I have been working in global health and development for almost two decades. In that time, I have seen the world make phenomenal progress. Child mortality has more than halved since 1990. The percentage of desperately poor people in the world has fallen from 36% to 8% in the same period. Deaths from HIV have plummeted since their peak in the early 2000s. The list of achievements goes on.

I often explain these successes with a single word: innovation. New vaccines saved millions of children from deadly diseases, and new treatments made it possible to live with HIV. But of course that’s not the whole story. Lifesaving interventions do not deliver themselves, and living standards do not simply rise on their own. These things happen because political leaders make them a priority, government experts get together to share best practices, and we build up the global institutions that make these breakthroughs available to those who need them most.

In other words, progress is not inevitable. It is the result of a series of choices. It happens because people from around the world decide to work together on solving global problems.

This is one reason why I’m concerned about the current trend—in America and Europe—toward retreating from the open, multilateral approach that has driven so much progress. If governments start withdrawing from their engagement in the world, it will slow and possibly reverse the progress we’re making to save lives and lift people out of poverty. For those of us who care about making the world a safer and more equitable place, it is the wrong choice. One example is the fight against HIV. America and countries throughout Europe have been at the forefront of this effort, with impressive results. Millions of people living with HIV receive lifesaving medicine thanks to funding from America and Europe—more than 11m people from America’s PEPFAR program alone.

I’m concerned about the current trend in America and Europe toward retreating from the open, multilateral approach that has driven so much progress.

That progress would be at risk if governments cut back on funding. Without medicine, people living with HIV would die. Similarly, reducing prevention efforts would mean the epidemic could make a comeback in sub-Saharan Africa. A report issued by our foundation last year predicted that a 10% reduction in global funding for AIDS treatment and prevention could cause an additional 5m deaths by 2030.

On the other hand, keeping up the progress in health and development can help alleviate the problems that make people want to withdraw in the first place. Take mass migration: when we work together to help low-income countries strengthen their food and farming systems, we tackle some of the root causes of migration and instability. If you want fewer people to be forced from their homes, cutting back on joint efforts to help them improve their lives will be counterproductive.

Demographic trends are another reason that global co-operation is so important. Today more babies are being born in the places where it’s hardest to lead a healthy and productive life. If current trends continue, the number of poor people in the world will stop falling and could even start to rise. By the middle of this century, just two countries—Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo—will be home to 40% of extremely poor people in the world.

This makes it all the more important to create opportunities for young people by investing in their health and education. It will take a global effort—no one country can do it alone.

If governments start withdrawing from their engagement in the world, it will slow and possibly reverse the progress we’re making to save lives and lift people out of poverty.

Nor is this simply a question of funding. It is about which countries are going to lead the world in the future. Americans and Europeans have benefited greatly from shaping institutions like the United Nations and the World Bank, and while these organisations are hardly perfect, they are still essential to solving the world’s problems. Countries like Kenya, Senegal and Vietnam deserve enormous credit for their own growth, but trade and technical assistance led by America and Europe played a key part too.

Of course, disease and poverty are not the only major problems that require global co-operation. Climate change is another. While there has been a lot of progress in driving down the cost of today’s renewables and stepping up research on clean energy, we don’t yet have all the tools we need to stop climate change. It’s going to take innovation in every major area that touches on climate change: transport, agriculture, electricity, building materials, and manufacturing.

But this can happen only when scientists, policymakers and investors work together across borders. I am involved with one investment fund that has raised more than $1bn to help companies take promising clean-energy ideas out of the lab and into the marketplace. Raising more barriers between countries would make that work harder.

[This is not] simply a question of funding. It is about which countries are going to lead the world in the future

There are still more examples of how innovation will solve problems and improve lives. Sophisticated software that can create personalised lessons will drive down the cost of a good education. Software will be able to diagnose a wide range of physical and mental health problems and recommend a mix of treatments specific to each patient’s needs. New medications will help end obesity and solve the opioid crisis.

In the past, breakthroughs like these generally came from two places: Europe and America. This is no longer the case. Great inventions might just as easily come from China, India, South Africa or Brazil. The best way to guarantee that everyone will be able to benefit from these ideas is to maintain strong ties around the world. For anyone who wants to shape the future, it is the right choice.

___________

Bill Gates is a co-founder of Microsoft and co-chairman of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.