Press play to listen to this article
European Commission officials on Monday reiterated an avalanche of vague threats to block the export of coronavirus vaccines, but could not explain exactly what they planned to do, when they intended to do it or how it was done. would lead to more doses being injected into the citizens of EU citizens.
After another day of far more questions than answers about the EU’s slow vaccination campaign, just as much was clear: the continuing obstacle in Brussels is not going to stop the grumbling among EU citizens and national leaders before a virtual European Council. summit Thursday.
The Commission’s threats, first voiced by President Ursula von der Leyen last week, are nominally directed at the United Kingdom – the one vaccine-producing country to receive doses produced on the European continent, but by no means any doses do not export. locally produced.
The British government – and the British people – have reacted angrily to the EU saber, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson has issued European counterparts to try to repel new restrictive measures that could put pressure on him to respond. Some allies are already urging him to keep his fire, even if the EU acts, to prevent a trade war from unleashing that could disrupt sensitive supply chains.
But the Commission has kept its fire at least for the moment.
“Look, we’re not going to speculate about the tools or the actual details of what we can suggest to achieve the goals,” said chief spokesman Eric Mamer. “Our problem is indeed the underperformance, underdelivery of vaccines compared to what is in our contracts with these companies, and that is the problem we want to solve – how to ensure that companies deliver to the EU according to the contract.”
But while Mamer, during the regular afternoon conference, referred to multiple companies, the Commission’s anger is currently focused on just one: AstraZeneca, which lags tens of millions of doses than it promised to deliver.
As one way to remedy the shortfall, the Commission is looking at the possibility of restricting the export of AstraZeneca vaccines produced in a factory in the Netherlands, which is manufactured by a subcontractor, Halix. And on Monday, Dutch officials indicated they would cooperate with a Commission decision to ban such exports.
But it is unclear if that would even help. Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, the EU head of increasing vaccine production, had earlier said the Halix plant had not sent doses to the UK, although that may have changed.
As a separate complication, the European Medicines Agency has not yet authorized the Halix plant to manufacture vaccines for the EU. The snafu appears to be a technical oversight that was just as much the Commission’s fault because it did not insist that AstraZeneca seek the authorization, as it was the company’s fault not to do so. The approval is now underway, Mamer said.
During Monday’s news conference, Mamer repeatedly insisted that the Commission’s objectives were merely to force vaccine manufacturers to follow the EU’s purchase agreements and achieve ‘reciprocity’ from other vaccine-producing countries receiving EU doses – again, the United States Kingdom
He defined reciprocity as the export of either completed vaccine doses or of raw materials needed to make vaccines.
At the same time, he confirmed that even if the Commission were to block exports, it currently does not have the legal power to seize unreported vaccines and reuse them for EU countries. Such a move would require additional emergency measures and could jeopardize the rules of the World Trade Organization, as well as undermine the EU’s reputation as a proponent of international rule-based free trade.
“It’s not about banning the export of vaccines,” Mamer said. “It is about making sure we are able to receive the vaccines that are being provided for Europe.”
Journalists and some national officials were still wondering how the Commission would actually guarantee the delivery of the expected vaccines, something it has not yet been able to do with AstraZeneca. So far, the Commission has blocked only one shipment with the support of Italy – of AstraZeneca vaccines destined for Australia. Mamer said Monday the Commission did not know what happened to the stored 250,000 doses and referred questions to the company.
EU leaders will discuss the issue of vaccine exports during their video conference summit on Thursday. But because they do not meet in person, they can not make an immediate, formal decision.
There are speculations that leaders, who are under increasing political pressure due to the slow pace of vaccinations, want to increase the export ban to focus not only on AstraZeneca, but also on BioNTech / Pfizer, Moderna and possibly other producers who have so far fulfilled their contractual obligations. towards the EU.
Such a move would attract not only companies but also from other countries, including partners such as Canada, Australia and Mexico, which buy vaccines from EU manufacturers.
At the announcement of her new threats last week, von der Leyen gave a reason to block exports more widely – a step that, although controversial, could increase vaccination rates in the EU. It could also happen to boost Germany’s ruling Christian Democratic Union party in a super-election year.
But other EU countries have said they will take such an aggressive step, warning that von der Leyen’s infectious approach jeopardizes the EU’s reputation in an attempt to play for a German audience.
“I increasingly feel that we are all just part of a German election game,” said one EU diplomat.
Two EU diplomats have said that only France and Italy clearly support a broader export ban, while Germany’s position remains unclear. And France was the only country that openly supported that new high-risk approach.
“I support the announcements made by the President of the Commission … especially to demand reciprocity,” President Emmanuel Macron said last week.
Officials from countries, including Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands, have said they do not block the export of vaccines from companies that comply with their contracts.
As EU countries were divided and leaders virtually met, it seemed unlikely that there would be a resolution of the debate this week.
Meanwhile, the previous attempt by the European Council, Charles Michel, to challenge the UK to reveal how many doses he had performed, seemed forgotten amid the threat of the Commission’s threats – not to mention the London warnings about the possibility of a damaging trade war.
Emilio Casalicchio and Anna Isaac and contributed contributions.
This article is part of POLITICOpremium policy service: Pro Health Care. Our specialized journalists keep you up to date on topics affecting healthcare policies, from prices for medicines, EMAs, vaccines, pharmaceuticals and more. Email [email protected] for a complimentary trial run.