Health and human security: Core to national and global stability
Historically, health has been treated as a sectoral concern – important, but peripheral to the machinery of national and global security. Covid-19 shattered that illusion. The pandemic closed borders, disrupted economies, strained defence forces and exposed governance limits across every region. It proved decisively that health challenges are not isolated – they are systemic and profoundly strategic.
To place health in its rightful context, we must turn to the broader concept of human security. This framing situates health within the multiple dimensions that shape people’s safety, dignity and resilience – including economic, food, environmental, personal, and community and political security. In this view, health is not an isolated silo but part of an interdependent web of risks and protections.
Importantly, this is not about securitising health. Rather, it is about ensuring that health is understood as a foundation of societal stability – and, by extension, a core national interest. This framing matters because it enables better engagement across sectors. It allows health to be discussed in the same strategic space as defence, foreign affairs, finance, cyber and trade. It supports whole-of-government investment in the determinants of health and is, in essence, a more urgent and strategic way to reaffirm their critical role in an era of intersecting crises.
Interconnected threats
The accompanying diagram, developed by Tracy Smart, former surgeon general of the Australian Defence Force, makes this architecture of interconnected security dimensions visible and compelling.
These threats are not theoretical. The convergence of armed conflict, Covid-19 and the climate crisis – the three ‘Cs’ – has shown the world the urgency of this shift. In the early stages of the pandemic, naval deterrence capabilities in countries such as the United States and France were impaired when aircraft carriers were temporarily withdrawn from deployment due to major outbreaks onboard. Some governments, including Germany, moved to block or scrutinise foreign acquisition of strategic biotech firms. Basic personal protective equipment and medications became unavailable due to supply chain dependency and export restrictions. Later in the crisis, disinformation campaigns and cyberattacks targeting hospitals and research systems further eroded public trust in health authorities.
Meanwhile, defence assets in many countries have been repeatedly called upon to manage climate-related disasters and disease outbreaks. This is not sustainable. In Australia, the Defence Strategic Review 2023 concluded that defence should not become the default national disaster response force. The implication is clear: using military assets to fill chronic gaps in civil systems is a sign of institutional strain. Health systems must be reimagined as critical national infrastructure requiring sustained investment – not fallback institutions activated only in times
of crisis.
A critical investment
Beyond the operational strain, health investments carry serious geopolitical weight. The early stages of the Covid-19 response were marked by deep fractures in global solidarity. While some countries moved swiftly to secure their own supplies, many low- and middle-income countries were left waiting – triggering tensions over vaccine nationalism and hoarding. Multilateral efforts to share doses came too late for many, reinforcing distrust and widening global inequities. At the same time, China and Russia deployed vaccine aid strategically, using donations and supply contracts to expand diplomatic and economic influence across Latin America, Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East.
These dynamics underscored a strategic truth – that investing in health not only protects a common good, but is also a lever of soft power, influence and long-term positioning in global affairs.
Security planners are increasingly aware that future threats to the national interest are as likely to be biological, environmental or societal as they are military. Antimicrobial resistance, food insecurity, cyberattacks, digital disinformation and armed conflict all sit at the nexus of health, governance and security.
What does strategic investment in health look like in this environment?
It means recognising public health infrastructure as critical infrastructure. It means integrating health risks into national security planning and cyber resilience strategies. It means financing systems not just to respond, but to anticipate, prevent and recover. And, above all, it means restoring and maintaining public trust – a vital asset that was deeply eroded during the pandemic, as fragmented coordination and inconsistent messaging undermined confidence in institutions. Without trust, no crisis response can succeed.
In a fractured world, human security offers a useful compass. But its promise must be matched by political and financial commitment. Health is not a peripheral issue. It is one of the most reliable indicators of how secure a society truly is – and one of the most powerful tools we have to prevent conflict, rebuild trust and shape a more stable future.
