Reading Reflection Prompt#7 Select one of the following questions: When (if ever) does a health issue become a security threat, and what are the consequences (both positive and negative) of ‘securitizing’ health?
The collapse of the Cold War gave way to new intellectual and scholarly mindset, which has identified health issues as a threat and as a new dimension of human security. Being prompted into the realm of foreign and security policy, health has become a strategic and diplomatic tool for the governments and international agencies to protect their citizens from diseases. In this sense, both research and policies have targeted resources to reduce the spread of certain diseases, to assess what strides have been made at multiple scales, …show more content…
These concerns include the ‘‘spread of potentially epidemic infections’’ and the risk of the use biological weapons into the hands of the terrorists. These concerns, as we can understand them, have forced governments along with the international community to employ measures to prevent and treat diseases. In developing the health international agenda, we observe that this agenda has narrowed or reduced to certain diseases including HIV/AIDS or TB. We acknowledge that, as I see it, public health is a threat to the stability of the nations or global affairs, which ties it to the human security. That is, countries with stability are committed to ensure the environment in which deadly diseases can be restrained and managed effectively. While the lifestyle diseases can be managed both in developing and developed countries, health services appear to be more accessible to developed countries than in the post-conflict societies. The issue is not only, as I can argue, to develop a global health agenda, but also to ensure its implementation with the same effectiveness and promptness both in these two worlds. Unfortunately, this turns out to not be the case. That is, by narrowing the global health agenda, it appears that we have still left out some diseases including malaria or Ebola, which is decimating millions of …show more content…
This is even though some norms have come to an agreement to ensure global governance, especially when diseases erupt. The recent outbreak of Ebola in the Western African countries can be of an example about this failure on ensuring such a commitment. Clearly, some norms have much importance than others within the international system when coordinating global health governance. I can suspect, in fact, cross-national diseases can be quick to be tackled. In addition to that, what can be argued is that there is double standard in the global public health agenda. The will to act upon norms is not greater when the outbreak of the diseases does not affect other borders. What can be implied is there is a bias in the global heath governance. In retrospect, global health governance has brought light on new challenges that the world faces. At the same, it shows to some extent how its response is disproportional or overlapping between the norms and commitment to act upon. Norms are not enough to coordinate response. What we can assume is that norms provide directions but do not act. The health diplomacy, as to refer to Davis, Kamradt-Scott, and Rushton (2016), should be more than norms or the definition of strategies. The problematic of global health response highlights one major gap between norms that help provide technical and financial assistance,
The collapse of the Cold War gave way to new intellectual and scholarly mindset, which has identified health issues as a threat and as a new dimension of human security. Being prompted into the realm of foreign and security policy, health has become a strategic and diplomatic tool for the governments and international agencies to protect their citizens from diseases. In this sense, both research and policies have targeted resources to reduce the spread of certain diseases, to assess what strides have been made at multiple scales, …show more content…
These concerns include the ‘‘spread of potentially epidemic infections’’ and the risk of the use biological weapons into the hands of the terrorists. These concerns, as we can understand them, have forced governments along with the international community to employ measures to prevent and treat diseases. In developing the health international agenda, we observe that this agenda has narrowed or reduced to certain diseases including HIV/AIDS or TB. We acknowledge that, as I see it, public health is a threat to the stability of the nations or global affairs, which ties it to the human security. That is, countries with stability are committed to ensure the environment in which deadly diseases can be restrained and managed effectively. While the lifestyle diseases can be managed both in developing and developed countries, health services appear to be more accessible to developed countries than in the post-conflict societies. The issue is not only, as I can argue, to develop a global health agenda, but also to ensure its implementation with the same effectiveness and promptness both in these two worlds. Unfortunately, this turns out to not be the case. That is, by narrowing the global health agenda, it appears that we have still left out some diseases including malaria or Ebola, which is decimating millions of …show more content…
This is even though some norms have come to an agreement to ensure global governance, especially when diseases erupt. The recent outbreak of Ebola in the Western African countries can be of an example about this failure on ensuring such a commitment. Clearly, some norms have much importance than others within the international system when coordinating global health governance. I can suspect, in fact, cross-national diseases can be quick to be tackled. In addition to that, what can be argued is that there is double standard in the global public health agenda. The will to act upon norms is not greater when the outbreak of the diseases does not affect other borders. What can be implied is there is a bias in the global heath governance. In retrospect, global health governance has brought light on new challenges that the world faces. At the same, it shows to some extent how its response is disproportional or overlapping between the norms and commitment to act upon. Norms are not enough to coordinate response. What we can assume is that norms provide directions but do not act. The health diplomacy, as to refer to Davis, Kamradt-Scott, and Rushton (2016), should be more than norms or the definition of strategies. The problematic of global health response highlights one major gap between norms that help provide technical and financial assistance,