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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with