Global health should be studied the same way we study peacekeeping, global governance and defense management.

Pandemic flu won the First World War – there were too many unplanned casualties following the attack from an unexpected enemy for which no sides of the war had effective defense mechanisms. Health has always been a part of ‘high politics’ – but while the flu didn’t get much attention for its role in the First World War, HIV, SARS and the recent flu pandemics have wiped away any doubts about the importance of global health in shaping foreign policy, international relations and human security.

International relations have been invaded by a range of health subjects that previously were blind spots: globalization, human rights, social determinants, social media, migration and international law.

Women live lives more dangerous than soldiers at war just because they give birth. Every year 200 million people end in extreme poverty because of catastrophic health expenditure for their illness. Every day 4,500 children die from simple and preventable diseases such as diarrhea while sanitation still receives less than 0.5 % of what is spent on aid in low income countries.

All of these deaths and suffering are the result of local and international political decisions. Decisions made contrary to what history has learnt us and contrary to what science tells us.

Most people will agree that health as a human right is vital to good politics and human security, yet States have consistently refused or ignored to include health on the list of basic rights.

An open world has been created by globalization and social media, but politicians and large international donors need to open their minds to the history and science of global health. The 186 years between discovering the Smallpox immunization and until the disease was eradicated, is a lesson in global health: science, as health, does not exist in a vacuum and depends deeply on brave sensible politics based on facts and historical evidence.

Today we can control a car driving around on Mars and drones can deliver ordered books directly to you within an hour – why is it then that hand washing, sanitation, maternal-child health and respect for history and scientific evidence is so difficult?

Maybe we have complicated matters by allowing global health to be defined and governed by a chaotic group of private donors, large funds and NGOs without regard to what human beings really need to be able to live a normal healthy life.

Most states, even when committed to health as a foreign policy goal, still make decisions primarily on the basis of the ‘high politics’ of national security and economic material interests. Development, human rights and ethical/moral arguments for global health support, the traditional ‘low politics’ of foreign policy, are present in dialogue but do not appear to control practice. While political drive for health as a foreign policy goal persists, the framing of this goal remains a disputed issue.

Narrow minds in an open world are what prevent global health from releasing its full potential among the poorest populations of the world. Homer Simpson shows us just how embarrassing our narrow minds are: “How come you guys can go to the moon but you can’t make my shoes smell good?”

Maybe it is not so difficult after all if we start with the smelly feet problems instead of looking for a fix behind the moon?

Condoms were invented in 1564 but still fail to be in the right place at the right time. Global health in an open world requires an open mind… and brave sensible politicians dealing with earthly matters.

This is a summary of Morten Sodemann’s contribution to the An Open World – Niels Bohr Conference. Download the full-text speech here.