soft power

Public health’s evolving role promoting U.S. military interests

Rudy OwensLeave a comment
The seal of the U.S. Department of Defense, representing seven branches of the U.S. military.
The seal of the U.S. Department of Defense, representing seven branches of the U.S. military.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) remains one of the most sophisticated media production machines on the planet. Its ubiquitous advertising filters into every aspect of our lives, from public schools to product placement in the lucrative gaming industry to traditional online ads.

In 2007 alone, according to a Rand Corp. study, the total recruiting budget for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps exceeded $3.2 billion. Rand Corp. analysts also deemed those investments as successful as measured by recruitment, even during two ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Events with military personnel always feature sophisticated press and social media coverage. One of the more nuanced and I think effective messages I have seen from the DoD is how the military is not just about defense, but about a more deeply and morally resonant “good.” The U.S. Navy’s very slick videos call the branch a “a global force for good,” and show Navy SEALs in action carrying that message.

This clip from a U.S. Navy recruiting video shows a successful branding effort by the U.S. Department of Defense to promote its global activities as a moral good, including special ops efforts by U.S. special forces
This clip from a U.S. Navy recruiting video shows a successful branding effort by the U.S. Department of Defense to promote its global activities as a moral good, including special ops efforts by U.S. special forces.

Helping to prop up that messaging is the country’s long-standing integration of public health services into the DoD and overall military readiness. The military is successfully integrating public health activities, and it is branding these as part of its global efforts, including on the new battlefield in Africa.

Through contracting opportunities that support these efforts, many U.S. based firms who specialize in development and traditional public health activities are actively supporting these initiatives, in order to monetize their own business models.

Chasing contracts serving two masters: public health and defense

I recently stumbled on a job posted on the American Public Health Association (APHA) LinkedIn page by a company called the QED Group, LLC. The position was similar to ones I see posted on their job site now, for work on a “monitoring and evaluation” project in Africa.

This is one of many government-contracting agencies that chase hundreds of millions of contracts with U.S. government agencies and the major public health funders like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In this case, the company was specifically targeting those in the public health community, who are entering the field or currently have positions with backgrounds in public health, economics, science, and health. The 15-year-old company itself actually began as a so-called 8(a) contractor, which means it could win no-bid and lucrative government contracts that are now the center of an ongoing and intense controversy over government waste. (These companies were created by the late Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who created the provision to steer billions in government contracting to Alaska Native owned firms that partner with companies like Halliburton and the Blackwater overseas and in the United States.)

QED Project in NorthAfrica
The company QED Group showcases its recent work evaluating anti-terrorism-related efforts in North Africa.

Today, QED Group, LLC claims “it is full-service international consulting firm committed to solving complex global challenges through innovative solutions” by providing clients “with best-value services so they increase their efficiency, learning capacity, and accountability to the public in an ever more complex and interconnected world.” It lists standard international development and public health contract areas of health, economic growth, and democracy and governance.

QED Group is not the only multi-purpose public health and development agency chasing military and global health contracts in Africa.  Another health contracting company called PPD boasts of its “long history of supporting the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s foremost medical research agency,” and that it was “awarded a large contract by the U.S. Army.” It claims its is also a “preferred provider to a consortium of 14 global health Product Development Partners (PDPs), funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”

As a public health professional, QED Group looks like a great company to join. However, if one scratches deeper, one learns that this company also uses its public health competencies with the U.S. military, which is spearheaded in Africa by U.S. Africa Command, or AFRICOM.  This raises larger questions of the conflicting ethics of both promoting human health and public health and also serving the U.S. Department of Defense, whose primary mission is to “deter war and to protect the security of our country.”

AFRICOM’s emerging role flexing U.S. power in Africa

AFRICOM’s demonstration of “hard power” is well-documented through its use of lethal firepower in Africa. AFRICOM is reportedly building a drone base in Niger and is expanding an already busy airfield at a Horn of Africa base in the tiny coastal nation of Djibouti. On Oct. 29, 2013, a U.S. drone strike took out an explosives expert with the al-Qaida-linked al-Shabaab terrorist group in Somalia, which had led a deadly assault at a Kenyan shopping center earlier that month.

One blog critical of the United States’ foreign policy, Law in Action, reports that the AFRICOM is involved in the A to Z of Africa.  “They’re involved in Algeria and Angola, Benin and Botswana, Burkina Faso and Burundi, Cameroon and the Cape Verde Islands. And that’s just the ABCs of the situation. Skip to the end of the alphabet and the story remains the same: Senegal and the Seychelles, Togo and Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia. From north to south, east to west, the Horn of Africa to the Sahel, the heart of the continent to the islands off its coasts, the U.S. military is at work.”

U.S. efforts in Africa require health, public health, and development experts. As it turns out the company, QED Group,  won a USAID contract examining U.S. efforts promoting “counter-extremism” programs in the Sahel. That study evaluated work using AFRICOM-commissioned surveys, all designed to promote U.S. national security interests in the unstable area.

The area is deeply divided between Christians and Moslems. It is also home to one of the largest al-Qaida based insurgencies known as al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, which has similar violent aspirations as the ultra-violent Boko Haram Islamic militant movement of violence-wracked northern Nigeria. Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb military seized control of Northern Mali in 2012, which ended when U.S.-supported French military forces invaded the country and routed the Islamic extremists in January 2013.

Public health’s historic role with U.S. defense and national security

“Hard power” and “soft power” are tightly intertwined in U.S. overseas efforts, where health and public health personnel support U.S. interests. This is true in Afghanistan and is certainly true in North Africa. This particular QED-led program used the traditional public health method of a program evaluation of an antiterrorism program to see if a USAID program was changing views in Mali, Niger and Chad—all extremely poor countries that are at the heart of a larger struggle between Islamists and the West.

That research methods used in public health–and which I have used to focus on health equity issues in Seattle–can be used equally well by U.S. development agencies to advance a national security agenda is not itself surprising.

However, faculty certainly did not make that case where I studied public health (the University of Washington School of Public Health). I think courses should be offered on public health’s role in national defense and international security activities, because it is nearly inevitable public health work will overlap with some form of security interests for many public health professionals, whether they want to accept this or not.

U.S. Public Health Service Corps members proudly serve their country and wear its uniforms.
U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps members proudly serve their country and wear its uniforms. This photo published on the corps’ web site demonstrates that pride.

Public health in the United States began as a part of the U.S. armed services, as far back as the late 1700s. It was formalized with the military title of U.S. Surgeon General in 1870. To this day those who enter the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps wear military uniforms and hold military ranks.

A good friend of mine who spent two decades in the Indian Health Service, one of seven branches in the corps, retired a colonel, or “full bird.” He always experienced bemusement when much larger and far tougher service personnel had to salute him when he showed his ID as he entered Alaska’s Joint Base Elmendorf Fort Richardson looking often like a fashion-challenged bum in his minivan (he frequently had to see patients on base, and was doing his job well).

The U.S. Public Health Corps' web site shows the different uniforms worn by their members.
The U.S. Public Health Service Commission Corps’ web site shows the different uniforms worn by its members.

The U.S. Army’s Public Health Command was launched in WWII, and it remains active today. One of its largest centers is Madigan Army Medical Center at Joint Base Lewis McChord, in Pierce County, Washington. Public Health activities are central to the success of the U.S. Armed Services, who promote population-based measures and recommendations outlined by HealthyPeople 2020 to have a healthy fighting force.

AFRICOM charts likely path for the future integration of public health and defense

Africom photo
This screen snapshot of an AFRICOM media file highlights the public health and health related efforts AFRICOM personnel undertake in the region, where military efforts are also underway to suppress and disrupt Islamic extremist groups.

Today, the U.S. military continues to use the “soft power” of international public health to advance its geopolitical interests in North Africa.  In April 2013, for example, AFRICOM hosted an international malaria partnership conference in Accra, Ghana, with malaria experts and senior medical personnel from eight West African nations to share best practices to address the major public health posed by malaria.

At last count, the disease took an estimated 660,000 lives annually,  mostly among African children.

At the event, Navy Capt. (Dr.) David K. Weiss, command surgeon for AFRICOM, said: “We are excited about partnering with the eight African nations who are participating. We’ll share best practices about how to treat malaria, which adversely impacts all of our forces in West Africa. This is a great opportunity for all of us, and I truly believe that we are stronger together as partners.”

I have reported on this blog before how AFRICOM and the United States will increasingly use global health as a bridge to advance the U.S. agenda in Africa. And global health and public health professionals will remain front and center in those activities, outside of the far messier and controversial use of drone strikes.

It is likely this soft and hard power mission will continue for years to come. Subcontractors like QED Group will likely continue chasing contracts with USAID related to terror threats. Global health experts will meet in another African capital to discuss major diseases afflicting African nations at AFRICOM-hosted events. And drones will continue flying lethal missions over lawless areas like Somalia and the Sahel, launching missiles at suspected terrorist targets.

Health interventions, the positive face of geopolitical engagement

Rudy OwensLeave a comment

On June 14, Tom Paulson’s insightful blog, Humanosphere, put the spotlight on U.S. military initiatives underway in Africa as part of a grander strategic focus the U.S. Government is placing on Africa, through the U.S. Africa Command called Africom. He raised concerns about the dual efforts of the U.S. Government. On one hand, it was expanding its covert operations, purportedly to root out so-called terrorism networks and promote and training activities in Africa by building bases stretching from Djibouti to Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, while at the same time trying to stomp out malaria, which kills about 600,000 Africans a year. According to a U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. DOD) press release, “Africom incorporates malaria prevention into much of its theater engagement, distributing mosquito nets and teaching new diagnostic techniques during training events throughout Africa.”

I think few could argue with the humanitarian goals of this type of health intervention, at least with some basic metrics. But in reality, health-related assistance usually has a broader function. Combining “hard” and “soft” power  is nothing new to geopolitics or the U.S. Government and its diplomatic, development, and military branches. The two often go hand in hand. Closer to home for most Americans, but still far away in the U.S. Arctic in communities along coastal Alaska, the U.S. Coast Guard has spent four years expanding its training activities and capacities in the Arctic to prepare for offshore oil drilling by Shell Oil Co. Production is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2012 in the U.S. portions of the Beaufort Sea, just north of one of America’s largest oilfield, Prudhoe Bay. Oil would then be shipped down the aging and half-empty Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS).

The Prudhoe Bay oildfield is one of United States richest oil producing areas, but its production is declining leading to offshore development.

The Coast Guard preceded its Arctic ramp-up with a much heralded health and logistics outreach, called Operation Arctic Crossroads, starting in 2009, to Alaska’s western coastal communities, such as Barrow and Kivalina. These were welcomed by the mostly Native residents and received high marks from nearly all quarters in Alaska. The Coast Guard is perhaps one of the most celebrated institutions in Alaska because of its humanitarian work saving countless lives and vessels, year after year, and because of the stellar reputation it has earned, demonstrated by its outstanding safety and rescue record. (I am a huge fan of the Coast Guard, if you cannot tell, having reported on their helicopter rescues numerous times as a reporter in Sitka, Ak., in 1993.) But the Coast Guard also has noted these outreach events in Alaska have been ultimately tied to the much larger issue of energy security and defense. The U.S. DOD reported “the Arctic has economic, energy and environmental implications for national security. Coast Guard missions there are increasing because Shell Oil Co. has permits to drill in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort seas beginning this summer.” The U.S. DOD further notes, “Shell will move 33 ships and 500 people to Alaska’s North Slope, and will helicopter some 250 people a week to drilling platforms.”

Deadhorse is the main landing area for the North Slope oil and gas production facilities in Alaska.
The coast of the Beaufort Sea holds significant oil reserves that Shell Oil Co. will begin tapping in the summer of 2012.

All told, Shell spent some $2.2 billion for offshore leases alone, not to mention millions in legal wrangling, government relations, PR, advocacy in Alaska and in DC, and much more since the mid-2000s. The New York Times estimates Shell spent $4 billion in its quest for one of the biggest oil prizes in North America outside of the Athabascan oil sands of Alberta and shale oil finds in North Dakota. (Shell also is drilling for natural gas in the Chukchi Sea this summer also.) The issues framing a stronger U.S. commitment in the Arctic are natural gas and oil resources and a so-called “race for resources,” as it has been described by some, which concerns rights to those resources on the Arctic Ocean seabed floor.

The U.S. Energy Information Agency claims that nearly a quarter of untapped oil and natural gas resources are in the Arctic basin, which explains the significant interest by the major multinational oil exploration companies in the shallow Arctic waters off Alaska’s North Slope. Companies like Shell and ConocoPhillips and others have been staking out their claims for years by buying controversial offshore drilling leases that have been sharply contested in protracted legal fights with environmental groups and Native Alaskan residents of the North Slope Borough (the Inupiat). The Inupiat residents,  who, while mostly supporting onshore development, are concerned about the threat an oil spill or blowout in pristine Arctic waters, similar to BP’s spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Some Inupiat resident say that would harm their subsistence hunting of migratory bowhead whales, which have been hunted and eaten by these historic Arctic residents for thousands of years.

A whaling ship rests in the Arctic summer sun in Barrow, on the coast of the Beaufort Sea.

What is clear is that interventions premised on health care will likely be part of a larger strategic framework of  nations as powerful as the United States. Those actions, no matter how well-intentioned to improve health care from Kivalina to Kenya, must be understood in a much larger context of any nation’s political and economic interests. This is particularly true regarding access to and the development of natural resources, wherever those resources may be.