Mental Health Cyberdiplomacy in the Age of Algorithmic Trauma
What if the most potent threats to mental health no longer emerge from violence—but from the screens we hold in our hands? As digital weapons evolve to target not just systems but minds, mental health diplomacy must either transform—or become obsolete. The global mental health community can no longer afford to treat cyberspace as outside its remit. Psychological warfare is no longer metaphorical. It is algorithmic, ambient, and deliberate—disabling not the body, but the will. In my article “Advancing global mental health diplomacy through a rights-based approach”, published in The Lancet Psychiatry (Volume 12, Issue 4, pp. 247–249, April 2025), I proposed a redefinition of global mental health diplomacy—shifting it from ad hoc technical cooperation toward a strategic, rights-based pillar of international relations. I argued that diplomacy for mental health must not only promote service access, but protect psychological integrity, uphold dignity, and reinforce system-wide resilience. That article laid the foundation. But it is in the digital terrain that this diplomacy now finds its most urgent frontier. Mental health cyberdiplomacy is the next step. It responds to a new class of threat—where trauma is no longer transmitted only through direct violence, but through information flows engineered to destabilise, disorient, and divide. This is no longer about technology alone. It is about how trauma travels, how trust dissolves, and how fear is weaponised—not just across borders, but across timelines, across generations. Traditionally, cyberdiplomacy has focused on infrastructure, sovereignty, and the governance of data flows. It was never built to address psychological safety. Yet in today’s digital theatre, emotional disruption has become an instrument of statecraft. Disinformation campaigns, synthetic media, and algorithmic manipulation are now deployed to fracture perception, destabilise identity, and erode public sanity. Minds are no longer merely influenced—they are targeted. Emotions are triggered at scale. And the consequences for mental health are no longer speculative. We are witnessing the rise of a new psychological condition: geopolitical anxiety—a state of digitally mediated distress induced not by direct exposure to violence, but by ambient proximity to crisis. Endless feeds of war, collapse, and catastrophe create a recursive sense of helplessness. People are not merely observing the world unravel—they are experiencing it internally. Clinical symptoms—emotional numbing, sleep disruption, suicidal ideation—are surfacing among those never physically near the trauma. This is a new category of harm: cumulative, distributed, and algorithmically delivered. Some institutions have begun to recognise this mental toll. There are cautious moves toward regulating harmful content, improving digital literacy, or embedding psychosocial elements into public discourse. But these efforts remain fragmented. They are reactive rather than strategic. They respond to symptoms, not systems. They signal awareness, but lack cohesion, scope, and diplomatic reach. What emerges is not a framework—but a vacuum. Mental health cyberdiplomacy does not describe what already exists. It proposes what must. We need a new diplomatic architecture—one that embeds psychological protection into the governance of cyberspace. This architecture must be multidimensional and anticipatory. It must operate across four strategic axes: Representation – Mental health must be positioned at every cybernorm table: from the UN Open-Ended Working Group to the Global Digital Compact. Psychological safety must be recognised as a pillar of digital governance, no less than infrastructure integrity or data protection. Accountability – Platforms and algorithms must be held to standards that prevent the amplification of trauma and the normalisation of emotional harm. Independent auditing, algorithmic transparency, and trauma-informed digital design must become standard, not exceptional. Law – Psychological operations that intentionally destabilise populations must be named and framed as violations of international law. This is not merely cybercrime. It is psychological targeting. And its costs are collective. Resilience – Cognitive preparedness, emotional immunity, and digital mental health literacy must be embedded into education, civic infrastructure, and crisis response. These are not soft skills. They are core elements of democratic durability. Mental health cyberdiplomacy must operate across the full arc of crisis: preparing systems before conflict, defending psychological integrity during it, and supporting trauma-informed recovery afterward. It must be present where systems are stressed, where fragmentation is accelerating, and where minds become theatres of geopolitical contestation. The foundations are already in place. The WHO QualityRights framework, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and the WHO Mental Health Action Plan articulate a vision of rights-based, person-centred mental health systems. My Lancet Psychiatry article called for these tools to be interpreted not only as health policy instruments, but as diplomatic assets—capable of shaping global norms and enabling systemic protection against psychological harms. But without an extension into the cyber domain, that protection remains incomplete. Unprocessed trauma is not neutral. It compounds over time. It corrodes public trust, destabilises institutions, and accelerates radicalisation. In an era defined by ambient fear and engineered outrage, defending the mind is no longer a clinical concern. It is a geopolitical imperative. This is not about sanitising the internet or regulating emotion. It is about preserving the conditions that make peace and democracy viable. In a hyperconnected world, the battlefield is cognitive. And in that battlefield, mental health is no longer a background issue. It is a strategic domain. Diplomacy must evolve to meet that reality—not incrementally, but systemically. If we fail to embed psychological protection into the infrastructure of our digital societies, we risk raising a generation fluent in fear, numbed to violence, and uncertain of what is real. We have built firewalls to defend our systems. Now we must build firewalls to protect our minds—from manipulation, from fragmentation, and from algorithmic despair. This strategic evolution also informs the development of MHPSS-C—Mental Health and Psychosocial Support integrated with Cyberresilience—a new operational model I have proposed to address the intersection of psychological vulnerability and digital threat. The framework, detailed in a forthcoming policy brief, aims to operationalise protection where trauma, code, and cognition now converge. Mental health cyberdiplomacy begins here—not as a reaction, but as a new logic. Not as a commentary, but as a call to reimagine how we safeguard the human condition in the digital age. About The
From Policy to Action: Strengthening Alcohol Control Efforts in the Philippines
Alcohol consumption is a major public health concern, contributing to significant economic, social, and health-related burdens worldwide. With approximately 3 million deaths annually, alcohol accounts for 5.3% of global mortality and 5% of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). The consequences of alcohol use extend beyond the individual, affecting communities, families, and healthcare systems. Alcohol is linked to various health conditions, including injuries, digestive disorders, and cardiovascular diseases. Young adults aged 20 to 39 are especially vulnerable, making up 14% of alcohol-attributable deaths. The global burden of diseases related to alcohol accounts for 5.1% of all diseases and injuries worldwide. Furthermore, alcohol-related harm extends beyond the drinker, affecting families, communities, and society at large. Beyond its health implications, alcohol consumption poses a substantial economic burden. The costs associated with alcohol-related harms contribute to financial losses, increased healthcare expenditures, and productivity declines. Studies suggest that the economic costs of alcohol-related harm account for approximately 0.01% of a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Research also indicates that higher alcohol consumption correlates with a greater disease burden, highlighting the need for stronger preventative measures to mitigate its rising economic impact. Moreover, alcohol consumption is linked to various social issues, including absenteeism, domestic violence, community disturbances, and increased mortality. It can also impose a significant burden on families, affecting the emotional, financial, and psychological well-being of caregivers, particularly spouses. Countries worldwide implement various policy interventions to address alcohol-related harms. The World Health Organization also released guidelines on how to implement alcohol control initiatives within member states such as the SAFER initiative, which encompasses the five most cost-effective interventions for reducing alcohol harm. The SAFER initiative includes activities that aim to: Strengthen restrictions on alcohol availability; Advance and enforce drink driving counter measures; Facilitate access to screening, brief interventions and treatment; Enforce bans or comprehensive restrictions on alcohol advertising, sponsorship and promotion; and, Raise prices on alcohol through excise taxes and pricing policies. Taking the Philippines as an example, it has been identified that cultural norms, aggressive marketing, and public health challenges contribute to high alcohol consumption rates. Among young people, alcohol preferences are often influenced by product type and pricing. Alarmingly, alcohol marketing has also been linked to an increase in drunkenness among students. The Philippine government has implemented several alcohol control laws such as: Sin Tax Reform Law (RA 10351), was legislated in December 2012, with the dual goals of (1) curbing cigarette and alcohol consumption, and (2) raising funds to finance the implementation of Universal Health Care (UHC) activities, programs to meet Developmental Goals, and viable alternative livelihood for tobacco farmers. Excise Taxes on Alcohol and E-Cigarettes (RA 11467), passed in 2020, increased the excise taxes on alcohol products, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), and heated tobacco products (HTPs). The additional revenue funds the Universal Health Care (UHC) efforts such as additional medical assistance and support to local governments, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act (RA 10586), enacted in 2013, penalized the acts of driving under the influence of alcohol, dangerous drugs, and other intoxicating substances. However, there are estimates, through the Philippines’ national nutrition survey, that the number of adolescents (aged 10-19 years old) who consume alcohol monthly has doubled from 2021 to 2023 – citing an alcohol epidemic within the country. This highlights a need to evaluate the current efforts and policies targeted towards reducing alcohol consumption. One of the reasons why policy efforts to reduce alcohol consumption in the Philippines face significant challenges may be the deep-rooted ties between alcohol companies and the national government. Major alcohol producers are not only key players in the beverage industry but also prominent contributors to national infrastructure projects, donation drives, and other corporate social responsibility initiatives. This likely influences major policy decisions, often tilting the scales in favor of these corporations when it comes to regulating alcohol marketing and consumption. Despite these challenges, various organizations across the country continue to push for stronger alcohol harm reduction measures. Last year, these groups united in advocating for the designation of September as National Alcohol Harms Awareness Month, established a Community of Practice with clinicians, government agencies, civil society organizations, and researchers, spearheaded studies on alcohol policies, and launched extensive information and education campaigns. Yet, political will and public support are crucial to driving meaningful change. As Filipinos often say, “Malayo na, pero malayo pa”—we’ve come far, but there is still a long way to go. The fight against alcohol harms is far from over, and now, more than ever, is the time to keep pushing forward. About the Author Bill Whilson Baljon Public Health Advocate Bill Whilson Baljon is a public health advocate from the Philippines. He is dedicated to promoting health equity and empowering communities through his work in health promotion, policy advocacy, and community engagement.
Retos y desafíos globales de la salud en personas con albinismo: Perspectiva de la República Dominicana
El albinismo es una condición genética caracterizada por la falta de melanina, lo que afecta la piel, el cabello y los ojos. Esta deficiencia no solo trae complicaciones médicas serias como una elevada sensibilidad al sol y problemas visuales, sino que también genera graves problemas sociales como el estigma y la discriminación. La forma en que se ve el albinismo varía mucho entre diferentes regiones, como en algunas áreas de África en comparación con Europa y América del Norte, lo que resalta la urgencia de abordar estas cuestiones desde un enfoque de cuidado integral. Las personas con albinismo enfrentan numerosos desafíos. El riesgo de cáncer de piel es alto debido a la falta de melanina que protege de los rayos solares, y los problemas visuales asociados con el albinismo pueden ser limitantes. Además de los retos físicos, el impacto social puede ser destructivo. En algunos contextos culturales, los mitos y malentendidos sobre el albinismo pueden provocar persecución y violencia, lo que indica que la atención médica debe considerar también el contexto social. Foto: Encuentro Anual Fundación Albinismo Solidario Asociado 2024. Es vital que la diplomacia en salud global priorice la educación y la mejora de la percepción pública como estrategias fundamentales para luchar contra la desinformación y los prejuicios asociados al albinismo. Informar adecuadamente sobre las causas genéticas y médicas de esta condición puede ayudar a eliminar estereotipos dañinos y promover un mayor reconocimiento social. Además, es importante que las políticas internacionales fomenten la creación y aplicación de medidas de protección para las personas con albinismo. Estas medidas deberían asegurar acceso a servicios médicos especializados, como la dermatología y la oftalmología, y extender las protecciones legales para garantizar la seguridad y los derechos humanos de estas personas, especialmente en las áreas donde son más vulnerables. La colaboración internacional es esencial para compartir recursos, estrategias y prácticas óptimas, y para apoyar la implementación de programas que se adapten cultural y demográficamente a las necesidades de las comunidades afectadas. Incluir las experiencias y perspectivas de las personas con albinismo en la formulación de estas políticas es fundamental para asegurar intervenciones efectivas y humanas. Con un compromiso y desarrollo continuo de estrategias de atención médica integradas, podemos avanzar hacia un futuro más justo y saludable para las personas con albinismo, eliminando barreras físicas y sociales. Un ejemplo sobresaliente de apoyo al albinismo en América Latina es la inauguración de la Primera Clínica de Albinismo en la República Dominicana, resultado de la colaboración entre la Fundación Albinismo Solidario y el Instituto ChromoMED. Inaugurada el 17 de julio de 2024, esta clínica es pionera en ofrecer un cuidado médico especializado y comprensivo en la región, dirigida por un equipo de especialistas que incluye al Dr. Carlos Gómez, la Dra. Katlin De La Rosa Poueriet, y a mí, Dr. Bary G. Bigay. Con instalaciones modernas, la clínica no solo ofrece servicios médicos de alta calidad, sino que también se dedica a mejorar la inclusión social y la concienciación sobre el albinismo, indicando un avance relevante en la creación de un entorno de aceptación y apoyo continuo. “A medida que se intensifican los esfuerzos globales por mejorar la salud de las personas con albinismo, es imprescindible reforzar la investigación en este campo. La inversión en estudios sobre terapias innovadoras, el desarrollo de tratamientos preventivos para el cáncer de piel en esta población y la creación de protocolos de atención médica adaptados son pasos esenciales hacia un futuro más equitativo y saludable. El compromiso con la educación, la investigación y la concienciación social seguirá siendo clave para garantizar que las personas con albinismo puedan vivir con dignidad y sin barreras, contribuyendo así a un mundo más inclusivo y justo.” Los esfuerzos globales por mejorar la salud de las personas con albinismo han ganado impulso en los últimos años, pero aún queda mucho por hacer. Esta población enfrenta desafíos significativos debido a la falta de acceso a cuidados médicos adecuados, especialmente en lo que respecta a la prevención y tratamiento del cáncer de piel. El albinismo, que se caracteriza por una deficiencia en la producción de melanina, expone a las personas a un mayor riesgo de desarrollar cáncer de piel debido a la mayor vulnerabilidad de su piel a la radiación ultravioleta. Por lo tanto, es fundamental invertir en investigación para encontrar terapias innovadoras que puedan reducir este riesgo y mejorar la calidad de vida de las personas con albinismo. Además, el desarrollo de tratamientos preventivos, como cremas solares de mayor efectividad y protocolos de atención médica adaptados a las necesidades específicas de esta población, será fundamental para proteger la salud de los afectados. El enfoque en la educación y la concienciación social también es clave. Sensibilizar a la sociedad sobre las realidades del albinismo, los problemas de salud que conlleva y la necesidad de inclusión social puede ayudar a reducir los estigmas y la discriminación que a menudo enfrentan las personas con esta condición. Asimismo, fomentar la capacitación de profesionales de la salud para reconocer y tratar adecuadamente las afecciones relacionadas con el albinismo es esencial. En última instancia, estos esfuerzos colaborativos en investigación, educación y desarrollo de políticas públicas son pasos esenciales hacia un futuro en el que las personas con albinismo puedan vivir con dignidad, sin barreras y tener acceso a una atención médica adecuada, contribuyendo así a un mundo más inclusivo y justo. Sobre el autor Dr. Bary G. Bigay Mercedes Director Médico Ejecutivo del Instituto ChromoMED Nacido en San Pedro de Macorís, República Dominicana, es un respetado Médico Genetista Clínico & Molecular, y Director Médico Ejecutivo del Instituto ChromoMED en Santo Domingo, Pionero en Investigación en Medicina Traslacional y Genómica del Albinismo en República Dominicana. Doctor en Medicina por la Universidad Central del Este y con especializaciones en genética y genómica en prestigiosas universidades de España y Francia como la Universidad de Valencia y la Universidad de Montpellier, posee múltiples estudios de Máster en Biología Molecular, Medicina Reproductiva y Oncología de Precisión Genómica. Es autor de importantes publicaciones científicas y ha sido reconocido
Science as Diplomacy: The Strategic Power of One Health in Global Policy
The One Health approach, which recognizes the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health, is not only a matter of scientific collaboration but also a prime example of Science Diplomacy in action. Science Diplomacy goes beyond cooperation to engage science as a strategic diplomatic tool, capable of influencing global policies, easing geopolitical tensions, and fostering trust between nations with differing agendas. Through this lens, the One Health approach becomes a means of addressing complex and often contentious global challenges by leveraging scientific expertise in diplomatic negotiations, international treaties, and conflict resolution. The diplomatic role of science becomes evident in how scientific knowledge informs global health policies, mediates disputes, and fosters international trust. For instance, pandemic preparedness is not just about sharing research and data but also about aligning different national interests in a way that can prevent diplomatic rifts during crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the distribution of vaccines, access to essential medicines, and the regulation of travel and trade became highly politicized. Scientific expertise, combined with diplomatic negotiation, helped to form frameworks like COVAX that sought to balance national interests with global health equity. This balance required science to be used as a diplomatic instrument, guiding international discussions toward a common understanding of the evidence and creating mutual agreements amidst political tension. Similarly, global efforts to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR) highlight the diplomatic weight science carries in policy discussions. AMR is driven by practices in agriculture, healthcare, and environmental management that are influenced by economic interests, political priorities, and social norms in different countries. Here, science provides the common ground upon which diplomatic negotiations occur. Initiatives like the Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance, developed by WHO, FAO, and WOAH, were not just scientific collaborations but diplomatic triumphs—binding nations to a shared set of guidelines that balanced national sovereignty with the need for collective action. In this case, scientific evidence served as the backbone for treaty-making, where diplomatic negotiations turned scientific consensus into political commitments. The One Health approach to climate change and environmental degradation similarly exemplifies Science Diplomacy. Environmental health directly impacts national economies, food security, and public health, making it a politically charged issue. Here, science plays a diplomatic role by creating a neutral ground for dialogue between countries that may be at odds on other fronts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for example, has been instrumental in shaping the Paris Agreement. Through scientific assessments of climate change’s impact on ecosystems, agriculture, and human health, the IPCC’s work serves as a diplomatic bridge, ensuring that all parties—despite conflicting political or economic interests—base their negotiations on shared scientific understanding. Science thus becomes a tool not just for cooperation but for diplomatic consensus-building, helping to mediate conflicts over resource management, carbon emissions, and environmental responsibility. In the context of wildlife conservation and zoonotic disease surveillance, Science Diplomacy plays a role in preemptive conflict resolution. Zoonotic diseases, such as Ebola and avian influenza, often emerge from regions with significant biodiversity and sometimes weak governance structures. The risk of diseases spilling over into human populations can become a source of diplomatic tension between neighboring nations or trading partners. Science can act as a diplomatic intermediary by offering objective, evidence-based assessments of the risks and by establishing internationally recognized protocols for disease surveillance. This allows nations to resolve potential conflicts diplomatically before they escalate, with organizations such as the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) providing platforms for scientific-diplomatic engagement. Rather than being a purely cooperative effort, this is a strategic use of science to negotiate boundaries, responsibilities, and shared risk. Food safety and food security provide further examples of the diplomatic role of science. Disputes over food standards, trade, and agricultural practices can create tension between nations, particularly when health and safety regulations differ. Science Diplomacy here is used to harmonize these standards while respecting national sovereignty, thus preventing potential trade wars or diplomatic standoffs. For example, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a joint effort by WHO and FAO, plays a diplomatic role in mediating disagreements over food safety, using scientific evidence to broker consensus on what constitutes safe food practices. In this capacity, science is not just enabling cooperation but is driving diplomatic negotiation, ensuring that trade disputes do not escalate into larger geopolitical conflicts by grounding them in neutral, scientifically verifiable standards. In the broader context of environmental issues like biodiversity loss and pollution, science is used to establish common metrics for environmental impact assessments, which then feed into diplomatic negotiations for treaties like the Convention on Biological Diversity or the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Science acts as a form of diplomatic currency in these discussions, allowing countries with divergent interests to engage in constructive dialogue based on mutually understood scientific principles. Diplomatic negotiations often hinge on the interpretation of scientific data, with science providing the means to translate complex environmental challenges into actionable policies, thus preventing potential conflicts over resource use and environmental degradation. In conclusion, the One Health approach is not just about scientific collaboration; it is a key arena for Science Diplomacy, where science plays a diplomatic role in shaping international policies, mediating disputes, and fostering global trust. By applying scientific principles in diplomatic contexts, nations can navigate the challenges of human, animal, and environmental health with greater clarity and consensus, ultimately leading to more effective and equitable global governance. In this sense, the diplomatic role of science in One Health goes beyond cooperation—it is about using scientific knowledge as a strategic tool to resolve conflicts, negotiate treaties, and build long-term, sustainable relationships between nations. About the author Casimiro Vizzini Science Diplomacy Consultant Health Diplomacy Alliance A Medical Doctor specializing in Urology, with advanced studies in International Cooperation, he has over 18 years of experience bridging science, health, and diplomacy. His career spans roles at UNESCO, where he led science policy and capacity-building projects, collaborated with the AAAS on science diplomacy, and secured European Commission funding for global partnerships. As Secretary General of EUGLOH, he advanced academic
Foreign Affairs and Health Governance: The Rise of Health Diplomacy
In the waggle dance of international relations, where power dynamics, geopolitical interests, and diplomatic finesse often take center stage, there’s a growing recognition of the pivotal role played by health governance. This is not confined to public health but extends far beyond, permeating foreign policy, diplomacy, and global security.
