US and Chinese COVID-19 Health Outreach to Africa and Latin America: A Comparison

The policy brief examines the health diplomacy of the US and China during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically focusing on Africa and Latin America. It argues that while both powers used health aid to gain diplomatic ground, China committed more new resources and employed a multi-actor approach, whereas the US relied heavily on pre-existing frameworks like PEPFAR. The document also analyzes systemic impacts, such as the disruption of global supply chains and the rise of nationalism over multilateralism, and highlights the critical need for health equity and global cooperation to manage future public health crises.

• The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated a shift away from globalisation and multilateralism, returning power to the nation-state and complicating the role of international bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO).
• Global supply chains revealed critical vulnerabilities during the pandemic, particularly the world's dependence on Chinese manufacturing for personal protective equipment (PPE), ventilators, and pharmaceutical components.
• Africa implemented a more cohesive multilateral response than Europe, utilizing the Africa CDC and the Africa Taskforce for Novel Coronavirus (AFTCOR), though it faced a $200 billion funding deficit.
• The US health response in Africa relied primarily on the existing infrastructure of the Presidential Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), using its laboratories and supply chains to manage COVID-19.
• China's outreach in Africa involved a diverse array of state and non-state actors, including city governments and the Jack Ma Foundation, using 'mask diplomacy' to improve its public image.
• In Latin America and the Caribbean, Chinese financial assistance significantly outweighed that of the US; by July 2020, China spent $665 million compared to $83 million from the US.
• The US approach to Latin America was strategically narrow, focusing aid on Haiti for humanitarian reasons, Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela for political/security reasons, and the Northern Triangle to contain migration.

APA

ESTEVES, P., & VAN STADEN, C. (2020). US and Chinese COVID-19 Health Outreach to Africa and Latin America: A Comparison. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Policy-Insights-98-esteves-van-staden.pdf

Chicago

ESTEVES, PAULO, and COBUS VAN STADEN. US and Chinese COVID-19 Health Outreach to Africa and Latin America: A Comparison. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2020. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Policy-Insights-98-esteves-van-staden.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=ESTEVES |first1=PAULO |last2=VAN STADEN |first2=COBUS |title=US and Chinese COVID-19 Health Outreach to Africa and Latin America: A Comparison |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=November 2020 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Policy-Insights-98-esteves-van-staden.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{esteves2020chinese, author = {ESTEVES, PAULO and VAN STADEN, COBUS}, title = {{US and Chinese COVID-19 Health Outreach to Africa and Latin America: A Comparison}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2020}, month = nov, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Policy-Insights-98-esteves-van-staden.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }