The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Corona vaccine shortage: "The EU has suffered a loss of power, and it is now feeling it"

2021-01-29T18:37:44.108Z


European lawyer Frank Schorkopf sees the EU in a weak position in the dispute over vaccine deliveries - precisely because of this, the conflict could widen dramatically.


Icon: enlarge

Corona vaccination with AstraZeneca vaccine on January 28th, 2021 in Bangladesh: "These vaccines are currently the most important resource worldwide, far ahead of data, gold or weapons."

Photo: MONIRUL ALAM / EPA-EFE / Shutterstock

SPIEGEL:

Professor Schorkopf, the British-Swedish pharmaceutical manufacturer AstraZeneca initially wants to deliver significantly fewer doses of its corona vaccine to the EU than planned, allegedly because of production difficulties in Belgium.

Can you understand that?

Schorkopf:

One is the technical difficulties - I'm going to assume that they are real, otherwise the manufacturer wouldn't get into such a conflict.

To person

Icon: enlarge Photo: private

Frank Schorkopf

, born in 1970, is professor for constitutional and European law at the University of Göttingen.

As a procurator, he represented the federal government before the Federal Constitutional Court.

SPIEGEL:

And the other one?

Schorkopf: Those

are the legal obligations.

But even if the manufacturer were to break the contract, the EU can do little legally at first.

SPIEGEL:

AstraZeneca boss Pascal Soriot has already stated that there was no delivery guarantee and that other customers who had ordered earlier would now receive preferential delivery.

Schorkopf:

Yes, and it is noticeable that the EU Commission is outraged, but does not expressly object.

At least she has now published the contracts, even if they have been partially blackened.

AstraZeneca is required to "make the best possible effort" to provide certain quantities at certain times.

However, it is not entirely clear whether the plants in Great Britain are included in this delivery obligation.

»The EU demands› fairness ‹, which rather speaks for a powerless position.«

SPIEGEL:

After a conversation with AstraZeneca, Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides said on Twitter yesterday, "We regret the continuing lack of clarity about the delivery schedule."

Schorkopf:

In any case, the EU is also responsible for this lack of clarity.

The EU calls for "fairness", also internationally, which tends to suggest a weak position.

SPIEGEL:

Couldn't you sue the manufacturer for cutting other customers and delivering more to the EU in return?

Schorkopf:

But if he still refuses, for whatever reason, that won't help.

You cannot switch to other providers at the moment.

And even if AstraZeneca were to be sentenced to pay damages at some point, that wouldn't give us the vaccine we need now.

SPIEGEL:

The EU is already threatening an export ban for the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Schorkopf:

The Commission wants to create a mechanism that first makes the supply flows transparent and at the end of which there can actually be an export ban.

But even that doesn't help if there are actually production difficulties at the Belgium location and at the moment only the British plants are fully producing.

For their part, the British government and the public there would hardly put up with the fact that the manufacturer cuts deliveries to the British and instead sends more to the EU.

Then the Johnson administration would probably very quickly prevent exports for its part.

SPIEGEL:

And then what?

Schorkopf:

Then an international escalation threatens.

In principle, we are dealing with a direct consequence of Brexit: We are painfully aware that the EU no longer has the entire European economic area under control.

The EU has suffered a loss of power and it is feeling that now.

"The EU was very patronizing."

SPIEGEL:

What could such an escalation look like?

Schorkopf:

For example, the EU could prohibit the vaccine from another manufacturer - Biontech - from being supplied to the UK from Belgium.

But Great Britain would react to that again.

In the past, deep conflicts arose from something like this.

Fortunately, that is not to be feared now.

But these vaccines are currently the most important resource worldwide, far ahead of data, gold or weapons.

The tighter they are, the harder the struggle is between the buyers - and that is the nation states, and in our case the EU.

Only recently, the EU was very patronizing.

One did not want to put oneself on the same level with the governments of the USA and Great Britain and their "America first" or "Britain first" doctrine.

But a state is responsible for the health of its own citizens.

Now suddenly Brussels too is fighting for the solid interests of its member states.

But unfortunately only from a position of relative weakness.

"Wait your turn," a British newspaper just ran the headline.

SPIEGEL:

The EU member states have given Brussels the power to buy vaccines.

Icon: enlarge

EU Commission President von der Leyen, EU Council President Merkel: "In retrospect, at least, it is difficult to understand that the costs were fought for months, but that this resulted in a disadvantage in terms of delivery."

Photo: Johanna Geron / dpa

Schorkopf:

The protection of health is a matter for the states.

Their governments are actually responsible.

The EU Commission has taken on this task from its member states, in particular Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Chancellor Angela Merkel as President of the European Council have agreed on this.

There were certainly good reasons for this, even if it could have been organized differently, for example through cooperation between strong member states, as was initially planned.

SPIEGEL:

Smaller member states could easily have gotten caught up in this.

Schorkopf:

Not necessarily.

Nevertheless, one could have ordered enough for everyone.

However, in retrospect, at least in retrospect, it is difficult to understand that the costs were fought for months, with a possible saving of at best a few euros per dose, but that - at least in fact - a disadvantage in terms of delivery.

SPIEGEL:

That was apparently less due to EU buyers than to smaller member states, which were afraid of excessive costs.

Schorkopf:

There is so much at stake for the Federal Republic of Germany that Germany could also have said that we would take double that and give away what is left.

In an emergency, Federal Health Minister Spahn has now obtained a drug that costs 2,000 euros per dose.

Not to mention the financial consequences of a lockdown extended by weeks or months.

The EU has negotiated cheap prices.

But at what cost to our economy, our public budgets, perhaps our political system?

"The European integrationists have lost their way."

SPIEGEL:

Tell us.

Schorkopf:

It is still too early to judge that.

But if "Protecting the European way of life" is the goal of the EU Commission, then it has burned a lot of goodwill here.

The EU, it must be emphasized once again, is actually not responsible for health policy.

Some people in Brussels were therefore pleased that things were getting moving here too in the sense of ever closer European integration.

But maybe it would have been better to bet on a slightly less existential question.

SPIEGEL:

There is a saying in Brussels that a severe crisis is too valuable to be wasted.

Schorkopf: But

the European integrationists got lost here, presumably because they wanted something bigger politically.

SPIEGEL:

What?

Schorkopf:

Well, to live European solidarity, which is a good idea, and to promote European integration.

The latter should at least not be an end in itself.

And if that is at the expense of the health of the European population, not to mention the economy and public finances, then I see it critically.

The seemingly strong EU can suddenly find itself in a very weak position.

The EU tends, like states do, to legitimize itself more and more through success and less through the correct procedure.

This becomes especially a problem when success does not materialize, when, in both senses of the word, it does not deliver.

The European edition of the magazine »Politico« has just published a large report on this, which ends with the statement that »the slower, more deliberate and cooperative efforts of the EU could have cost precious time and lives«.

That would be tragic, but it would also be a signal that would cancel out goodwill, both internally and externally, if one had sacrificed the fundamental rights to protect health and life in favor of European solidarity.

Icon: The mirror

Source: spiegel

All news articles on 2021-01-29

You may like

News/Politics 2024-03-16T18:46:42.470Z

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.