The activities of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Africa must be ended
Bill Gates on one of his many trips to Africa
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is reported to be one of the wealthiest private charitable foundations in the world. Its 3 trustees, the multi-billionaire couple, Bill and Melinda Gates, and the financial oligarch, Warren Buffet, are among the world’s 5 richest people, with an estimated net worth between them of over US$250 billion. According to the organisation, at the end of 2018, which are the most recent figures available, its endowment funds stood at US$46.8 billion. This is greater than the gross domestic product of 43 of the countries in Africa. In addition, the organisation employs a workforce of nearly 1500 people and in its management and conduct is indistinguishable from any trans-national corporation.
Global Influence
The BMGF has leveraged its deep pockets to position itself as a key influencer of the global health agenda. It has established numerous global health Public Private Partnerships (PPP), including The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI – The Vaccine Alliance), and it is a member of Health 8 (H8) which is regarded as the health equivalent of the G8. Membership of the H8 consists of the World Health Organisation (WHO), The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the World Bank, the BMGF, the GAVI Alliance, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria which was also set up by the BMGF. So, apart from the United Nations specialised agencies and the World Bank, membership of the Health 8 group is restricted to organisations which have been established by Bill and Melinda Gates.
Global Influence
The BMGF has leveraged its deep pockets to position itself as a key influencer of the global health agenda. It has established numerous global health Public Private Partnerships (PPP), including The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI – The Vaccine Alliance), and it is a member of Health 8 (H8) which is regarded as the health equivalent of the G8. Membership of the H8 consists of the World Health Organisation (WHO), The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the World Bank, the BMGF, the GAVI Alliance, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria which was also set up by the BMGF. So, apart from the United Nations specialised agencies and the World Bank, membership of the Health 8 group is restricted to organisations which have been established by Bill and Melinda Gates.
The top 20 contributors to the World Health Organisation's 2018 budget
The BMGF and GAVI together are the second largest funders of the WHO, after the US government, and the BMGF is one of the principal funders of health related research globally. Its position as one of the WHO’s principal funders reflects the development of how this organisation has been funded. Historically, it had been funded through assessed mandatory contributions from its member states and voluntary contributions by member states and non-state parties. In 1971, 75% of the WHO’s budget came from the assessed contributions of the member states, and 75% of the voluntary contributions, which made up the rest of the budget, came from other UN agencies. Fiona Godlee in her article 'WHO's special programmes: undermining from above' points out that there was a shift in funding during the 1970s and 1980s as a result of attempts by the big imperial powers to maintain control of the organisation. As the newly independent countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America rapidly expanded the organisation's membership and threatened to gain control of its policy making body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), the big powers made a determined effort to circumvent the fact that they were now outnumbered in the WHO. This was done by pushing for a freeze in the organisation's core budget, while directing more of their funding into voluntary contributions and funding for special programs. Through the use of specified voluntary contributions, the donors could earmark funding for particular WHO programmes. In addition, each WHO special programme has its own director and a management executive committee made up of donors' representatives and these programmes are not under the control of the director general, the executive board, or the World Health Assembly. Through these measures the major donors could maintain control of the organisation’s policy direction. In 1980, under severe pressure from the US government, the WHA instituted a freeze on the organisation's core budget. This freeze is still in place. As a consequence of these moves, by 1989, for the first time in its history, voluntary contributions exceeded the members' assessed contributions as a part of the WHO's budget. This process has continued apace and today members’ assessed contributions account for 17% of the organisation's budget, while voluntary contributions make up 83%. These are the circumstances in which it was possible for the BMGF to emerge as a principal funder and major influencer of the WHO. According to the latest WHO financial accounts, of the US$228 million contribution from the BMGF in the 2018 financial year, 92% were for specified purposes, ensuring that control and decision making stayed with the BMGF. Commentators have noted that if the BMGF was genuinely driven by a charitable aim, it would have donated these funds to the organisation’s core funds so that their use could be decided upon by member states driven by their own health agendas.
|
Philanthrocapitalism
Ideologically, the activity of the BMGF has been described as philanthrocapitalism. This entails the vigorous promotion of the doctrines and practices of neo-liberal globalisation and advancing the interests of various trans-national corporations, while claiming to be carrying out philanthropic work. Bill Gates is already notorious for his reactionary Malthusian views on the need for population control and his openly stated aim to use his vaccination |
A meeting of the H8 members with the previous director general of the WHO, Dr Margaret Chan
|
programmes in order to bring about population reduction. It is this reactionary outlook which drives the activity of the BMGF. For example, it has funded the establishment of the Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health at Johns Hopkins University. Using its levers of influence, the organisation pursues its goals with no accountability to anyone. Anne-Emanuelle Birn, author of 'Philanthrocapitalism, past and present: The Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the setting(s) of the international/global health agenda' describe the Health 8 group thus, “The H8 holds meetings, like the G8, at which the mainstream global health agenda is shaped behind closed doors, and organisations considerably influenced by Gates and the BMGF constitute a plurality”. In this regard, significant pressure has been exerted on the WHO to overturn its foundational position as expressed in its constitution that, “Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures”. Instead, today, the WHO has adopted a notion of ‘universal health coverage’ which opens the door for the private health monopolies to insert themselves into the provision of health care globally.
NATO's Strategic Direction Hub - South has a focus on large parts of Africa
The BMGF is also an integral part of the mechanisms of Anglo-American global rule. Jacob Levich in his article 'The Gates Foundation, Ebola, and Global Health Imperialism' points out that the organisation maintains a strategic partnership with the US government and enjoys “unlimited access to the White House”. It also maintains a strategic relationship with the British government, co-funding numerous projects with Britain's Department for International Development (DFID). In a 2015 article on the lessons to be drawn from the Ebola epidemic, Bill Gates argued for the establishment of an international institution, led by the WHO, the World Bank, the G7 and NATO, with a responsibility for responding to future pandemics. In this perspective, there is no space for the existence of sovereign states whose sovereignty needs to be respected. This colonialist outlook of the BMGF is reflected in the pattern of its grant allocation. Birn noted that in 2014, "almost three quarters of the total funds granted by the BMGF Global Health Program went to 50 organizations, 90% of which are located in the United States, United Kingdom, and Switzerland". These organisations are then tasked with carrying out the funded programmes throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The BMGF in Africa
This is the basis on which the BMGF carries out is activities in Africa, a continent on which it focuses particular attention. In fact, the organisation states that it devotes half of its resources to its projects in Africa. It has a strong presence in 10 countries, namely, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Tanzania, and Zambia but also operates in 45 of the continent’s states. In addition, it operates various cross continent projects, such as the African Health Markets for Equity (AHME) while some of its global organisations such as The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria are also active on the continent.
However, whether operating with individual countries, through cross continent organisations or via its global outfits, the BMGF functions as a colonial master in its relationships with African governments. Despite its extensive activities on the continent, there appears to be no documents in the public domain which specify the basis on which it carries out its activities, the mechanisms for holding it accountable and the liabilities it holds should its activities damage in any way the lives of the millions of African people that it touches. This fundamental lack of accountability to anyone in Africa for an organisation which is so active across the continent speaks volumes about the nature of the colonial relationship on which it bases its activities.
Vaccinations
The BMGF’s vaccination programmes represent the central core of its health focused activities in Africa. In 2010, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill Gates launched the BMGF’s ‘decade of vaccines’ in which the organisation committed US$10 billion over the period 2010-2020 for vaccine research, development and delivery, with the aim of vaccinating some 8 million children world-wide in this period. Bill Gates declared, “We must make this the decade of vaccines”, while his wife, Melinda, added, “We’ve made vaccines our number-one priority at the Gates Foundation”.
The BMGF in Africa
This is the basis on which the BMGF carries out is activities in Africa, a continent on which it focuses particular attention. In fact, the organisation states that it devotes half of its resources to its projects in Africa. It has a strong presence in 10 countries, namely, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Tanzania, and Zambia but also operates in 45 of the continent’s states. In addition, it operates various cross continent projects, such as the African Health Markets for Equity (AHME) while some of its global organisations such as The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria are also active on the continent.
However, whether operating with individual countries, through cross continent organisations or via its global outfits, the BMGF functions as a colonial master in its relationships with African governments. Despite its extensive activities on the continent, there appears to be no documents in the public domain which specify the basis on which it carries out its activities, the mechanisms for holding it accountable and the liabilities it holds should its activities damage in any way the lives of the millions of African people that it touches. This fundamental lack of accountability to anyone in Africa for an organisation which is so active across the continent speaks volumes about the nature of the colonial relationship on which it bases its activities.
Vaccinations
The BMGF’s vaccination programmes represent the central core of its health focused activities in Africa. In 2010, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill Gates launched the BMGF’s ‘decade of vaccines’ in which the organisation committed US$10 billion over the period 2010-2020 for vaccine research, development and delivery, with the aim of vaccinating some 8 million children world-wide in this period. Bill Gates declared, “We must make this the decade of vaccines”, while his wife, Melinda, added, “We’ve made vaccines our number-one priority at the Gates Foundation”.
The networks of GAVI - The Vaccine Alliance
The vaccination programmes are carried out primarily through GAVI, which claims that worldwide it has immunised some 760 million children, representing 86% of the world’s children. It also states that its aims include promoting access to 'new and under-used vaccines for millions of the most vulnerable children'. GAVI is active in 37 African countries where it offers support for vaccinations against 17 infectious diseases, including the human papillomavirus (HPV), a leading cause of cervical cancer, polio, meningitis, cholera and others. This support includes funding, provision of equipment and services and technical support from GAVI partners for those countries that are targeted for assistance. To access such support, African governments must submit an application form to GAVI and must ensure that they are compliant with the principles which GAVI outlines. This arrangement immediately lays bare the relationship between GAVI as the funder and the African government as the applicant. It is a relationship based on GAVI being the decision maker. Not surprisingly, therefore, the GAVI application form and its associated guidance set out in detail the responsibilities of the applying governments but say nothing about the responsibility of GAVI for any damages caused by the ‘new and under-used vaccines’ which the pharmaceutical corporations that are its members are marketing through it. In addition, GAVI’s ‘transitional phases’ of support are designed so that a country’s vaccination programme is wholly funded by GAVI at the outset, but then goes into a phase of co-financing and ends with the targeted country being 100% responsible for the cost of the vaccines it uses. In this way, GAVI acts as a creator of markets for its pharmaceutical corporations.
New and under-used vaccines
The problems, however, are not just with GAVI’s colonial relationship with Africa nor its creation of markets for the pharmaceutical corporations, but just as importantly with its ‘new and under-used vaccines’. Dr Jérôme Munyangi, a Congolese researcher and developer of a plant based Covid 19 treatment, has pointed out that the absence of supervisory structures in Africa makes it possible for GAVI to violate all ethical standards and to use African children as guinea pigs in its activities. He points to the inclusion of ‘new vaccines’ in routine immunisation programmes when these should in fact be subjected to full clinical trials and he also highlights the failure to follow up on illnesses and deaths caused as a result of the use of such vaccines. This is a particular issue with the BMGF’s global vaccine programme. In 2009-10, it emerged that another BMGF funded organisation, Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), had conducted a study in India, where 30,000 school aged girls were vaccinated with HPV vaccines developed by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline. As a result, many of the girls fell ill and 7 died. Activists from SAMA, a women’s health group, who carried out a fact finding mission to the area in March 2010, reported that many of the girls experienced adverse reactions to the vaccination, including epileptic seizures, severe stomach ache, headaches, mood swings, early onset of menstruation, heavy bleeding and severe menstrual cramps. An Indian parliamentary standing committee on health and family welfare which investigated the matter found that in many cases the norms for gaining informed consent had been flagrantly violated, that the children had no idea about the nature of the disease or the vaccine and that the relevant authorities could not furnish requisite consent forms for the vaccinated children in a huge number of cases.
New and under-used vaccines
The problems, however, are not just with GAVI’s colonial relationship with Africa nor its creation of markets for the pharmaceutical corporations, but just as importantly with its ‘new and under-used vaccines’. Dr Jérôme Munyangi, a Congolese researcher and developer of a plant based Covid 19 treatment, has pointed out that the absence of supervisory structures in Africa makes it possible for GAVI to violate all ethical standards and to use African children as guinea pigs in its activities. He points to the inclusion of ‘new vaccines’ in routine immunisation programmes when these should in fact be subjected to full clinical trials and he also highlights the failure to follow up on illnesses and deaths caused as a result of the use of such vaccines. This is a particular issue with the BMGF’s global vaccine programme. In 2009-10, it emerged that another BMGF funded organisation, Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), had conducted a study in India, where 30,000 school aged girls were vaccinated with HPV vaccines developed by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline. As a result, many of the girls fell ill and 7 died. Activists from SAMA, a women’s health group, who carried out a fact finding mission to the area in March 2010, reported that many of the girls experienced adverse reactions to the vaccination, including epileptic seizures, severe stomach ache, headaches, mood swings, early onset of menstruation, heavy bleeding and severe menstrual cramps. An Indian parliamentary standing committee on health and family welfare which investigated the matter found that in many cases the norms for gaining informed consent had been flagrantly violated, that the children had no idea about the nature of the disease or the vaccine and that the relevant authorities could not furnish requisite consent forms for the vaccinated children in a huge number of cases.
Then there is the issue of the pentavalent vaccine, which is meant to protect infants from 5 illnesses namely, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B and haemophilus influenza type b. It is heavily promoted by GAVI which declares that it is available in ‘the world's 73 poorest countries and that ‘over 467 million children’ had been immunised with it by the end of 2018. However, in Tamil Nadu state in India, the Ministry of Health classified 54 cases of deaths of infants who were vaccinated with pentavalent as ‘adverse events following immunization’(AEFI), while Jacob Puliyel, an Indian paediatrician and member of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization, has argued that ‘the vaccine increases mortality and that the mortality in the immediate post vaccination period of babies who receive the vaccine, was double the infant mortality rate (IMR)’.
In November 2019, the Guardian newspaper reported that, ”new cases of polio linked to the oral vaccine have been reported in four African countries and more children are now being paralysed by vaccine-derived viruses than those infected by viruses in the wild”. The article adds that “In developing countries the oral vaccine is used due to its low cost and accessibility, needing only two drops per dose. In western countries, a more expensive, injectable version of the vaccine – which contains an inactivated virus incapable of causing the disease – is used as a preventative”. The polio vaccine in question had been administered as part of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), which is also funded by the BMGF.
Secret use of birth control agents
Another ugly aspect of the BMGF’s activities in Africa is its involvement with the secret use of birth control agents on women, under the guise of vaccinating them against infectious diseases. The most highly publicised case of this occurred in Kenya between 2013 and 2015. In November 2014, the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops (KCCB), which presides over the Kenya Catholic Health Commission, issued a press release claiming that the WHO administered and BMGF funded anti-tetanus vaccination campaign was secretly including a birth control agent in the anti-tetanus vaccines it was giving to women in Kenya. Six samples of the anti-tetanus vaccine in use by the campaign and secured by doctors giving the vaccinations were sent for testing at multiple laboratories in Kenya. All the labs reported that the samples contained the human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). There has been a long research tradition funded by the WHO to look at the use of hCG in anti-tetanus vaccines as a means of delivering a long term contraceptive to women. The use of this birth control agent in the anti-tetanus vaccine would not only prevent future pregnancies but would also induce spontaneous abortion should a woman be pregnant when she received the vaccine. Despite strenuous denials from the WHO, BMGF and the Kenyan Ministry of
In November 2019, the Guardian newspaper reported that, ”new cases of polio linked to the oral vaccine have been reported in four African countries and more children are now being paralysed by vaccine-derived viruses than those infected by viruses in the wild”. The article adds that “In developing countries the oral vaccine is used due to its low cost and accessibility, needing only two drops per dose. In western countries, a more expensive, injectable version of the vaccine – which contains an inactivated virus incapable of causing the disease – is used as a preventative”. The polio vaccine in question had been administered as part of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), which is also funded by the BMGF.
Secret use of birth control agents
Another ugly aspect of the BMGF’s activities in Africa is its involvement with the secret use of birth control agents on women, under the guise of vaccinating them against infectious diseases. The most highly publicised case of this occurred in Kenya between 2013 and 2015. In November 2014, the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops (KCCB), which presides over the Kenya Catholic Health Commission, issued a press release claiming that the WHO administered and BMGF funded anti-tetanus vaccination campaign was secretly including a birth control agent in the anti-tetanus vaccines it was giving to women in Kenya. Six samples of the anti-tetanus vaccine in use by the campaign and secured by doctors giving the vaccinations were sent for testing at multiple laboratories in Kenya. All the labs reported that the samples contained the human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). There has been a long research tradition funded by the WHO to look at the use of hCG in anti-tetanus vaccines as a means of delivering a long term contraceptive to women. The use of this birth control agent in the anti-tetanus vaccine would not only prevent future pregnancies but would also induce spontaneous abortion should a woman be pregnant when she received the vaccine. Despite strenuous denials from the WHO, BMGF and the Kenyan Ministry of
Leaders of Kenya's Orange Democratic Movement confirm the accuracy of the accusations made by the Catholic Church
Health none of them have been able to explain why the birth control agent was found in the 6 samples of anti-tetanus vaccine; why an anti- tetanus vaccine campaign targeted only women of child bearing age, given that tetanus affects women and men of all ages and why the storage and distribution of this vaccine was different from the usual practice in Kenya. This involved storing all the vaccines in a single depot in Nairobi, moving them with a police escort and ensuring that all used vials were returned to the WHO. Given the furore which followed the accusations of the KCCB, the Kenyan government established a ‘Joint Committee of Experts on Tetanus Toxoid Vaccine Testing’. However, it took the WHO 58 days to produce further samples of the vaccines for testing and this delay has not been explained by them. Given that this took place in the middle of the anti-tetanus vaccination campaign when significant numbers of the vaccine would have been in situ in the country, the delay seems difficult to explain. In addition, the new samples were delivered to the relevant laboratories outside of the protocols agreed by the Joint committee. These new samples contained no evidence of the presence of the birth control agent.
Undermining regulatory structures
BMGF has also been involved in strenuous efforts to undermine the regulatory structures which cover the introduction and use of drugs in Africa. In 2015, it declared its intention to, “seek better ways to evaluate and refine potential interventions—such as vaccine candidates—before they enter costly and time-consuming clinical trials”. In this way, the BMGF serves the interests of the pharmaceutical corporations by bypassing the clinical trials process and moving directly to the use of untested vaccines on African populations. Speaking at the tenth Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) annual lecture at the Royal Society of Medicine in March 2015, Dan Hartman, director of integrated development for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, declared the organisation's intention to reduce registration times for vaccines and drugs in sub-Saharan Africa by “50% in the next three years". What this means is illustrated by the case of the antiviral drug brincidofovir. The patent holders for this drug, Chimerix Inc. a US biotechnology company had been unable to organise clinical trials for it. However, in the wake of the 2013-14 Ebola epidemic in west Africa, the BMGF declared its support for the drug as a treatment for Ebola. Almost immediately the WHO approved the drug for wide scale trials in Africa, justifying its decision, in its document Ethical Considerations for Use of Unregistered Interventions for Ebola Disease, by stating that, “In the particular context of the current Ebola outbreak in West Africa, it is ethically acceptable to offer unproven interventions that have shown promising results in the laboratory and in animal models but have not yet been evaluated for safety and efficacy in humans as potential treatment or prevention”. In this way, the BMGF plays its role in transforming African populations into guinea pigs for the pharmaceutical industry.
Privatisation of healthcare
The other major thrust of BMGF’s activities in Africa is the privatisation of health care provision on the continent. This is consistent with its neo-liberal ideology, which sees access to health care not as a fundamental human right which governments must secure for their citizens but as a marketable commodity which should be provided , at a profit, by private interests, including clinics, health insurers and pharmaceutical companies. The principal mechanism that the BMGF uses to advance this agenda in Africa is the notorious Public- Private Partnership (PPP). These are organisations which draw together African governments, foreign aid departments of big imperial powers, private foundations and various health monopolies. These PPPs become the unaccountable agenda setters and decision makers on all matters relating to health in Africa, while the participating Ministries of Health of the various African countries are reduced to the role of implementing what has been decided.
Undermining regulatory structures
BMGF has also been involved in strenuous efforts to undermine the regulatory structures which cover the introduction and use of drugs in Africa. In 2015, it declared its intention to, “seek better ways to evaluate and refine potential interventions—such as vaccine candidates—before they enter costly and time-consuming clinical trials”. In this way, the BMGF serves the interests of the pharmaceutical corporations by bypassing the clinical trials process and moving directly to the use of untested vaccines on African populations. Speaking at the tenth Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) annual lecture at the Royal Society of Medicine in March 2015, Dan Hartman, director of integrated development for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, declared the organisation's intention to reduce registration times for vaccines and drugs in sub-Saharan Africa by “50% in the next three years". What this means is illustrated by the case of the antiviral drug brincidofovir. The patent holders for this drug, Chimerix Inc. a US biotechnology company had been unable to organise clinical trials for it. However, in the wake of the 2013-14 Ebola epidemic in west Africa, the BMGF declared its support for the drug as a treatment for Ebola. Almost immediately the WHO approved the drug for wide scale trials in Africa, justifying its decision, in its document Ethical Considerations for Use of Unregistered Interventions for Ebola Disease, by stating that, “In the particular context of the current Ebola outbreak in West Africa, it is ethically acceptable to offer unproven interventions that have shown promising results in the laboratory and in animal models but have not yet been evaluated for safety and efficacy in humans as potential treatment or prevention”. In this way, the BMGF plays its role in transforming African populations into guinea pigs for the pharmaceutical industry.
Privatisation of healthcare
The other major thrust of BMGF’s activities in Africa is the privatisation of health care provision on the continent. This is consistent with its neo-liberal ideology, which sees access to health care not as a fundamental human right which governments must secure for their citizens but as a marketable commodity which should be provided , at a profit, by private interests, including clinics, health insurers and pharmaceutical companies. The principal mechanism that the BMGF uses to advance this agenda in Africa is the notorious Public- Private Partnership (PPP). These are organisations which draw together African governments, foreign aid departments of big imperial powers, private foundations and various health monopolies. These PPPs become the unaccountable agenda setters and decision makers on all matters relating to health in Africa, while the participating Ministries of Health of the various African countries are reduced to the role of implementing what has been decided.
Website of the African Health Markets for Equity pilot project
The African Health Markets for Equity (AHME) is one such initiative. Co-funded by the BMGF, which contributed US$60 million, and the British government’s Department for International Development (UKaid), it ran from 2012-2019 in Ghana and Kenya as a pilot project. The AHME was based on the premise that ‘private markets for health delivery are critical for expanding healthcare access for the poor, and, consequently, had the aim of ‘helping private providers deliver quality health services to poor people’. As part of this effort, the project organised private healthcare providers in both countries into social franchise networks and assisted them with gaining accreditation from the National Insurance Schemes in each country so that they could become providers of government funded healthcare for inpatient, outpatient and maternity services. Obviously, in the current situation, where under the pressure of neo-liberal reforms many governments across Africa are facing significant financial pressures, the diversion of healthcare funding into the private sector will necessarily mean less available for public health services. which, consequently, will continue to deteriorate, denying millions, particularly those in remote areas, any access to modern health care. The AHME declared that their intention for the project was to use the insights gained from the pilot in order “to support other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and development partners for future health markets programming”. The project was evaluated by the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), while implementation on the ground was carried out by Innovations for Poverty. Both organisations are regular recipients of funding from the BMGF. Even when promoting private health care across the continent, the BMGF does not lose its racist focus on population control of Africans. So not surprisingly, the members of this particular PPP included both Marie Stopes International and Population Services International.
The activities of the BMGF in Africa are a stark expression of what has been termed ‘health imperialism’, a modern day version of the old colonial doctrine of the ‘white man’s burden’. Using its very deep pockets and leveraging its control of many influential global health organisations, it has appointed itself as the decision maker on a myriad of health issues for millions of Africans, to whom it owes no accountability. This is in direct contradiction to the WHO's 1978 Alma Ata Declaration on Primary Health care which states that "people have the right and duty to participate individually and collectively in the planning and implementation of their health care". With its freedom to do as it likes on the continent, the BMGF routinely violates the fundamental human rights of Africans under the guise of carrying out ‘philanthropic work’. It is high time that the activities of this organisation in Africa were brought to an end.
