The World Health Summit, a crucial global event held in Berlin from October 15-17 against the backdrop of devastating wars, brought together key figures from the field of international health. Participants included the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), diplomats, policy makers and leaders of organizations such as UNICEF, UNFPA, the World Bank, the World Medical Organization, USAID and the European Commission, as well as representatives from the G7 and G20 health and development partnerships. This annual summit, held in Berlin since 2009, centered its discussions around the theme “A defining year for global health action”. The deliberations were not only informative and inspiring, but also refreshingly frank, striking a chord with those who shared similar experiences.
This candor played a central role in addressing the summit’s overarching focus on global health equity.
The summit agenda included a wide range of panels addressing critical themes. These included topics such as human-centered health coverage, developing effective financing models for healthcare through public-private partnerships, initiatives to narrow the equality gap between gender through a women’s health program and the unveiling of the Equity 30 Alliance. This alliance aims to empower women and girls by creating opportunities for self-care. Other focal points included promoting health systems in conflict-affected regions, understanding race dynamics in global public health, innovations in mental health care to close the treatment gap , advances in new technologies and digital healthcare, pandemic preparedness, region-specific information for global needs. health policy (including the Asia-Pacific perspective), academic-community collaborations, the role of national health institutions in connecting research with evidence-based public policy and avenues for global cooperation.
The debate over global health equity, particularly as it relates to race and partnerships involving academia, has proven both difficult and essential. Loyce Pace, assistant secretary for global public affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, acknowledges the difficulty of discussions about race, but emphasizes their necessity. Amid the positive successes of the COVID-19 pandemic, Pace warns against rewriting history, citing a long-standing trend whereby innovations accessible in wealthier countries are not being extended to wealthier countries. poor – a trend evident even in recent responses to the pandemic. This echoes a historical exploitation of natural and human resources in less wealthy countries by their wealthier counterparts, perpetuated through centuries of colonialism. Pace, emphasizing the absence of a racially neutral world in his experience, advocates the articulation of unspoken truths, including the continuation of colonial practices within Western academia. This includes erasing the work done by women, racial minorities and individuals from the Global South, particularly those with relatively less power – a sentiment echoed by academic colleagues who have faced similar challenges.
In my own journey, one example is a panel I hosted in my area of expertise, featuring national and international experts, all women, with a majority women of color. These were not only regional experts, but also thematic authorities, focusing on a topic specifically related to women’s experiences. These panelists have testified on high-level foreign affairs committees, served as diplomats, invented terminology, and made significant contributions to teaching, writing, research, and policy engagements. A senior colleague astutely observed that the white male senior director of the international policy unit had singularly referred to himself as the academic expert in describing the event. This inquiry was reiterated by a co-panelist, raising the question: “So gender, race, and power don’t matter in universities?” » I received nearly a dozen screenshots revealing that even presentations from women of color faculty and external experts had also credited him only as an expert.
In trying to find a diplomatic solution, I offered various explanations, such as pointing out that another center had recognized me as an academic expert for a political debate. In my efforts, I praised him to the public and shared his verbal and written appreciation of my expertise and contributions. Despite my attempts, the response was a skeptical: “How convenient.” The underlying feeling highlighted the apparent imbalance: he retained the position of expert, while I, in the event of a problem, would bear the consequences.
When I was a faculty advisor for a policy research project, the question resurfaced, regardless of its accuracy. In one case, only two white women leading similar projects received public recognition and, in one case, broad recognition for their work and leadership. Interestingly, the government’s own project description recognizes our work as advisors, without any apparent discrimination based on rank, race or citizenship. Throughout the process, from liaising with policy makers to over a semester of collaboration with the student team, involving teaching, guiding research, sharing readings, conducting meetings and coaching for presentations, the disparity in recognition became evident.
In a broader context, animals, including organizational animals, exhibit various behaviors driven by different motives: cunning foxes and insects with a tendency to bite. Although I have exercised my discretion on specific issues for the benefit of my institutions, my colleagues, and my friends, the larger problem concerns hierarchical and exploitative practices within academia. The appropriation or erasure of the extensive, unpaid work of some employees, juxtaposed with the foregrounding of others, is not only dehumanizing but also takes on a different resonance for individuals with diverse histories, proving quite traumatic. This aligns with the summit’s discussion of the stress and trauma inflicted on vulnerable individuals and communities due to extractive practices, a discussion that intersects with issues of gender, race, citizenship, and community-university partnerships. It is worth noting that as the latest Inclusiveness Index ranks the United States 118th in racial inclusion, these concerns take on heightened importance. Unfortunately, confusion arises when a few influential white individuals, focusing on the Global South, engage in such practices and receive vigorous promotion from their institutions. The unethical response is to use institutional platforms to perpetuate harassment, intimidation and threats. Rather, the ethical response – especially considering that these acts of exploitation are not isolated incidents – is to engage in self-reflection and implement necessary course corrections.
To conclude the summit, the final day rightly focused on leadership, with sessions dedicated to effective health system leaders. The primary objective was to improve the quality of life and well-being of populations.
The WHO, citing a youth leader, highlighted the fundamental link between the health of all and the achievement of peace and security, emphasizing the central role of good leadership. In the context of democracy, recognizing disagreement is inherent, recognizing that not everyone can lead on every issue. For global institutions, it is essential that leaders refrain from erasing or devaluing the work and humanity of their less powerful institutional colleagues, regardless of their identity. This extends to local community experts and international partners, highlighting the need for leaders whose commitment to ethics goes beyond just a word on their professional profile.
