Oct 10th 2019AT THE TURN of the millennium it was clear a new approach was required in the war against three of the biggest threats to human life and development. There was need for a trustworthy international organisation that could solicit donations from rich countries and wealthy organisations, and spend that money on combating those threats in collaboration with the governments of afflicted poor countries, but with appropriate oversight to ensure effectiveness and avoid theft. The result was the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.And it worked. Though it is impossible to say what would have happened without the Global Fund, as it is now formally known, the fund’s officials claim to have saved 32m lives since it opened in 2002. As with liberty, though, the price of success is eternal vigilence—and many in the field fear further progress is under threat. To remain on course to hit its self-proclaimed target to save 16m lives by 2023, the fund says it will need pledges of at least $14bn by the end of this year. This week, at a so-called replenishment meeting in Lyon, France, it has been setting out its stall.Choose us for news analysis that respects your time and intelligenceSubscribe to The EconomistWe filter out the noise of the daily news cycle and analyse the trends that matterWe give you rigorous, deeply researched and fact-checked journalism. That’s why Americans named us their most trusted news source in 2017Available wherever you are—in print, digital and, uniquely, in audio, fully narrated by professional broadcastersThis website adheres to all nine of NewsGuard‘s standards of credibility and transparency.ORContinue reading this articleRegister with an email address