James Bond and Global Health Diplomacy.

Sebastian Kevany

doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.172

Abstract

In the 21st Century, distinctions and boundaries between global health, international politics, and the broader interests of the global community are harder to define and enforce than ever before. As a result, global health workers, leaders, and institutions face pressing questions around the nature and extent of their involvement with non-health endeavors, including international conflict resolution, counter-terrorism, and peace-keeping, under the global health diplomacy (GHD) paradigm.

Highlights

Building Mutually Acceptable and Appropriate Collaborations Such approaches represent the antithesis of contemporary thought in this regard, and will inevitably provoke controversy
Kevany alone intelligence operatives — and should not be exposed, voluntarily or involuntarily, to risks which may affect their colleagues as much as themselves.[8]. Those doctors, nurses, project managers, field staff, epidemiologists, and other specialists within the global health community traveling to countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan, South Sudan, and Iraq do so with the knowledge that they are placing themselves in potentially perilous situations — and that, directly or indirectly, their endeavours are inexorably tied to concerns of conflict resolution, “smart power,” diplomacy, foreign policy, and international relations.[9]
If not explicitly, it is not uncommon for global health professionals — those politically appointed, or representative of national governments — to undertake duties far beyond their brief related to foreign policy, and international relations,[5] even if these pursuits are not always directly related to the advancement of health goals, but instead operate in parallel with them

Summary

Introduction

Building Mutually Acceptable and Appropriate Collaborations Such approaches represent the antithesis of contemporary thought in this regard, and will inevitably provoke controversy.

Results

Conclusion