Doctors warn US aid cuts leave rural Afghanistan without health care

Mohammad, 2 months old, receives treatment in the intensive care unit of a hospital following an increase in the number of pneumonia cases in Kabul, Afghanistan, December 17, 2022. (REUTERS/File)
Short Url
Updated 25 March 2025
Follow

Doctors warn US aid cuts leave rural Afghanistan without health care

  • WHO says hundreds of health centers, clinics across country are set to close by June
  • Afghan health sector relies on donors as govt covers only 3% of total expenditure

KABUL: Afghan doctors warn that new foreign funding cuts are depriving the country’s most vulnerable of health care, especially in rural areas, where aid-dependent NGOs are the sole providers.

The WHO announced last week that 206 health facilities across 28 provinces of Afghanistan were either suspended or closed due to a lack of financial support.

About 200 more clinics, health centers and mobile health and nutrition teams operating in remote areas of the country are set to close by June.

The UN health agency said that the funding shortfall, which comes amid massive US aid cuts since January, is leaving an additional 1.8 million Afghans without access to primary health care.

“The big hospitals in provincial capitals are primarily run by the government while most of the health centers in rural areas are operated by NGOs with funding from different donors,” Dr. Zobair Saljuqi, a doctor at Herat Regional Hospital, told Arab News.

Most of the rural population cannot afford to travel to provincial capitals or major cities for treatment. Health facilities in remote areas are also crucial for women, especially since their movement has been curtailed by the Taliban administration.

“If these health facilities don’t receive the needed financial aid, they cannot continue functioning even for a month because from staff salaries, through running costs, to medicines — all are provided by the donors,” Saljuqi said.

“Women will face severe challenges during pregnancies and children could die due to malnutrition or infectious diseases.”

The halt in US aid is another blow to Afghanistan’s humanitarian situation since the Taliban took over in 2021. Following the collapse of the country’s Western-backed regime, the US withdrew its troops and froze all projects overnight, after spending billions on two decades of military and development operations.

Afghanistan’s health sector relies on donor funds. UN estimates show that out-of-pocket expenses and external funding make up 97 percent of total health expenditure, while government contributions account for just 3 percent.

Dr. Ahmad Tariq, who works at a health center in Qarghayi district, Laghman province, said that almost everyone in his neighborhood depended on the facility.

“People here are very poor. They are all either farmers or daily laborers. They can’t afford to travel to the center of the province or buy medicine,” he told Arab News.

“Our small facility is helping tens of patients every day, men and women, children and elderly persons. They come for OPD consultations as well as vaccination and receive some medicine for free. If it wasn’t for this center most of the people would have been deprived of basic health services.”

According to Afghanistan’s Ministry of Health data, 72 percent of the rural population lacks access to primary and secondary health care services.

Of the country’s 400 districts, only 93 have operational hospitals, and almost 10 million people in more than 20,000 villages have limited or no access to basic health services.

Dr. Mohammad Nazar, a public health practitioner in Kabul, forecast that the sudden shortage of US-led funding would further devastate Afghanistan’s already fragile health system, which had endured decades of war and Soviet and American invasions.

“Almost all health centers across rural areas are supported by donors and humanitarian organizations,” he said.

“Tens of health facilities are already closing, which means more and more women, children, elderly persons, displaced persons ... will have no access to essential health services and mortality from preventable diseases would rise.”


New START nuclear treaty ‘was flawed’: senior US official

Updated 3 sec ago
Follow

New START nuclear treaty ‘was flawed’: senior US official

  • The New START treaty ended at the turn of the calendar on February 5
  • Russia and the US together control more than 80 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads
GENEVA: A senior US official on Friday criticized the last nuclear treaty between Russia and the United States for failing to include Beijing, speaking at the United Nations a day after the New START deal expired.
“In a nutshell, New START was flawed,” said Thomas G. DiNanno, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, pointing out that it had not covered all nuclear weapons, “and it didn’t include China.”
Speaking to reporters in Geneva before addressing the Conference on Disarmament, he said US President Donald Trump “has been pretty clear that he wants a better agreement,” and “clarified again last night that he wants a new treaty.”
“He’s been crystal clear. He’s been consistent on it too, since his first administration,” DiNanno said.
“So we’ll see how it plays out.”
Asked if China had agreed to anything, DiNanno said: “We’re always willing to talk to them.”
China said on Thursday it would not join nuclear talks “at this stage” after the treaty’s expiry that day triggered fears of a new global arms race.
Campaigners have warned that the expiry, which ended decades of restrictions on how many warheads Russia and the United States deploy, could encourage China to expand its own arsenal.
The New START treaty ended at the turn of the calendar on February 5, after Trump did not follow up on Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin’s proposal to extend warhead limits in the agreement for one year.
Russia and the United States together control more than 80 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads, but arms agreements have been withering away.
New START, first signed in 2010, limited each side’s nuclear arsenal to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads — a reduction of nearly 30 percent from the previous limit set in 2002.
It also allowed each side to conduct on-site inspections of the other’s nuclear arsenal, although these were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic and have not resumed since.
The Conference on Disarmament negotiating forum, which is comprised of 65 member states and meets in Geneva.