A deal committing $ 480 million in public health assistance to the Ivory Coast has been signed by the president of the United States, Donald Trump.
The Trump administration’s America First Global Health Strategy recently underwent a change with the signing of the deal in the West African nation’s capital, Abidjan, on Tuesday.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
In response to the administration’s gutting of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the plan calls for forging bilateral agreements with dozens of nations to receive US health assistance.
The Trump administration has argued that bilateral agreements will increase accountability, oversight, and eventual self-sufficiency, while the administration has argued that US foreign aid has been ineffective and wasteful.
The approach’s efficacy has been questioned by experts, who are concerned about its transactional nature.
Jessica Davis Ba, the US ambassador to the Ivory Coast, stated at the signing ceremony that the US government is moving “to a model that emphasizes trade, innovation, and shared prosperity.”
Our bilateral cooperation is entering a new phase today. The ambassador stated that the America First Global Health Strategy is being implemented.
According to Ivory Coast Prime Minister Robert Beugre Mambe, the country has pledged to eventually provide up to $ 292 million in health funding by 2030 as part of the agreement.
The Trump administration has already reached the largest number of agreements under the new strategy under the new strategy.
cuts to USAID
Public health services around the world have been severely impacted by USAID’s severe cuts earlier this year, with Africa being one of the hardest hit.
That has raised questions about the potential increase in the spread of HIV on the continent, the declines in maternal and child healthcare, the rise in Malaria cases, and the lack of early detection of new infectious diseases.
Public health experts have been cautious about the administration’s approach despite the Ivory Coast deal and other recent bilateral agreements’ attempts to address these issues.
The new strategy includes a number of potentially beneficial changes to the delivery of foreign health assistance, according to an analysis released by the Center for Global Development earlier this month.
However, these changes “present significant risks to the delivery of services and hard-won public health benefits,” according to policy fellows Janeen Madan Keller and senior analyst Jocilyn Estes.
The pair identified several potential risk areas, including concerns about how “transactional pressures” might affect public health priorities, questions about oversight, and a lack of clarity regarding how services will be protected if a partner nation is unable to fulfill its commitments.
The experts further questioned the effectiveness of the strategy for aid in areas without “credible or stable government.”
