US is the biggest reason the world is losing the battle against AIDS!

[G_j]

The United States is not the only reason the world is losing the battle against AIDS—but it's the biggest


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051201/broken_promises.php

Broken Promises
David Bryden
December 01, 2005


David Bryden is the communications director of Global AIDS Alliance.

<snip>
Since then, however, those who hoped for a well-coordinated response, commensurate with the scale of the crisis and grounded in proven approaches instead of ideology, have been sorely disappointed. The promises of the 2001 Declaration, many due at the end of this year, have not been kept. Only one in five people at risk have access to basic prevention services, such as voluntary counseling and testing. The moral outrage of wealthy nations having access to life-sustaining AIDS treatment, while poorer nations must go without, largely continues.

<snip>
The main problem is not with the goals that were set but rather that the biggest actor on the scene, the United States, chose to write and direct its own script. In practice, the U.S. rejected the consensus reached in 2001. Instead, the U.S. chose to spend about $3 billion a year on its favored approaches, focusing mainly on 15 countries it selected, while bypassing public health systems and local capacity building.

Everyone has heard about the problems posed by the U.S. pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into abstinence-until-marriage programs—now receiving more than half of all U.S. prevention dollars in some countries. While UNAIDS is too timid to directly criticize the United States for this policy, Human Rights Watch and others have noted that this policy is a distortion of the comprehensive approach that has been successful in countries like Uganda. It also exports to the world a policy that has failed in our own country. A comprehensive approach that includes partner reduction and encourages young people to delay sexual activity, as well as use condoms, is what UNAIDS says is leading to real successes in Kenya, Zimbabwe and other heavy-hit countries.

What is less well-known is that the U.S. has refused to spend any of its billions to address what has emerged as the primary obstacle—namely, the lack of health care personnel and the weakness of public health systems. The 2001 Declaration recognized this problem, assigning a deadline for progress on the issue of the end of 2005. The U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Ambassador Randall Tobias, has stated the lack of capacity on the ground is the biggest problem the United States has faced in its program. This should have easily been foreseen, yet the White House has done nothing to address the legal and administrative obstacles countries face in using U.S. money to compensate and retain frontline workers. The U.S. also supports IMF-imposed budget ceilings and draconian inflation targets that make it near impossible for countries to raise salaries for trained pharmacists, nurses and doctors. The result is a massive brain drain in which personnel needed for the fight against AIDS leave Africa and Asia in large numbers for work in the U.S., the U.K. and other countries.


..more..

[MountainLaurel]

1. I'd agree with that

Between the Mexico City rules, the abstinence-only focus, the support of the papal view on condoms, and the support of IMF and World Bank policies on things like the privatization of water supplies and the patenting of native plants (which steal funding from social goods like education, and studies have shown over and over that education -- particularly of women -- is the single most effective way to prevent AIDS transmission), and the support of pharmaceutical companies that gouge undeveloped countries while conducting unethical studies on poor populations, there's a hella lot of blood on our nation's hands.

[G_j]

3. what does Bush promote first in his speech today

abstinence.

The deaths of others really does not bother him a bit.
:cry:

[mwooldri]

2. And the US's handling of AIDS on its own doorstep...

... could also do with some looking at as well. I was listening to the BBC World Service the other night, and they were doing a report about the AIDS situation in Washington, DC. They're saying that some third world countries put our nation's capital to shame in AID programs being offered, they mentioned that there was no needle exchange program in DC - besides other things. The report basically wasn't complimentary to those who run DC - and stated that DC tries what it can but because its money comes from Congress, it can't get money from Congress to start or fund AIDS prevention programs.

At least, that's what I gained of the impression of the report.

Mark.

[MountainLaurel]

5. It's pretty horrible

Here's a recent report: http://www.dcappleseed.org/projects/publications/HIV.pdf.

Whitman-Walker Clinic, which is the main provider of services to HIV positive people in the District, has had to close at least one of it's clinics in the suburbs because of a funding crisis. You're right about the needle exchange program: DC has been trying to implement one for years but Congress has stymied efforts: It essentially retains veto power on any District action, through its control over our budget. (That's why our license plates read "Taxation Without Representation."

But funding is only part of the story. The greater issues include that a large portion of the District does not have access to health care, poverty in some areas is endemic and crippling, drug addiction is a huge problem, and there are many cultural barriers to safe sex.

[XemaSab]

4. Africa has had problems for decades

above and beyond the current AIDS crisis and while I think US efforts in Africa are misdirected, I don't think the US is "to blame" for the AIDS crisis there.

It's easy to blame Bush and the fundies, but there have been three other US presidents during this crisis: a democrat and two secular republicans.

My understanding is that a lot of the spread of AIDS is related to the culture there. There's little or no concept of monogamy and men are allowed to rape their wives with society's approval. Men frequently have multiple girlfriends, mistresses, and wives, and prostitution is rampant, particularly in the mining industry and in the military.

There's widespread male resistance to using condoms, and women can't enforce condom use by withholding sex.

Many of the governments there, notably South Africa's, until late, have been in denial that HIV even causes AIDS.

What is the US supposed to do to combat these issues?

Providing money for treatment drugs, while helping people who are ill, does nothing to combat the spread of the virus. Educational efforts may help, but if the US is saying one thing and the local traditional doctor is saying something different, it's better than nothing, but it still doesn't solve the underlying cultural problems.

Empowering women seems to be the only way out of this, but you can't go into other counties and tell the people to change their culture.

When we went into Afghanistan and told them they had to have a certain percent of women in the parliament, their response, appropriately, was to ask what the mandated percent of women was in the US congress.

Telling other people how to live their lives makes us look like hypocrites.