It is easy to be discouraged about the state of international cooperation, but global health remains an area in which the world has come together to do significant good. Over the past dozen years, international initiatives have delivered HIV/AIDS treatment to millions, expanded childhood immunization and spurred a dramatic increase in global support for addressing other health challenges, from malaria to maternal health.
International support for global health is an investment in developing countries’ future prosperity and the well-being of their people. It is an investment that the world’s richest countries can well afford.
For example, the US is the leading contributor to global health aid, which accounted for just 0.23 percent of US spending last year. The returns on that investment have been remarkable. Child mortality is plunging. Millions who would have otherwise perished from HIV/AIDS are still alive. Countries that were aid recipients are increasingly self-sufficient — and have become better trade and strategic partners as a result.
However, the health needs of low and middle-income countries are shifting. Dramatic changes in urbanization, global trade, and consumer markets — which occurred over decades in wealthy countries — are happening at a faster rate, and at a much larger scale, in still-poor countries. These trends have brought substantial health benefits, such as better sanitation and increased food production, but have given rise to significant challenges as well.
Ebola is one high-profile example. Before this year, Ebola had killed fewer than 2,000 people, all in Central Africa, since it was first identified in 1976. The virus has killed more than three times that number this year, with enough cases spreading internationally to dominate nightly news broadcasts and spook voters in recent US state and local elections.
A major reason is the growth of small and medium-sized cities. Urbanization is increasing in West Africa at a rate of 3 percent per year (compared to 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent respectively in North America and Europe). The result has been the proliferation of settlements of a million people or fewer living with limited public-health infrastructure.
These cramped cities are ideal incubators for outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases like Ebola. With greater trade and travel to the region, outbreaks are likely to spread before international containment can coalesce.
Another example of changing global health needs is the stunningly fast increase of heart disease, cancers, and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in low and middle-income countries. Once thought to be challenges for affluent countries alone, these diseases have quickly become the leading cause of death and disability in developing regions, killing nearly 8 million people before their 60th birthday last year.
In a recent report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, the contrast between rising rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other NCDs in developing countries and the success of international efforts on HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases was highlighted. From 1990 to 2010, death and disability from NCDs in low-income countries increased 300 percent faster than the rate of decline in infectious diseases.
Some of the same factors at work in the recent Ebola outbreak drive the high rates of NCDs. Inhabitants of densely packed urban areas in emerging economies often face both indoor and outdoor pollution, and are less likely to have access to adequate nutrition. Most health systems in these countries are not built for chronic or preventive care and lack basic consumer protections. From 1970 to 2000, cigarette consumption tripled in developing countries. Diseases that in high-income countries are preventable, like cervical cancer, or treatable, such as diabetes, are often death sentences in developing countries.
International investments have not yet adjusted to changing global health needs, especially with respect to NCDs. In 2010, US$69.38 of international aid was spent for each year lost to death or disability from HIV/AIDS as measured in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), US$16.27 was spent per DALY lost to malaria, and US$5.42 per DALY lost to poor maternal, newborn and child health. However, only US$0.09 was spent per DALY lost to heart disease, cancer, and other NCDs.
Meanwhile, the emerging NCD epidemic is worsening. Indeed, the World Economic Forum is predicting US$21.3 trillion in losses from these diseases in developing countries by 2030.
Yet progress on NCDs is possible. Despite much higher rates of obesity in high-income countries, premature death and disability from heart disease, cancers and other NCDs have declined substantially. Most of the tools and policies underlying this success are cheap, but not widely implemented in developing countries. They include low-cost drugs to reduce heart attacks, vaccines to prevent cervical cancer and the same tobacco taxes and advertising rules that dramatically cut smoking rates throughout Europe and the US. Pilot programs have successfully integrated these tools and policies into donor-funded programs on HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases in low and middle-income countries.
If, over the next decade, low and middle-income countries could improve NCD prevention and treatment at the same rate as the average rich country from 2000 to last year, they would avert more than 5 million deaths. That return is comparable to the most successful global health investments in HIV and childhood immunization, and it is an investment worth making for the same reason: a peaceful, inclusive global economy presupposes healthier, more productive lives.
Mitch Daniels, a former director of the US Office of Management and Budget under then-US president George W. Bush, is president of Purdue University. Tom Donilon was US national security adviser to US President Barack Obama from 2010 to last year. They are co-chairs of the Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored Independent Task Force on Noncommunicable Diseases in Low and Middle-Income Countries. Tom Bollyky, a senior fellow for global health, economics and development at the Council on Foreign Relations, was project director of the Independent Task Force.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers