Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Adam Throne
Case Study #3
HIV/AIDS
Garrett’s “Ebola’s Lessons” deviates from Kendall W. Stiles’ support for a unilateral
international system focused on HIV/Aids. According to Stiles, the WHO serves as the essential
hybrid for connecting governments and individual scientists. Garrett argues that, although the
politicization of the health system indicates a concerning trend to individual realism on the
international level.
In her case study, Stiles breaks down the response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic into three
levels of analysis. Through this approach, she emphasizes the importance of an international
health system with the WHO at its head. At the individual level, potential victims and
researchers are responsible for stopping the spread of the pandemic. Civilians are able to stop
the spread of infection by engaging in safe health practices. However, in regions where the
external intervention. Scientists and pharmacists make contributions by developing cures and
publicizing details on the infections. Sadly, these individuals often prefer gaining wealth and
fame to developing a sustainable solution. On the national scale, governments possess the
funds to support campaigns against the pandemic. For example, George Bush provided a 15-
2
billion-dollar initiative in 2003. Yet, consumed by capitalist and realist strategies, human rights
often lose priority. Security interests influence the distribution of funds. Developing nations
with high rates of HIV/AIDS are not capable of preventing the spread of infection on their own.
Fortunately, international organizations serve as the link between individuals and governments.
Based in Geneva, the WHO connects diplomats and physicians with the intent of coordinating
policies, spreading information, and discovering breakthroughs. Stiles argues that this structure
has led to an increased appreciation of the importance of human security. It may be the heart
of a new liberal world order that provides human security in an otherwise anarchical world
In her analysis of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, Garrett supports stiles’ claim
about the important role of international organizations in health prevention. She criticizes the
framework of the World Health Organization itself, though. The World Health Organization has
taken its position of power for granted and, in doing so, has begun jockeying with other
influence that it has lost focus of its primary duty of providing expertise. Polarization within the
central structure has made the organization highly inefficient. Garrett would argue that Stiles
does not recognize the emergence of politics in the World Health Organization during the
1980’s AIDS epidemic. The biases on the individual level noted by Stiles regarding HIV/AIDS
carry into the national and international levels. This is particularly evident in publications by the
at the apex of an essential international sector should be a leader in liberal benevolence. The
3
WHO has sacrificed this role to support individual realist ideas. This downturn was manifested
in the inability of the international community to respond effectively to the Ebola outbreak.
I support Garrett’s belief that the WHO has developed towards egocentric realism since
the HIV/AIDS pandemic. However, I deduce that this trend is not isolated to the WHO or the
health sector in general. Global politics have fallen into a similar slump. As the global hegemon,
the United States is to the international system as the WHO is to healthcare. In the twenty-first
century, the United States has taken its position of power for granted. Education standards
have slipped, economic growth has slowed, and international relations have dismantled. Like
the WHO, the United States stood the unopposed leader of western policy during the latter half
of the twentieth century. The nation took the lead on the Marshall Plan and Cold War strategy.
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it seemed as though there was little political
opposition. However, there has recently been far more pressure from rising global powers
including Russia and China. Garrett would argue that the United States stagnancy is the result
of the same political disparity that exists in the framework of the WHO. Individual politicians
are so focused on personal agendas and self-advancement through the party system that they
fail to support the United States goal of continuous undisputed global leadership. An event has
yet to occur that threatens the United States like the Ebola outbreak threatened the WHO, but
it would not surprise me if one were to occur during the current administration. Although the
international system is trending on paper towards a liberal identity through organizations such
as the European Union and United Nations, the continuous pressure of realist objectives
threatens the ability for this structure to function. As long as realist strategies persist, a clear
4
leader must remain the balancing power. Like the WHO, the United States must settle internal
Garrett supports the idea presented by Stiles that a unilateral international health
system is the most effective format, but he argues that the WHO does not fulfill its position in
this role. Internal politics, realist desires, and polarity have caused the organization to become
ineffective since the outbreak of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. This escalated to an ineffective
response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak. I argue that the mindset which has limited the
functioning of the WHO is not isolated to the international level or healthcare. The United
States serves as a strong example of a nation which has been impacted by individual realism. In
order for the global political system to endure, politicians must become aware of this rising