Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Week 1 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Marco Rubio - Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women's Health and Strengthening the Family
        
        no abortion as method of family planning
        
        37 signatories
        
        Brazil
        
        Egypt
        
        Indonesia
        
        Uganda
        
        challenging UN international right to abortion
    - - like "Cairo compromise" 1994
        
        prioritization of maternal health over comprehensive sexual and reproductive
        
        "Any compromise to the tools we have to protect women's health will be damaging and is a politically naive move. The global right is already establishing a new world order"
    - - transnational partnerships
      - leadership of global south advocates
      - investigative journalists
  - - - even if they do it with their own funds that don't come from US
  - - - LGBTQ+
      - gender
  - - - Guttmacher
  - - - strengthen domestic laws on comprehensive sex ed
      - sexual/reproductive health rights
      - advocate for decriminalization of abortion
- - - - who should provide advice
      - policies/models + enforcement
      - WHO proxy battles
        
        China/US
  - - - authors disagree
        
        political solutions needed to achieve international cooperation
        
        diplomatic entry points
  - - - operates in a political environment of anarchy (1229)
        
        has no direct authority over MSs
        
        "seeks to claim authority on the basis of performative leadership, normative public health expertise and technical guidance." (1229)
        
        these soft tools used as 'defensive shield' against political attention
        
        even though WHO is inherently political
      - public health scholars identify two areas to improve state capacity to respond
        
        leadership
        
        governance
        
        also transparency and accountability
        
        performance in these areas not measured very accurately
        
        "while transparent and coordinated leadership and governance will assist during any emergency response domestically, a leadership or governance checklist will not always tell us how a state will ‘play’ with others in the global system, perhaps especially at time of crisis—as shown by the Global Health Security Index, which placed the United States in the lead for outbreak preparedness." (1234)
        
        "a state’s capacity to meet the IHR has been separated from its political, economic, diplomatic and human rights positionality. As the COVID-19 outbreak clearly shows, the WHO’s attempt to ascertain state capacity primarily through public health indicators neglects the range of historic, economic, political and social institutions that support state implementation of the IHR (and indeed any international legal instrument)" (1236)
        
        governments within states change - will act differently in terms of health priorities
        
        missing assessment of the "two-level game of diplomacy and domestic politics" (1234)
        
        China and US
        
        via WHO adherence/interactions
        
        need IR-informed understanding of why states delegate agency to coordinate public health responses to WHO (1234)
        
        states normally try to maintain independent agency so important to study when they choose collective action instead
        
        delegate authority to separate organizations
        
        international crisis may create 'we feeling' (1236)
        
        mutual sympathy/loyalty/trust and responsiveness in decision making - global response to covid19
    - - decisions/technical policy coordination
      - global landscape
        
        Global Health Security Index misses nuance
        
        further IR analysis needed
        
        absense of IR from WHO is problematic
        
        political effects of representation, power, inclusion - who gets a seat at the decision making table in a pandemic crisis is based on who is known/respected by the key team not based on fair political representation (1233)
        
        has failed to understand political problem solving skills needed understand behaviour of sovereign MSs (1237)
      - identify diplomatic entry points
        
        economic
        
        geopolitical
        
        political
        
        create a Politics in Health Emergencies provision (1238)
        
        comparative analysis
        
        independent review of states' response to Covid
        
        constructive understanding of when/why states might no comply with travel/trade recomentdations
        
        money: who is paying
        
        information/digital politics
        
        where are the women?
- - - - most impact on low-income countries - disease rates
        
        sub-saharan Africa
        
        HIV
        
        malaria
        
        not able to fill funding gap
      - global immunisation programs suffer
      - NGOs relying on US grants suffer
      - UN agency cuts
        
        World Food Program
        
        planned cuts 6,000 positions after facing a 40% reduction in funding
        
        UNAIDS
        
        restructuring plan: reduce its staff by 54% - discussed plans to close its secretariat by 2030
      - conflict zones
        
        Gaza
        
        Sudan
      - politicization of aid
        
        Dielman
        
        leader of health resource tracking team - Institute for Health metrics and Evaluation IHME
        
        "On a global scale, development assistance for health was almost universally accepted as a good thing—it wasn't politically controversial,"
        
        vs. now very political (not just US but global phenomenon)
        
        predicts this will be the new normal
    - - Finland
        
        11% - $14.9 million
      - France
        
        33% - $555.1 million
      - Germany
        
        12% - $304.5 million
      - UK
        
        39% - $796.1 million
      - counties increasing assistance:
        
        Nigeria
        
        extra $200 mill
        
        Australia
        
        toward strategically important countries - Pacific/Southeast Asia
        
        away from Global Fund
        
        HIV
        
        TB
        
        3%
        
        Japan
        
        2%
        
        South Korea
        
        4%
        
        China - additional contribution to DAH after US cut