- Elton John blasts Russia’s anti-gay laws during Moscow concert
- U.N.: Afghanistan slow to enforce law protecting women
- Heart cancels SeaWorld concert after ‘Blackfish’ documentary
- South Carolina sheriff refuses to lower American flag for Nelson Mandela
- South Africans hold day of prayer for Nelson Mandela
- Mandela not on life support in final hours, friend says
- Ukraine protesters topple, decapitate Lenin statue in Kiev
- Kim Jong-un’s uncle removed from North Korean state documentary
- Thailand crisis deepens as opposition quits Parliament
- Campbell Soup apologizes for SpaghettiOs’ Pearl Harbor tweet
Health diplomacy: Rx for peace
A recent poll by the Pew Foundation indicates a new trend in how Americans view the merits of military engagement.
That survey of Americans’ political and social values reveals thatbelief in the effectiveness of military power as a foreign policy tool has dropped to the lowest point in the last 20 years, with only 49 percent of those polled believing military strength is the best way to achieve peace.
This diminished confidence in military intervention as a cornerstone of international relations raises an obvious question: What other tools are available to advance U.S. interests in the world? Health diplomacy is an important and underutilized instrument in our nation’s foreign-policy toolbox. It can be a powerful playing field for diplomacy — one organized around the possibility of sharing knowledge, tools and other resources to improve global health.
Just as diplomats have hammered out treaties over the centuries to build bridges between once-warring nations, public health officials and humanitarian organizations have begun sharing best practices and technology in an effort to build a new kind of bridge between countries to foster peace and development around the world.
Americans have only recently returned to recognizing improved global health, in terms of preventing and treating both infectious and chronic diseases, must be a policy priority. This is partly because infectious disease is a threat the United States thought it had left behind long ago. The triumph of public health interventions in the 20th century led then Surgeon General Dr. William H. Stewart to announce in 1967 that it was time for the United States to “close the book on infectious disease” and turn its attention to chronic diseases like cancer. Smallpox was nearly eradicated, AIDS was an undreamed-of threat, and we were not thinking globally.
However, history has shown us Dr. Stewart’s statement was premature — it turned out to be a medical mirage. In fact, since his declaration, more than 32 new diseases have emerged, including AIDS, Ebola, Lyme’s Disease, West Nile Encephalitis, SARS and H5N1 avian flu.
A report released last week by the World Health Organization (WHO) found new diseases are emerging at a “historically unprecedented” rate of one per year. In the last five years alone, WHO has documented more than 1,100 epidemics including bird flu, polio and cholera.
Today’s three leading infectious diseases, HIV/AIDS, malaria, and TB, together are responsible for 6 million deaths each year. Yet, it wasn’t until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, followed by the anthrax attacks against our nation that many Americans realized infectious diseases remain a major threat to U.S. security.
But in the 21st century, infectious disease is not the only health concern nations must address. With the spread of tobacco use, obesity and other health-damaging behaviors, 60 percent of deaths worldwide are due to chronic illnesses including heart and lung disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes. In the United States, 7 in 10 deaths yearly are attributable to these conditions. Also, the safety of our food, water supply and the environment do not respect national borders.
Why, then, with so many deaths and such an impact on every nation’s economy and national security, has such limited attention been paid to health threats diplomatically?
First, disease in the developing world is often not granted the focus it merits largely because it is viewed as a problem “over there.” More than 63 percent of the people infected with HIV live in Africa; 79 percent of the chronic disease burden is in the developing world. Whether “over there” is Africa, Southeast Asia or Latin America, inhabitants of the United States for far too long have seen little reason to worry. But Americans — and the world — have much to gain from increasing our focus on global health.
Health diplomacy is a means of self-preservation in an increasingly interconnected global community. SARS, H5N1 avian influenza, AIDS, TB — the list goes on and on — are only a jet plane away from America’s shores. But just as diseases can cross borders easily today, so can solutions. Globalization facilitates the rapid response to health problems between rich and poor nations by quick mobilization of health professionals, medicines and supplies, and deployment of information technology for surveillance of diseases and sharing health information and best practices worldwide. As the recent WHO report underscores, this kind of exchange is one of the most important routes to health security.
The tools of health diplomacy also can increase the so-called “smart power” of the United States abroad. The United States spent $571.6 billion on defense last year alone, but spends only 0.14 percent of its gross national product on global health and development, the least of any major industrialized nation. We must devote more of our nation’s resources to improving global health — not just to repair damage caused by natural disasters and war, but to “win the hearts and minds” of people around the world by helping prevent the social and political discord that results from diseases and disasters globally.
For example, the tsunami relief efforts in Indonesia: A poll found after the visit of two former U.S. presidents coupled with a commitment to invest significant funds toward rebuilding communities, support for the United States rose from 36 percent to 60 percent virtually overnight in the world’s largest Muslim country, while support for Osama bin Laden dropped from 58 percent to 28 percent.
Were America to marshal fully its medical expertise, financial support and compassionate leadership to fight infectious and chronic diseases, just think what effect this would have on international opinion and on improving health and hope for people around the world.
By Brahma Chellaney
Beijing's creeping aggression signals a challenge to U.S. presence in the Asian Pacific
- CHELLANEY: China's game of chicken
- U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion tops $17 trillion for first time
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- WOLF: The president's other Obamacare lies
- Obamas call to close Vatican embassy is 'slap in the face' to Roman Catholics
- U.S. businesses reach out quickly to partners in Iran
- Sen. Rand Paul: 'I am seriously thinking about' running for president in 2016
- South Carolina sheriff refuses to lower American flag for Nelson Mandela
- CARSON: Getting to the top by starting at the bottom
- Hollywood star Rob Schneider turns Republican, citing Democratic disaster
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Al Maurer provides a common sense, conservatarian, Constitutional conservative perspective from the battleground state of Colorado
Film Reviews and Articles by Kevin Williams
"Critical thinking is thinking about your thinking while you're thinking in order to make your thinking better." - Dr. Richard Paul
Go beyond tourism's "top 10" bus tour destinations with Susan McKee as she explores the varied history, culture, food, and gardens, of the world.
Let it snow
White House pets gone wild!