The Politics and Economics of the Ebola Outbreak

Foreign policy strategies in many western nations is built on mutual benefit. “You scratch my back, I scratch your back” principle, and America is not an exception. Underlining most American foreign policy initiatives are huge security and economy interests.
Many impoverished nations, especially in Africa have paid the ultimate price as a result of some of these foreign policies; for example, there have been instances where an aid have been used as a bait to remove governments from power, natural resources deposits have been taken over and countries have been used as a launching pad for covert and overt operations in other countries.
In one way or the other, something must be given for something to be done.
The current Ebola epidemic is not different from many disastrous situations in Africa where Western nations have considered the economic, security, and geopolitical benefits of sending help to avert the situation.
It would interest you to know that since 1976 when the first case of Ebola was reported in Congo, only a little over 3000 have died, including the 1550 who have died this year. There have been four non-Africans infected with the disease: two Americans, one Spanish and one Saudi.
The Spanish and the Saudi are the only non-Africans who have died of the disease. The question one would ask is “why the global community have not committed time and resources into finding cure for Ebola, considering it’s infectious and mortality rate?”
Though the answer to the above question may be complicated, it is not too difficult to rationalize. It all boils down to the aforementioned considerations that underline and shape all western foreign policies.
Geopolitically, the West sees Ebola as another African quagmire. “Who cares if some 3000 Africans villagers suffer from some strange disease and about half of them die of it”. The odds of a westerner being infected is as distant as the gulf between the continents. Obviously, for a westerner to be infected, the individual must have travelled to an endemic African country.
It has been proven that the job of preventing the Ebola from reaching Western countries is very easy; “just quarantine every African, including their Heads of State who deplane on European or
American soil and subject them to thorough screening for Ebola symptoms”. Is Ebola a national security threat to the West? No, not at this moment; and would not be for a long a time as long as Western countries are able to limit contact with people from endemic
African countries, Ebola will forever be an African issue. The most shocking consideration that has created the apathetic dynamic to the fight against Ebola has been the economic benefit of finding a cure. The public and the private sector have not shown interest in research for a possible cure. So far, only three companies are researching into the disease. What seem to be driving this lackadaisical attitude is that there is no market for a potential vaccine considering the number of infections per year.
Furthermore, the affordability to those who may need the potential vaccine is of great concern to researchers. That notwithstanding, we just found that there is a potential drug out there that can treat the disease. The question is why has it not been shipped to the affected countries? Some have said the drug has not been tried clinically; really? The two American aid workers who were treated with the drug have been discharged from hospital, they are Ebola free.
It is hard to believe that a clinically untried drug will be given to Americans for whatever reason. Again, is cost the reason why the drug has not been shipped to thousands of poor Africans who need it most?
When HIV/AIDS vaccine was found, it took decades before it got to Africans, even though they were the ones who were being killed in droves.
I am not faulting anybody for Africa’s problems, but, I also don’t think politics and economic considerations must be sole factors when considering an aid to deal with crisis such as Ebola Classical example of how human life has surpassed economic consideration is what Merck & Co. did with Mectizan. In the late 1970s Roy Vagelos (then CEO of Merck) and his colleague found a potential cure for river blindness; they face a dilemma.
It would cost more than $200 million to develop, and it was needed only by poor villagers in West Africa and other developing countries who could not afford it. Many in the company argued that proceeding with the drug’s development was not a viable venture. However, Vagelos held firmly to the company’s maxim that “health precedes wealth” and authorized the development of the drug.
When Merck couldn’t get the affected countries to buy the new drug, the company decided to give the drug away for free, a decision many considered irresponsible and violated the fiduciary trust placed in Vagelos by shareholders. But, Vagelos held to the company mission of preserving and improving life, and carried through with the decision to give the drug away so as to save lives.
Today river blindness has been completed eradicated in Africa and many developing nation. I believe with the same attitude and compassion of Roy Vagelos and his team, Ebola can be eradicated.

E.D. Odoom
The author is a Forensic Scientist and A Change Agent; specializing in Strategic Leadership and Organizational Psychology