Link to article: https://apnews.com/article/south-africa-trump-pepfar-hiv-aid-freeze-0d9def2a63b0e2f53bfda9441baf584d
Millions of people in South Africa are currently being affected by Donald Trump’s global foreign aid freeze. People are worried about the inevitability of patients missing crucial HIV treatments and HIV infections going up ultimately causing a rise in deaths. South Africa counts more than 7.5 million people infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, this number is higher than any other nation. There are 5.5 million people receiving treatment in South Africa, but the funding for that cause is questionable due to Trump’s suspension on the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR gave 400 million a year to South Africa’s HIV programs and NGOs, and has been recognized by saving at least 26 million lives in its efforts globally. A federal judge ordered Trump to momentarily lift his funding freeze, but aid groups who deal with HIV have already started closing down operations leading to patients struggling to find helping health facilities. In certain regions, people struggle with unemployment and will struggle to find transport to look for treatment areas. Around 15,000 health workers salaries funded through PEPFAR are left questioning if they have lost their livelihoods.
South Africa’s efforts to fight the virus has heavily relied on international aid, particularly the United States. This decision by the Trump administration has jeopardized the health of millions and threatens to reverse decades of progress in combating the epidemic. This disruptions not only endangers individual people’s health, but also creates a significant public health risk by increasing the likelihood for new infections. The changes in U.S foreign policy directly impact global health initiatives and highlight the vulnerabilities of nations like South Africa. This cut in funding is under Trump’s “America First” policy that seeks to reduce spreading in international programs. Not only will South Africa be affected by this change, but many other regional countries who rely on U.S. support for various programs will be as well. The current unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy has many countries questioning how much they should start to take initiative in their own long-term strategies. The Trump administration’s actions directly contrast with a liberal institutionalist perspective, that emphasizes cooperation through international organizations. Trump takes on a more realist approach, prioritizing national interest and reducing commitments to international affairs unless it is clearly beneficial to the U.S.. If Trump were to use the realist grand strategy of offshore balancing, he would not have withdrawn aid without establishing regional responsibilities for South Africa’s crisis (perhaps like the African Union). It seems Trump’s strategy is more focused on his reduction of foreign spending.