Both the theory and practice of foreign policy and diplomacy, including systems of hard and soft power, are undergoing paradigm shifts, with an increasing number of innovative actors and strategies contributing to international relations outcomes in the 'New World Order'. Concurrently, global health programmes continue to ascend the political spectrum in scale, scope and influence. This concatenation of circumstances has demanded a re-examination of the existing and potential effectiveness of global health programmes in the 'smart power' context, based on adherence to a range of design, implementation and assessment criteria, which may simultaneously optimise their humanitarian, foreign policy and diplomatic effectiveness. A synthesis of contemporary characteristics of 'global health diplomacy' and 'global health as foreign policy', grouped by common themes and generated in the context of related field experiences, are presented in the form of 'Top Ten' criteria lists for optimising both diplomatic and foreign policy effectiveness of global health programmes, and criteria are presented in concert with an examination of implications for programme design and delivery. Key criteria for global health programmes that are sensitised to both diplomatic and foreign policy goals include visibility, sustainability, geostrategic considerations, accountability, effectiveness and alignment with broader policy objectives. Though diplomacy is a component of foreign policy, criteria for 'diplomatically-sensitised' versus 'foreign policy-sensitised' global health programmes were not always consistent, and were occasionally in conflict, with each other. The desirability of making diplomatic and foreign policy criteria explicit, rather than implicit, in the context of global health programme design, delivery and evaluation are reflected in the identified implications for (1) international security, (2) programme evaluation, (3) funding and resource allocation decisions, (4) approval systems and (5) training. On this basis, global health programmes are shown to provide a valuable, yet underutilised, tool for diplomacy and foreign policy purposes, including their role in the pursuit of benign international influence. A corresponding alignment of resources between 'hard' and 'smart' power options is encouraged.

Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 pandemic is not the first and most frightening global pandemic, and it may not be the last. At the very least, this phenomenon has though seriously challenged the health systems of the world; it has created a new perspective on the value of national, regional, and international cooperation during crises. The post-coronavirus world could be a world of intensified nationalist rivalries on the economic revival and political influence. However, strengthening cooperation among nations at different levels will lead to the growth of health, economy, and security. The current situation is a touchstone for international actors in coordinating the efforts in similar future crises. At present, this pandemic crisis cannot be resolved except through joint international cooperation, global cohesion, and multilateralism. This perspective concludes that the pandemic could be an excellent opportunity for the scope of global health diplomacy (GHD) and how it can be applied and practiced for strengthening five global arenas, namely (1) International Cooperation and Global Solidarity, (2) Global Economy, Trade and Development, (3) Global Health Security, (4) Strengthening health systems, and (5) Addressing inequities to achieve the global health targets. GHD proves to be very useful for negotiating better policies, stronger partnerships, and achieving international cooperation in this phase with many geopolitical shifts and nationalist mindset among many nations at this stage of COVID-19 vaccine roll-out.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are an essential element of functioning and accountable global health programmes. In post-conflict settings, the role of M&E systems is also critical to ensure that health services are being delivered to those populations and regions most in need. Given the inherent challenges of health service delivery in such environments, a range of both diplomatic and operational adaptations to M&E procedures are necessary. Using the '12 components' of a functioning M&E system as a conceptual and analytical framework, we observed and reviewed the key challenges to M&E systems in South Sudan as part of a broader review of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) activities supported by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Based on additional interview-based reviews and analyses of M&E activities, a list of adaptations to standardized M&E procedures in response to post-conflict environmental challenges was developed. The study concludes that development and implementation of M&E systems in post-conflict environments requires extensive adaptations to conventional procedures. Flexible and adaptable as well as 'diplomatically sensitized' M&E systems are considered to be essential to the successful completion of M&E-related activities, and may also contribute to broader international relations, 'nation-building', and peace-keeping goals.

No abstract

BackgroundStudy-based global health interventions, especially those that are conducted on an international or multi-site basis, frequently require site-specific adaptations in order to (1) respond to socio-cultural differences in risk determinants, (2) to make interventions more relevant to target population needs, and (3) in recognition of ‘global health diplomacy' issues. We report on the adaptations development, approval and implementation process from the Project Accept voluntary counseling and testing, community mobilization and post-test support services intervention.MethodsWe reviewed all relevant documentation collected during the study intervention period (e.g. monthly progress reports; bi-annual steering committee presentations) and conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with project directors and between 12 and 23 field staff at each study site in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Thailand and Tanzania during 2009. Respondents were asked to describe (1) the adaptations development and approval process and (2) the most successful site-specific adaptations from the perspective of facilitating intervention implementation.ResultsAcross sites, proposed adaptations were identified by field staff and submitted to project directors for review on a formally planned basis. The cross-site intervention sub-committee then ensured fidelity to the study protocol before approval. Successfully-implemented adaptations included: intervention delivery adaptations (e.g. development of tailored counseling messages for immigrant labour groups in South Africa) political, environmental and infrastructural adaptations (e.g. use of local community centers as VCT venues in Zimbabwe); religious adaptations (e.g. dividing clients by gender in Muslim areas of Tanzania); economic adaptations (e.g. co-provision of income generating skills classes in Zimbabwe); epidemiological adaptations (e.g. provision of ‘youth-friendly’ services in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Tanzania), and social adaptations (e.g. modification of terminology to local dialects in Thailand: and adjustment of service delivery schedules to suit seasonal and daily work schedules across sites).ConclusionsAdaptation selection, development and approval during multi-site global health research studies should be a planned process that maintains fidelity to the study protocol. The successful implementation of appropriate site-specific adaptations may have important implications for intervention implementation, from both a service uptake and a global health diplomacy perspective.