Photo Credit: US Army, Flickr
President Obama’s new national security strategy, released yesterday, outlines a security approach that is as much about development as defense. The linking of development to national security marks the Administration’s greater reliance on soft power – in these lean years, a possibly more cost-effective and politically palatable approach to the previous strategies released by the Bush Administration in 2002 and 2006. There were three aspects of the strategy that I found resonated from the perspective of global health.
A world of greater interconnection: The strategy aims to see the world “as it is”, and to face the truth that we live in a “world of greater interconnection…a world in which our prosperity is inextricably linked to global prosperity…” (2) The document acknowledges that in a world where “commerce has stitched the fate of nations together”, “damage to our environment, food insecurity, and dangers to public health are increasingly shared.” (1)
Moral and strategic interest in global health: Human dignity is mentioned repeatedly in the document. In the introduction, the document states: “Our Armed Forces will always be the cornerstone of our security, but they must be complemented. Our security also depends upon…development experts who can strengthen governance and support human dignity…” The strategy then links the support of human dignity to the specific issues of global health, saying: “The United States has a moral and strategic interest in promoting global health. When a child dies of a preventable disease, it offends our conscience; when a disease goes unchecked, it can endanger our own health; when children are sick, development is stalled.” (39)
A development strategy integrated into global institutions: The strategy integrates US development efforts (and highlights those pertaining to health, specifically that of mothers and children) with what it terms the international architecture. “The United States has embraced the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals and is working with others in pursuit of the eradication of extreme poverty” (39); “We will shape the international architecture and work with our global partners to address these challenges…” (34); “By strengthening the ability of governments and communities to manage development challenges and investing in strong insitutions that foster the democratic accountability that helps sustain development.” (34)
As journalists and bloggers debate whether the strategy is significant or just a re-statement of the previous Administration’s strategies, I have no doubt that from the perspective of global health, this strategy stands in great contrast. The 2006 Bush strategy mentions health just 5 times – always referring to domestic public health. This strategy, instead, mentions health 35 times, and nearly always in the context of improving the health of those abroad as a means of ensuring safety at home.
