I'm not sure if anyone else was intrigued by Matt's question during the NCDs presentation but it certainly struck me. What do you expect people to die from? I realize it is quite a bit philosophical but still a very worthwhile thought to ponder, even in the policy context in which it was brought up. While I see the point that I would assume the question originated from, that people have to die sometime, I think it touches on an important ethical vein within policy discussions we did not really discuss this semester, the motives of U.S. Policy.
If we can make such technological strides to give us advances like the iPhone and nanotechnology, shouldn’t we also use our continued scientific progress to help our fellow human beings live fuller, healthier lives? Now, I know that question seems a bit too altruistic but studies show that the American public feels U.S. foreign policy should be focused on national as well as the global interests. So why can’t we have both? I think the NCD team brought up a good point that while on the outside combating this issue seems like we are simply trying help suffering individuals with no help to ourselves, this is not the case; from a much broader perspective, we improve our image abroad, improve the quality of life and therefore economies of other countries, and produce a healthier working base worldwide.
So perhaps in the past, it was either serving national or global interest. However, in this globalized world, it seems altruism can go hand-in-hand with serving our natural interests. While the NCD presentation was criticized for not adhering to national interests enough nor addressing a relevant enough issue, I think this is quite the opposite. If we examine the NCD case from this global, big picture perspective, I think it was the most forward-thinking of all the policy recommendations. They were looking long-term at how inciting global change in the rest of the world can actually serve and strengthen national interests back home.
“It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.”
ReplyDeleteWhile Obi-Wan Kenobi wasn’t referring to globalization in “A New Hope,” I think that many of the points that you touched on illustrate just how globalization is a force that brings the galaxy (okay, maybe just the world) closer together. I agree that the NCDs team did a very good job of looking at the long-term effects of the U.S. supporting a Global NCD Initiative—Sure, on the surface, it might not be blatantly obvious that working to reduce heart disease in Korea or to prevent diabetes in Kenya can enhance our national security and economy. But by demonstrating to foreign nations that the U.S. is not a hegemonic power that is only interested in other countries’ A) natural resources and B) exploitatively cheap labor, but also C) the health and human development of their populations, the U.S. will win more allies in the long run. Furthermore, by supporting the health of people all over the world, the U.S. will assist making countries more productive which could lead to increased production, increased trade and potentially new trading partners, in addition to bolstering the GDP of other countries. It is difficult for one country to start a conflict with another country that is working to make its population more productive and help people earn a higher income. In this sense, altruism really does go hand-in-hand with strategic national interests, and I agree that approaching foreign policy from this angle will allow the U.S. to align global interests with its own national interests.
The fact that you quoted Obi-Wan Kenobi in that comment ... just made my day. Scratch that night.
ReplyDelete