Following Angela’s presentation, Syed and Stan brought our attention to health problems related to AIDS, SARS, and various other epidemics. The World Health Organization (WHO) as an organ of the UN system plays the leadership role to deal with such health problems.
1. Why do these problems consider as global issues?
2. In addition to the UN system, who do become primary actors to deal with such problems? Why have their roles been increased?
3. These health problems are more likely to be exacerbated by the environmental problems and domestic conflict. I have named such a link “Deadly Bridge”. But, in Figure 10.3 of Mingst’s Essentials of International Politics, she depicted some link between environmental scarcity and social effects based on Thomas F. Homer-Dixon’s argument. Do their arguments make sense to you? If so, why? If it does not make sense, how can you explain the relationship between environmental and health issues to social problems?
4. Related to Question 3, does any theoretical perspective help you to justify your argument?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. When it comes to epidemics, they are always going to be a global issue because they are not contained within borders. Viruses don't obey the international laws that humans put into place, and with the increase in travel and exportation/importation of goods between countries across the globe, the chances of a virus or bacteria traveling to another part of the globe are very high.
ReplyDelete2. WHO within the UN is a major actor in cases of epidemics. I think another huge actor would be the public health sectors of each individual country. Although a pandemic or epidemic is a global issue, it is too far of a scope for an international organization such as the UN to deal with alone. Each country has to do their part in keeping their citizens safe and trying to contain the problem. Our government would also probably turn to pharmaceutical companies to try and research a vaccine or cure to the epidemic. These companies in turn could also become a primary actor, because they would be part of the solution of the sickness.
3. Mingst's arguments in figure 10.3 make perfect sense to me. If there are more people in a particular area with unequal access to the already limited natural resources, the natural thing to do would be to move out of that area into an area where they would be able to access these resources. If many people move out of that area, there will be less people working and less of an economic productivity. Therefore, certain states would be weakened, leading to ethnic conflicts and other such violent things.
4. The liberal perspective of people as rational humans striving for their own self-interests would help me justify this argument. It is common sense to move out of an area in which you are not being able to live well. If I didn't have access to things like oil for my car, the logical thing for me to do would be to move to a state where i could get oil for my car. I would be behaving in a rational way that would in turn lead to certain states to become weak if everyone thought rationally, the way I do.
Malati
1:One of the main Globalizing issue facing us today is the uncontrollable outbreak of viruses and and incurable diseases.These issues breakdown our standard political borders they affect all of us no matter what our religion, ethnicity or social standing. These issues have to be addressed on the world stage.
ReplyDelete2: The UN does need to be in drivers seat to coordinate the actions that must happen to secure all our nations against these threats. However, they need the support of NGO's like the red cross/crescent and Doctors without borders. These NGO's should be responsible in establishing the first line of defense which is teaching people how to prevent diseases. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
3:The chart in chapter 10 of the Mignst book on International relations shows a clear perspective of the consequences of environmental scarcity. If you take the chart an apply to states such as Somalia, Rwanda and Zimbabwe you clearly see the route that these states have taken. In addition, you can predict the future of our states in similar circumstances.
4:The realist view brings this problem all together on "security from diseases" which leads to things like environmental scarcity. Self interest or survival are what drives the the actions applied to each part of Mingst's chart in chapter ten.
1- Human health issues are global concerns. In the past, transnational commerce and military movements as well as travel and immigration have helped spread diseases that may have otherwise remained localized. In the globalizing economy of the 21st century, travel has become more practical and in some ways, necessary. International military cooperation from U.N peacekeeping activities also might increase the likelihood of diseases spreading across international borders. With more industries competing in the global market, the incentive for some governments to downplay regulation and individual businesses to try to cut costs by using less cautious practices is higher. These factors contribute to the legitimate threat of diseases spreading on a global scale. If there is a serious pandemic,political and diplomatic rifts may occur over the allocation of vaccines and medicine. Global health issues can also affect the social perceptions of societies both towards one another and groups within. For example, when HIV began to spread in the U.S, much anger was directed at certain groups who were wrongly believed to have spread the disease and immigrants from certain countries where it was thought to have come from.
ReplyDelete2- In addition to the U.N system, multinational corporations, especially pharmaceutical companies, become important actors in dealing with global health issues. Private industries develop vaccines, medicine and other forms of treatment and conduct research- all crucial to the process.
3- The Homer-Dixon model does appear to make sense. That population growth, coupled with environmental scarcity leads to problems seems logical. Its also reasonable to assume that densely populated societies with declining economies will have a more difficult task in providing health care and dealing with disease. Unmet needs, if they don't directly cause conflict, probably at least, contribute it.
4- Realism supports the argument that environmental problems can lead to domestic conflict. According to realism, a state's security requires a strong population base, sufficient food sources, and a reliable natural resource base. If these conditions aren't met, state security will be jeopardized.
The Issue is that epidemics once they're started or spread they're often many casualties before the source is pinpointed or a vaccine is able to created. Many more people are traveling as well. Whether they be private citizens, military, or a Head of State more people in constant contact, aides in the spread. They don't adhere to boundaries. Some physically are unable to get to the vaccine. Due to things like, being too sick too travel,inability to pay for the vaccination due no health insurance, or even worse being underinsured. Thus being force to pay a portion they still can't afford. Today states are interconnected and interdependent, like never before. More actors participate then ever before. I The interaction amongst various international actors, Impacts of the changes on IR.
ReplyDeleteThe WHO is a very important organization in the prevention of the spreading of diseas however so are MNO such as the Red Cross and the Johnson and Johnson. The Education as far as, ways to prevent diseases such as HIV and AIDS is crucial. Many organizations such as Johnson and johnson help by funding research for cures for things like AIDS and advanced forms of cancer. In response to the third there is absolutely a relationaship between lack of resources, which span poverty and ignorance leading to conflict and competition for limited resources like adequate healthcare, education as well fair housing. Lastly, environmental scarcity, contributes to hyperviolent behavior when it comes to food shortages, and the fact that many of the populous has decided to move elsewhere to escape such ills.
Jonas D. Holt
PS2810
AIDS, SARS and other viruses are becoming globalizing issues. As individuals are being infected, economic development is being threatened. Once the epidemic has started, it will start spreading like crazy and affect millions of people each year. AIDS is affecting people in developing countries and that is why it is considered to be a globalizing issue. AIDS is also being considered a globalizing issue because it is affecting people in their primary productive years which makes it hard for people to work or have jobs that are helping the environment. AIDS just doesn't affect the person who is infected with it but it affects everyone around the person. Another reason Aids is becoming a global issue is because of people traveling. Some people may not know that they have been affected by the virus by traveling and will pass on to someone else without knowing. Symptoms will not appear in years so a person cannot know if they are affected by it unless they see a doctor. People who are affected by the virus can travel to another country and affect a person in one way or another which then that person will do the same thing and so on. Another reason aids is becoming a global issue is because medicine is so expensive that people who do have the virus cannot afford the treatment so therefore have to live with the disease and that's where it gets passed on from one person to another. The WHO is taking steps to help states create programs bring down the numbers of aids or to help in any way they can. If more programs are created and people start doing more, i believe that it won't be a global issue or at least the number of people who are being affected or will affect will start to decline.
ReplyDelete1. These health issues are considered global issues because the diseases know no boundaries. With our world becoming increasingly globalized, it it much easier for disease to spead to several countries very quickly. Many US citizens travel abroad for business and pleasure every day. They may come in contact with, then transmit deadly diseases, without even knowing they have it. While the Bubonic Plague followed trade routes, today there is no one route a disease could travel, it could spread to many countries all in one day.
ReplyDelete2. In addition to the UN's World Health Organization, there are some NGO's that also deal with global health issues. Doctors Without Borders is an example of an NGO which is comprised of physicians who work globally to fight major illness. There is also a group of citizens called the Global Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS who work globally. These roles have been increased because they offer a more personal support group feel for individuals living with these diseases.
3. The explanation of the chart 10.3 makes sense. I understand that people living in poorer areas cannot even have their basic need met, therefore disease would be more prevalent in those areas. The countries who waste and use excess are at fault since what these countries do does not fall in line with the common good. No good can come of waste in the have countries while there is still need in the have-not countries.
1. With our traveling capabilities an immense amount of imports and exports--the world is now an extremely small place. If an epidemic occurs in New Zealand, there is a very good chance that the disease could spread to Northern Canada. Diseases are definitely a global issue and they can easily spread from place to place.
ReplyDelete-Brent Stapleton
Antoinette Golston
ReplyDeleteGlobalizing issues
Three major globalizing issues are Health,the Environment, and Human Rights. When you look at these three issues independently you wonder how can these issues be on the radar globally. It has to do with globalization. In the past when certain groups were infected by something it stayed in that particular community. So, since technology has expanded globalization things have traveled and affected other parts of the world fast.
1.)These problems are considered global issue because if we do not protect ourselves as the human race we can end all civilization as we know it. For instance the disease aids. When I was a kid I was taught that people who had aids had caught it from Africa, then as I got a little older, I was told that homosexuals are the one's who are mostly likely to have aids, now all I here is that African Americans have the highest percentage rate in the demographic to carry aids. Within a fifteen year span Aids has expanded world wide.
2. The state should be a primary actor as well as the individual. It is the citizen's job to be responsible.
3.The relationship of health and environment can be a real problem socially because do not know how to respond to serious issues. If you have a health problem, majority of the people in civilization does not care about you. In fact that are easily persuaded to single you out. Another example is if you turn on the tv and see half way across the world that they are have a bad situation with the environment most people would turn the other cheek, as long as the situation does not effect them.
4.)There are many but, one that comes to mind is Machevelli.
1. The issue of health is not just one states problem. They are worldwide thing because if a person that has a disease and travels to a different country, that person would spread the disease to the new country. That would create an epidemic throughout the world. So borders could not stop the spread of an epidemic. 2. In the case of human health the UN does step in the issue. The state and pharmecutical corporations have become major actors in the epidemics. Elizabeth Lukowski
ReplyDelete1. They are global concerns because viruses do not respect international borders or are they selective in whom they affect communist, radical or libertarian; it’s all just a host to them. further more from a realist prospective, developed countries who border under-developed countries are more at risk, an under developed country with poor health services may not know that it has a pandemic until its completely uncontrollable. Thus spilling in to their neighbors borders with full force.
ReplyDelete2. in addition to the UN, doctors without borders and all doctors and nurses for that matter have become the first line of defense, our eyes, our ears and possibility our only hope. This means that countries with more doctors and more accessible health care are at less of a risk for a full blown pandemic because they can see it coming and have a heads up fixing the problem. Their roles have increased because their all we really have, they may be standing atop a mountain of bureaucrats from the health and human services secretary to the lowly lab techs, but they’re the only people who are able to find and treat health problems on an individual level.
3. Yes, the figure makes sense to me. It’s only logical that poor, under nourished, crowded people will get sicker and die more frequently than those who live in areas where they live a healthy life style and can afford prompt medical care. So, yes, the environment is a factor.
4. I think that the radical theory fits pretty well. the whole ideal of the rich profiting off suffering of poor people is pretty much a shoe in. looking how much is spent on prevention compared to treatment, there’s a lot of profits to be made, by the drug companies and even the charities that say they help, it the problem was solved everyone in that power elite area would be on the street.
joe puleo
ps2810