Katelyn Wilburn, Campus Carrier opinions editor
HIV treatment is not a luxury or a political tool. This treatment allows people that suffer from HIV to stay healthy, support their families and live longer, happier lives. Along with these benefits, it heavily lowers the risk of transmission, making treatment a public health priority. This is why any effort to take away or limit access to HIV aid is unethical and dangerous. When the Trump administration made moves to pull back HIV aid to Zambia, it didn’t just decrease the amount of money sent overseas. They’re also affecting real lives within other countries.
In Zambia, many people rely on support from other countries for HIV prevention and treatment services. Unfortunately, cuts to funding from the US to poorer countries doesn’t affect the politicians or officials that are making these decisions. Instead, it affects the patients, the mothers trying to take care of their children, young adults trying to build their futures and communities that have already fought relentlessly against the epidemic. Whatever justification the Trump administration offers doesn’t change the fact that ordinary people will suffer.
Why would the Trump administration try to take this aid away? Well, they see an opportunity to gain more access to Zambia’s materials. Zambia is one of the world’s leading copper producers and has huge mineral reserves of lithium and cobalt. The Trump Administration has three goals with the changes in HIV aid budgeting: to give only $1 billion in funding over five years (less than half the amount given before the administration took power), give American businesses more access to Zambia’s mineral deposits and a renegotiation of a contract with the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which partners with poor countries worldwide to promote economic growth.
This greed is what makes this policy deeply unethical. Humanitarian aid should never be used as a bargaining chip for economic gain. HIV treatment exists to save lives, not to force a vulnerable country into agreements that primarily benefit a more powerful nation. The administration seems to be more focused on gaining a strategic advantage over China and expanding the American business’ access to Zambia’s materials.
These funding cuts have not just affected Zambia. Many other countries are struggling. The Better World campaign says that Kenya has terminated 1,952 doctors, 1,234 nurses and 918 technical and management staff due to budget cuts in the UN’s HIV-AIDS program. Namibia had funding withdrawn by the US, putting human rights and key populations, such as young girls and women, at risk. Without aid in these areas, populations in these countries suffer from increased stigma, higher rates of transmission and a weakening of the body’s immune system, resulting in increased risk of other sicknesses.
Even if supporters of this strategy argue that the US has the right to act on its own interests, there is a line that should not be crossed. A just foreign policy does not come from bullying vulnerable nations into complacency. It comes from building partnerships based on respect and fairness. If the US wants to be an effective and ethical global leader, then it should help Zambia strengthen its health systems without coercing the country. Not only would this be the right thing to do, but over time, it could strengthen connections and allow us to grow a more economically friendly relationship with Zambia.
The people of Zambia deserve access to lifesaving care without having their health tied to outside demands. Taking away or weakening HIV aid does not show strength or leadership. It only puts vulnerable lives at risk, and that is why this kind of policy is deeply wrong.