven-year-long instability have led many to ignore how Yemeni women often bear the brunt of the issues caused by the crisis, on top of the gender-based challenges they face due to the discriminatory legal system and the crisis’s effect on the level of gender-based violence.

Data about the Yemen crisis’s death toll varies depending on if one focuses on those affected directly by the conflict or if it is extended to deaths caused indirectly. According to the Yemen Data Project, the country has incurred over 18,000 attacks, of which around half were deaths and half were injuries, as a direct result of the conflict from 2016 to now. This, however, does not include casualties caused by other pressing humanitarian issues the crisis in Yemen has created. The United Nations estimates that over 131,000 have died as a result of the indirect effects of the war in Yemen, including factors such as hunger and lack of access to adequate health services. 

According to the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), a humanitarian non-governmental organization focused on the fight against poverty, an average of six women are killed every day in Yemen due to the conflict. Women and children are also frequently displaced, comprising 75% of displaced individuals. The majority of displacement in Yemen is internal, with Yemenis moving from place to place within the country to avoid fighting, famine, and disease. Some of the displaced are met with humanitarian aid when they arrive at new locations, such as in Marib where the UNHCR, UN, and International Organization for Migration have attempted to provide food and shelter to those fleeing the city of Al Suwayda. 

Women are often disproportionately affected by humanitarian crises in times of civil unrest or war. In the case of Yemen, this inequality is exacerbated as women’s access to work is heavily limited by socio-cultural norms.

For 14 years, Yemen was ranked last in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap index, and only in 2021 did it manage to be ranked second to last — ahead of newly-added Afghanistan. According to the 2021 index, Yemen is one of the countries with the largest economic gender gap, at 28.2% of the gap closed so far, and income gap, with women’s income being around 7% that of men. It also has one of the lowest percentages of women in the labor force, at 6.3%, and the lowest number of women in managerial positions, at 4.1%. On top of this, Yemen was ranked 154/156 in female economic participation and opportunity, 152/156 in educational attainment, 95/156 in health and survival, and 154/156 in political empowerment.

This is likely the result of an extremely patriarchal culture in Yemen, rooted in persistent and extreme gender roles. Yemeni women and girls experience forced niqab (a veil that covers the whole face excluding the eyes), divorce shame, child marriage, domestic violence, and honor killings — all of which are aggravated by the extended and ongoing crisis in the country. 

According to Amnesty International, the crisis has forced Yemeni women to take on greater roles and responsibilities than traditionally expected of them and, as a result, the levels of violence they experience have increased. Women and girls not only face extreme danger due to the crisis and fighting in the region between the Houthis and Yemeni Forces (supported by UAE and Saudi Arabia backed anti-Houthi forces), but also security and economic risks due to a discriminatory legal system. Left with a damaged system of services and infrastructure that is unable to properly support them or allow them to seek legal remedy, and further faced with things like arbitrary detentions and the disappearance of male family members, women in Yemen are stepping up and suffering as a result. 

In 2000, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325, known as the Women, Peace and Security resolution. The resolution was enacted in an effort to address the fact that women and girls suffer disproportionately from negative effects during and after times of war. This unfair burden is due to the proliferation of social networks and the magnification of inequality, both of which expose women and girls to things like sexual violence and exploitation in greater capacities than in peacetime. In the nearly two decades since its adoption, the resolution has aimed to help affected women by making them participants in peacemaking efforts and politics. 

The resolution has been somewhat successful in some regions, playing a large part in helping women participate in peace processes in their countries. This has meant enabling women to act as signatories on peace agreements, participate in peace talks and negotiation, assist with humanitarian responses and post-conflict reconstruction, or partake in other peace-driven actions.

Nonetheless, women in Yemen are consistently underrepresented in peace talks, even in the face of concerted effort from the UN and other humanitarian organizations to address this gap. So, despite women taking on the roles vacated by their loved ones who may have been lost in the crisis or forcibly taken and held, they are not able to advocate for their own safety. 

This, however, is not the full extent of challenges that Yemeni women face. According to the World Food Program (WFP), in times of crisis, women and girls are put at greater risk for humanitarian issues, on top of the gender-based issues they already experience. One of the most common problems is that girls are often pulled out of school or forced to marry early in order for families to survive, as many are unable to afford food alongside paying for school or an additional child. The WFP also reports that, for women, one of the main dangers is malnutrition. This can be caused by the burden of pregnancy — more than one million pregnant and lactating Yemeni women required malnutrition treatment or prevention intervention in 2019 — or the burden of childcare. These women have to become self-sacrificing to a dangerous extent, often giving up their own food to feed their children.

Right now in Yemen, around 50,000 people are facing famine-like conditions, and 11 million more are experiencing food insecurity. Young children are particularly vulnerable to hunger, with around half of Yemeni children under five expected to experience acute malnutrition, according to the WFP. 

As the Yemen crisis fades from news headlines, due to the nature of it being such an extended conflict, it’s important to stay up-to-date on the current situation. This is particularly true when considering how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the war-torn country and its most vulnerable populations.

COVID-19 is not the first public health crisis to affect Yemen, as cholera, diphtheria, measles, and dengue fever were all reported in the country prior, with cholera affecting a suspected two million Yemenis since 2016. However, Yemen was, and is not, prepared to handle the pandemic. According to the World Health Organization, medical facilities and personnel have not been left alone during the conflict. More than half of the 5,000 or so health centers have closed and many health professionals have been forced to flee. On top of this, health aid has been obstructed by the Houthi and other authorities.

Considering the heavy use of starvation as a weapon of war in Yemen, primarily by the Houthis, the impact of hunger and starvation on an individual’s health and the disproportionate way women experience hunger has escalated the pandemic. In April 2020, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Yemen warned that, based on epidemiological projections, nearly 16 million people in Yemen could be infected by COVID-19 under the current conditions. 

The actual number of cases in Yemen is difficult to know as data on COVID-19 in the country is difficult to collect. The government has only reported deaths in the hundreds, but considering the disastrous nature of the healthcare system and the fact that war makes health crises worse, the number is likely much higher. Still, There is evidence that the country is currently experiencing a second wave of the disease. On top of the expected rise in cholera cases with the rainy season in May, this could be devastating for the population, and it will further complicate and inflame the suffering and discrimination that women in Yemen already face.

There is hope, however, as at the end of March 2021, Yemen received its first batch of COVID-19 vaccines, which included 360,000 doses, 13,000 safety boxes and 1.3 million syringes, through COVAX. This was the first step in the plan to vaccinate the country, with an estimated 1.9 million doses expected to be delivered to the country throughout the rest of the year. Those leading the vaccine effort will be forced to navigate the crumbling healthcare system and figure out how to equitably distribute vaccinations. 

Women are suffering in Yemen as a result of the humanitarian crisis, and the COVID-19 health crisis has only made things worse. It is important to understand and acknowledge the nuanced convergence of humanitarian, security and public health crises in Yemen. Otherwise, it is easy to get lost in the severity and horror often broadcasted and covered through global media. 

The post The Yemen Crisis is Disproportionately Affecting Women and Girls appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

With the emergence of vaccines to combat the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic around the world, the WTO has a critical role in ensuring vaccine distribution is equitably distributed to the Global North and Global South countries. Vaccine production and distribution is disproportionately concentrated in high income countries like the United States, the United Kingdom and member states of the European Union, which caused concern from the WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a proponent of temporarily waiving patents for COVID-19 vaccines and coronavirus related medical supplies. 

In an op-ed from the Financial Times just weeks after her appointment, Okonjo-Iweala called for a turn away from vaccine nationalism and protectionism and a move toward cooperation amongst states in more treatment and vaccine development, seeking a “third way” that does not include waiving patents but instead the promotion of multilateralism in exchange of ideas and the promotion of licensing agreements.

Glimpse from the Globe sat down with Douglas Becker, a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California and an expert on the global south, peace and conflict studies, environmental issues and the role of multinational enterprises in world politics. Becker spoke about the importance of an African woman leading the WTO and what news leadership may mean for the future of the institution.

—

Q: Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is now the first African and first woman to become the director-general of the WTO. Why is this important for the future of international organizations, specifically in the role of Global South countries’ impact on these institutions?

A: First and foremost, it’s important because they didn’t have a president. The WTO has seen a weakness in the organization, particularly flowing from the trade wars that have been instigated largely by the previous president [of the United States]Donald Trump. So, there had been a contestation over the presidency. The U.S. had backed a Korean candidate [the current South Korean Trade Minister Yoo Myung-hee]under President Trump. Part of the election [of Okonjo-Iweala]was the U.S. conceding [to]the popularity of Global South versus a Korean candidate would be seen as much more of a Global North friendly candidate. The U.S. had been a holdout and in essence what President Biden did was acknowledge that the U.S. was in the minority here should go ahead and support this candidacy. 

Some of this has to do with the fact the WTO — unlike institutions like the IMF [and]the World Bank — does not disproportionately represent Global North countries. There are simply more Global South votes at the WTO so the fact there is a Global South president at the WTO is a reflection of the organization. It’s important the WTO has a Global South president. Now having an African leader is at least partially a recognition that in Global South leadership positions, Africa has to be [involved]. There needs to be an African representative at this forum. So, the inclusion of South Africa [in 1995]was simply a recognition that having this Global South leadership forum, but no African state was just a huge geographic blind spot. 

The fact that the new president is Nigerian I think certainly indicates the importance of Nigeria in a position of African leadership. South Africa has such a high GDP per capita but Nigeria has the largest GDP on the African continent. So, this is partially the [result of the]Nigerian government playing a much more substantial leadership role globally. They’ve always played an important role regionally as leaders of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and a pretty substantial role in the African Union, but this is Nigeria stepping up to a global position. 

I also want to emphasize that the new president is Nigerian-American, trained in the U.S. by all accounts. Extremely well qualified and doesn’t represent Nigeria as much as [she]represents Global South perspectives on issues of trade. So, I think that is the most important element. This is the WTO recognizing the importance of the Global South and the irony of an organization that [once was]so dominated by the Global North that the Global South sought a UN agency, UNCTAD, to counter GATT. UNCTAD is not needed as a countering of GATT now that the WTO recognizes the impact of the Global South. This is a sign of Global South leadership. 

Q: What do you think was the motivating force behind the decision to appoint Okonjo-Iweala as the director-general? Is this a reflection of the Global South’s growing impact on the global economy? 

A: Advancement of Global South economic interests. I don’t know if this was the big motivation behind the original candidacy but certainly at this moment in 2021 COVID-19 is playing a role here. The fact that [Okonjo-Iweala’s] first public statement was about vaccine nationalism and the importance of the distribution of the vaccine as a trade and economic issue is a reflection of Global South interests. I don’t know that COVID was necessary for her election, but it certainly is going to have a profound influence as to what she’s expecting to do leading the WTO.

Q: You often say that, “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” A Nigerian woman now heads the table that handles rules of global trade. How should the Global South use this opportunity to push for trade rules that would best benefit their economies? Are there any needs that you believe should be met for developing countries looking for opportunities to grow their economies?

The Global South has been at the table since the creation of the WTO. The fact that she’s at the head of the table is really about how issues get framed. I think the way in which she’s framed the issue of vaccine distribution gives me the expectation there’s going to be a much deeper political conversation about trade … whether it’s issues of agriculture, medicine, energy technologies [or]intellectual property issues. [It’s up to] the WTO to address concerns that liberalization of trade has had on intellectual property rights of the control of food sources. For example, the GMO technologies which a number of countries have ignored WTO rules and developed their own industries for that. The WTO has typically supported Global North claims under the Trade and Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS) to enforce copyrights. I’m expecting the WTO to at least take up that issue and ask whether or not there should be at least some form of alteration that allows for … it’s not going to be an ignoring of WTO rules but as least some grade of cooperation on that question. 

Another key component out of all of this is the president of WTO can help set the agenda for new negotiation in the WTO. The WTO’s most important body [the appellate court]still can’t meet until the U.S. agrees to it. The U.S. and China fundamentally disagree as to who might be seated on the appellate court. Right now, there’s not enough judges to actually hear cases. That was partially derived from the fact that President Trump realized the U.S. was likely to lose several cases as a  result of the trade war so he just kept the body from meeting. That’s still a huge challenge for the WTO. 

The relationship between the presidency and the settlement board is the presidency can help to align the agenda in the negotiations over the WTO. It can help to set the priorities of the negotiations although she won’t be able to determine outcomes and these are still going to be negotiated by states. Agenda-setting is extremely important, but the enforcement question is … going to have to jump through several hoops. You can’t just announce there’s going to be a different set of rules. You’re going to have to propose different sets of rules, negotiate those new rules and see how they get interpreted through the dispute settlement board. It’s not to discount the influence she has, it’s just to show you that purpose in respect to actually changing the rules.

Q: Connecting back to what you said earlier in terms of the United States conceding to the agreement as having Okonjo-Iweala as the director-general [as]the Global South makes up a larger pool of many of the international institutions [in place]. What should be the next move of Global North countries as the Global South starts to take on more of a role in international organizations?

One of the frames we like to use is organization shopping. States will choose which organizations they want to use based on expected and preferred outcomes. The Global South has a certain voting power, particularly in organizations that are based on the principle, “One Nation, One Vote”: so, the UN and the UN system. The Global North has a tendency to go shopping for organizations depending on if they think they’ll get their preferred outcomes. In extreme circumstances though it’s not common, it’s more of a U.S. thing. If a Global North [country]doesn’t agree broadly with their agenda, they’ll just walk away from that organization. Formally, like the US did with the WHO or much more frequently informally … take an example that would be WHO in the COVAX initiative to develop a global vaccine and vaccine distribution for COVID-19. On one level … of course the [Global South is] going to demand some sort of distribution that’s reflective of population rather than just economic power. If [Global North countries are] being told they’re going to have to give up their vaccines to Global South countries because there’s more of them they’ll just ignore [COVAX] and not give up the vaccine. 

But the Global South leadership has done a very good job of linking this to globalization, economic growth [and]access to markets to say in essence, “if you block Global South countries, you’re doing this at the peril of your own economies.” Therefore, there’s a shared interest in developing a model that reflects [both]Global North and Global South economic interests. That’s just an example of what I think any of these organizations need to do. There’s going to be increased Global South representation and Global South voices much more commonly heard and it’s about building a cooperative model where Global North and Global South countries see themselves on the same boat with respect to the economy. The realist in me might suggest this is going to be Global North versus Global South [competition]and frequently when you hear that, it’s China versus the U.S. as the model and there’s certainly those elements. But the liberal in me suggests this is a positive sum gain. It’s about building cooperative models… elevating Global South voices so that the terms aren’t simply dictated to them. It’s more complex than just Global South advancing their interests and [assuming the]Global North [will]jump on board. They have to navigate that well. [The Global South] may not be on the menu but if they don’t agree on what the menu is nobody is going to sit down to eat. 

Right now, I think vaccine distribution and reigniting the regrowth of the global economy as a result of this pandemic is such a huge issue that the models that we put in place for negotiations between the Global North and Global South are going to have a huge impact on economic cooperation and political cooperation going forward. And frankly, I think this is what the U.S. is doing in its decision to support the new WTO president. This is President Biden saying, “you’ve just seen 4 years of the U.S. having no interest in cooperation that we will concede the need to cooperate on these symbolic issues.” Though make no mistake, it’s not that the U.S. is going to just concede on [all]the Global South issues. The presidency is much more symbolic of President Biden saying on multiple occasions, “It’s not America first, it’s America’s back.” That’s a signal that we are prepared to be a negotiation partner. The U.S. is never a coequal partner. They always exercise much more authority. I think the Global South is finding reason to negotiate these issues more effectively and [the appointment of Director-General Okonjo-Iweala]is an example of this.

— 

Director-General Okonjo-Iweala has much ahead of her as she takes on this leadership role in an institution that promotes free trade liberalization in a global economy where the interests of states take hierarchy over a push for multilateralism. In pursuing equitable vaccine distribution, there is an opportunity to reinforce globalization in a way that integrates the interests of the Global North and Global South. 

Since a healthy global society is vital for the health of the global economy, the plan Okonjo-Iweala is able to propose and negotiate amongst the WTO’s global members will be important in mitigating COVID-19, while also prioritizing the interests of the Global South on the international stage.

The post The Global South in the World Trade Organization: An Interview with Douglas Becker appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

However, from the beginning, it has always been known that storing and distributing vaccines would be a tall task. Everything from road conditions to human error can squander life-saving doses. Recently, just a single unplugged cord, knocked loose by a cleaning contractor, rendered 2,000 vaccines in a Boston hospital useless. These are the frustrating — yet inevitable — realities of needing to develop vaccines quickly and effectively, but not having time to consider convenience. 

Those lost doses are often a result of factors outside of human control. However, hundreds of thousands more lives are being put at risk by the most pervasive and permanent virus of all: greed. 

But there are currently global coalitions working to ensure that vaccine rollout is equitable. COVAX is a cooperative set up by the World Health Organization, Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance), and the European Commission in order to ensure the equitable distribution of vaccines. The coalition’s broad goals are motivated by the vision that no matter a country’s prosperity or wealth, they will have the right to protect their people and have equal access to vaccinations as they are developed. 

The COVAX facility maintains a diverse portfolio of vaccines and essentially gives lower income countries collective bargaining power to ensure that manufacturers deliver appropriately and in a timely manner. It is made up of both ‘self-funding’ countries and countries in need, and is primarily funded by member states of the WHO and funding from external sources. A separate COVAX Advance Market Commitment (AMC) acts as a vaccine fund, made up of a mixture of foreign aid and philanthropy from the private sector. Under the Trump Administration, the United States announced its withdrawal from the WHO, citing corruption and political favoring toward China. However, the Biden administration, in its first days in office, announced the United States’ recommitment to the organization, and as a result, the COVAX alliance.

Former President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, told The World radio that “this is an interdependent and interconnected world. [COVAX countries] have to see vaccines as a global good to be able to save humanity — and humanity is worldwide… they cannot treat it as apartheid [and]they cannot say because you’re poor, you will not be vaccinated, only the rich will be.” COVAX is supposed to be a multilateral effort demonstrating the public health impact of the world coming together, with wealthy nations extending a much-needed hand to the world’s poorer economies.

For example, Canada, a G7 nation with the tenth-largest economy in the world, invested $440 million in COVAX. While most wealthy countries are buying their vaccines directly, Canada instead intends to use half of their contributions to buy vaccines through COVAX for their own people. Trudeau is facing harsh criticism for Canada’s disjointed and ambiguous coronavirus protocols; after all, Canadian leadership initially called the virus a low risk to their nation, and delayed a comprehensive response for far too long. More recently, Canada has been widely criticized for their ineffective plan for how to distribute their doses to the masses. Perhaps Trudeau views COVAX as a way to bail him out of an unfavorable political dilemma — one that was entirely the fault of his administration — instead of as a way for Canada to contribute to global recovery. 

While it is the only G7 nation to benefit from COVAX thus far, other countries further along in their coronavirus response like New Zealand — who found success in combating COVID-19 as a result of proper planning from the government — are following suit. Canada already owns the highest number of doses per capita, even before COVAX doses start rolling out in February. In contrast, only one out of the 29 poorest nations have started vaccinations. But this first step forward is nowhere near where the world needs to be quite yet. For the west African nation of Guinea, the country had only a whopping 55 shots delivered to them. 

Outside of COVAX, it was clear from the outset that money could buy human security during the pandemic. Israel, for example, was extremely aggressive in prioritizing the safety of their people and securing vaccines early. According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the government paid double for earlier access to Pfizer’s jabs. The reverse side of that coin is a case like South Africa’s. South Africa has acted similarly to Canada in that its leadership failed to take quick and decisive action to invest in a recovery plan. The Serum Institute of India (SII), where the Astra-Zeneca vaccines are made, sells its doses in a tiered system based on wealth. South Africa qualifies as a middle-high income country, yet has nowhere near the economic capacity of Canada. Therefore, they have to pay $5.25 per dose. To put that in perspective, European countries pay around $2.17 to $3 for each of their doses. The SII justified this by stating that some countries were entitled to a discount due to their contributions to research and development.

Canada and South Africa are two countries with poor leadership and poor initial action against the virus; the former and far wealthier was able to exploit a system designed to redistribute resources regardless of wealth by having enough wealth to do so, while the latter and far poorer continues to lag behind and pay a premium they cannot afford. 

It’s clear that there is cognitive dissonance between the stated goals of COVAX, the pharmaceutical companies, and participating nations. In order for any form of equitable distribution to happen, countries who can afford it must reap more than they can sow, yet there is no willingness to do so on a country-by-country basis. The WHO warned of the dangers of “vaccine nationalism,” greed and price-gouging, and the effects of these concerns are already materializing. 

COVAX has played into the wealth-based inequality which it originally postured itself against. While thousands continue to die worldwide because their countries can’t afford for them to survive, Moderna charges upwards of $32 per dose, making a healthy margin on saving lives; the vaccination effort has created billionaires and will bring in tens of billions in profit for leading companies while our global economy at large is threatened and strained.

How do we let money take precedence over life itself? Does the DNA of a virus alter because of the presence of money? Do resources disappear when money disappears? Does scientific research become unlearned because of a lack of funds? These complex problems reflect a complex issue with complex answers. The fine line between economic interest and economic necessity is blurred.

The world has to develop antibodies for greed. Combatting COVID-19 is a global effort, because unless vaccinations are administered in every country and to all people, the virus will continue to adapt, mutate and infect. This public health crisis has demonstrated that current approaches with self-interested goals will not work. And while coalitions like COVAX are a good first step in eliminating that greed, individual leadership within each country must step up to act now.

The post Vaccine Nationalism Leaves the World’s Poor Countries Behind appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.