BackgroundChina has experienced unprecedented economic growth since the 1980s. Despite this impressive economic development, this growth exists side by side with the human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) crises and the persisting deficiencies in public health provision in China. Acknowledging the prevailing health problems, the Chinese government has encouraged the development of health non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to respond to the health challenges and address the gaps in public health provision of the government. HIV/AIDS-focused NGOs have been perceived as the most outstanding civil society group developed in China. Considering the low priority of health policies since the economic reform, the limitation of the “third sector” activity permitted in authoritarian China, together with the political sensitivity of the HIV/AIDS problem in the country, this article aims to explain the proliferation of HIV/AIDS-focused NGOs in China with the usage of the securitization framework in the field of international relations (IR).MethodsThe research that underpins this article is based on a desk-based literature review as well as in-depth field interviews with individuals working in HIV/AIDS-focused NGOs in China. Face-to-face interviews for this research were conducted between January and May in 2011, and between December 2016 and January 2017, in China. Discourse analysis was in particular employed in the study of the security-threat framing process (securitization) of HIV/AIDS in China.ResultsThis article argues that the proliferation of HIV/AIDS-related NGOs in China is largely attributed to the normative and technical effects of HIV/AIDS securitization ushered in by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and supported by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (hereinafter Global Fund) observed in China. Despite depicting a positive scenario, the development of HIV/AIDS-focused NGOs in China generated by the international securitization efforts is largely limited. An internal and external factor was identified to verify the argument, namely (1) the reduction of international financial commitments, as well as (2) the fragmentation of HIV/AIDS-focused NGO community in China.ConclusionsThis article shows that international securitization weakened with the rise of Chinese commitment on HIV/AIDS interventions. In other words, HIV/AIDS-related responses delivered by the national government are no longer checked by the global mechanism of HIV/AIDS; thus it is unclear whether these NGOs would remain of interest as partners for the government. The fragmentation of the HIV/AIDS community would further hinder the development, preventing from NGOs with the same interest forming alliances to call for changes in current political environment. Such restriction on the concerted efforts of HIV/AIDS-related NGOs in China would make achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to foster stronger partnerships betwee...

In the closing decade of the 20th century the myriad challenges posed by infectious disease in a globalized environment began to be re-conceptualized as threats to national and human security. The most widely applied model for identifying and responding to such threats is securitization theory, as proposed by the Copenhagen School. Although its analytical framework is generally accepted, its utility remains contested; especially in non-European and non-state settings. The papers in this special edition have several aims: (1) to analyse ways by which Asian states and international organizations have identified health challenges as security threats, (2) to draw upon the securitization model as a way of understanding the full extent to which these states and international organizations have responded to the health threat, and (3) to identify areas where the theory might be strengthened so as to provide greater analytical clarity in areas of health security. This paper acts as a broad introduction to a set of papers on 'Unhealthy governance' and explores some of the key findings from the subsequent papers.

This article has two objectives. Drawing on the framework provided by macrosecuritization, this article first explores global responses to AMR. Secondly, in shifting the analytical lens to Asia, the article then evaluates how successful this process has been in a regional context. Considering the two objectives, two inter-related arguments are proposed. First, even though AMR can be considered a quintessential and successful macrosecuritization case at the global level, within Asia the operationalisation of AMR strategies is limited by power and resource politics within the states. Second, the anthropocentric nature of health security is limited when it comes to address the threat posed by AMR. Overcoming this limitation requires a One Health approach. However, the successful articulation of this approach has proven challenging in Asia where middle-level actors pull away from the process in pursuit of other agendas. As a result, while macrosecuritization provides a useful tool for understanding how AMR and similar health threats are addressed, it is necessary to understand the local realities within which the process is embedded.

No abstract

No abstract