Securitization of infectious diseases in Vietnam: the cases of HIV and avian influenza

Abstract

The frequent and swift emergence of new and devastating infectious diseases has brought renewed attention to health as an issue of international importance. Some states and regional organizations, including in Asia, have begun to regard infectious disease as a national and international security issue. This article seeks to examine the Vietnamese government's response to the epidemics of avian influenza and Human immunodeficiency virus. Both diseases have been recognized at different times as threats to international security and both are serious infectious disease problems in Vietnam. Yet, the character of the central government's response to these two epidemics has been starkly different. How and why this disparity in policy approaches occurs depends largely on the epidemiological, economic and political context in which they occur. Although epidemiological factors are frequently explored when discussing disease as a security issue, seldom are the political, social and economic characteristics of the state invoked. These dimensions, and their interaction with the epidemiology of the disease, are central to understanding which diseases are ultimately treated by states as security issues. In particular, the role of economic security as a powerful motivator for resistance to control measures and the role that local implementation of policies can have in disrupting the effect of central government policy are explored. In exploring both the outcomes of securitization, and its facilitating conditions, I suggest some preliminary observations on the potential costs and benefits of securitizing infectious disease and its utility as a mechanism for protecting health in Asia.

The role of health systems for health security: a scoping review revealing the need for improved conceptual and practical linkages

“…Notions of national health security featured particularly in publications on leadership and governance, especially around notions of maintaining political control or national power [ 55 , 56 ]. The decision in some countries not to share H5N1 samples notes how such decisions may be based on ‘ the preservation of national sovereignty ” [ 38 ].…”

The Politics of Exceptionalism: Securitization and COVID-19

“…Instead, their "securityness" is established when an actor in a position of political authority (whether formal or informal) "speaks security" and a relevant "audience" accepts this connection, tolerating "extraordinary measures that otherwise would not have been successful" (Waever 2011, 469). Scholars exploring this securitization of disease have thus focused on how elites have represented particular diseases as security threats, exploring the construction of HIV/AIDS (Sjöstedt 2008;Herington 2010;Lo 2015), SARS (Wishnick 2010), H5N1 influenza (Elbe 2010;Herington 2010;Hameiri and Jones 2015), H1N1 influenza (Abraham 2011), Zika (Ventura 2016;Wenham and Farias 2019), Ebola (Honigsbaum 2017;Enemark 2017a), and now COVID-19. Some have even taken a wider view, arguing that disease itself has been securitized, whether through a snowballing effect of various securitizing moves (Fidler 2003;Kamradt-Scott and McInnes 2012) or through the concerted efforts of Western elites to privilege their concerns (Davies 2008;Weir 2014).…”

One Health, une seule santé

“…En Asie, le Vietnam a recensé le deuxième plus grand taux de mortalité humaine due à l'IAHP H5N1 après l'Indonésie, et de loin le plus fort taux de foyers déclarés ayant un impact économique important dépassant le demi-milliard de dollars (Jonas, 2008 ;Herington, 2010 ;Gouvernement du Vietnam, 2011). Le développement de la réaction du Vietnam à l'IAHP H5N1 est intéressant en termes de rôle du gouvernement et des agriculteurs dans la lutte contre la maladie aux niveaux local et national et leur contribution à un effort plus régional.…”