Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush’s Failed Global AIDS Plan

By Sarah Fort, Ms. Magazine. Posted November 30, 2006.


The President’s relief plan ignores the gender dimensions of the AIDS epidemic, and women are paying for it with their lives.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Sarah Fort

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush announced a $15 billion initiative to "turn the tide" against AIDS, targeted mainly at 14 of the hardest-hit African and Caribbean countries, plus Vietnam. That would virtually triple the U.S. commitment, offering renewed hope to the nearly 30 million AIDS sufferers in Africa alone.

It all sounded grand.

But very quickly, the strings of the plan -- now known as PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief -- began to show. Starting in 2004, the United States recommended -- and by 2006 required -- that 33 percent of all prevention funding be earmarked for abstinence and fidelity programs. Condoms could be recommended only for high-risk groups, not for sexually active people in general. No funds would be provided to groups that don't explicitly condemn prostitution. Finally, the Bush administration seemed to be spreading a significant share of AIDS funding through faith-based groups.

Meanwhile, the AIDS pandemic has been rapidly feminized over the past 15 years. But PEPFAR -- underpinned by the political and religious philosophies of the Bush administration -- often doesn't take into account the facts of life for women in the countries it serves.

"The gender dimensions of the epidemic are completely ignored," says Beatrice Were, a Ugandan mother of three who has devoted herself to AIDS activism since 1993. "We know very well that women don't [always] have control [over sexual decisions]. There is rape in marriage. ... Many women can't make a decision on whether to have protected sex or not, even whether to have sex or not, because it's their husbands [who] make the decision."

In Uganda polygamy and promiscuity among men is both significant and socially acceptable. "This [PEPFAR] approach places a huge burden on a woman to abstain and, when she's married, be faithful," says Were. "Personally, I did all of that, but I still got infected, too. It just doesn't work."

Nonetheless, the ABC plan -- Abstinence, Be faithful and use Condoms -- continues to be the preferred U.S. strategy for preventing sexually transmitted HIV infections. Indeed, service providers often have to reduce other programs -- such as those to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission -- in order to redirect dollars toward abstinence and thus meet the 33 percent requirement.

But an abstinence-only approach has not proven effective in preventing AIDS transmission; in fact, it may have an opposite effect. In Uganda, which successfully promoted a comprehensive program before PEPFAR, the incidence of the virus has nearly doubled since shifting its focus to comply with PEPFAR's A and B guidelines. When first recognized in the early 1980s, AIDS was pegged as a disease affecting primarily men, homosexuals, Haitians or intravenous-drug-users. But over the years, HIV has increasingly infected women who are married, have children and are nonwhite and poor. Today, 17.3 million women in the world live with HIV/AIDS, and of the 16,000 new HIV infections daily, as many as 55 percent occur among women. The proportion of women among the total infected population has risen at a steady and frightening rate: from 35 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 1997, to 48 percent in 2004.

The women of sub-Saharan Africa are particularly hard-hit. They comprise 54 percent of all HIV/AIDS cases in the region, and three of four newly infected young people (15 to 24 years old) are women.

A number of studies have found that male-to-female transmission of HIV during sex is about twice as likely to occur as female-to-male transmission, because the HIV virus can more easily penetrate vaginal mucus during intercourse. The risk runs even higher if intercourse is violent, as abrasions caused by forced penetration facilitate entry of the virus -- which puts adolescent girls at increased risk. As Stephen Lewis, U.N. Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, pointed out at the 2006 International AIDS Conference in Toronto, "In Africa... the violence and the virus go together."

The risk of sexual violence and rape should therefore be a crucial component in HIV-prevention policies, says the Rev. Mpho Tutu, daughter of South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu and an Episcopal priest in Alexandria, Va. "One of the reasons for the feminization of the pandemic is the instability of war and displacement," she explains. "Refugee women are vulnerable because rape and sexual exploitation are weapons of war.... And as communities are destabilized, more and more often you'll see women trading sexual favors for economic support."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, president, violence, rape, aids, pepfar, hiv

Sarah Fort is a writer for the Center for Public Integrity. She works with the center's international project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
another
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 30, 2006 1:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just another case of the Bushies doing more harm than good, in this case they are ravaging women with even more death and pain. The Bushies have no compassion because their every dogma increases death and pain. This is a failed presidency in every way, shape or form. Impeach the criminal Bushies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: another Posted by: willymack
» RE: another Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: another Posted by: dikaiosyne
Different Perspective
Posted by: Colin on Nov 30, 2006 2:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’m going to do something now that I never thought I would. I’m going to [gag], defend George Bush (kind of).

Don’t get me wrong – the man’s a fuckin idiot – but I can’t bring myself to blame him for the way AIDS is currently spreading, or the inefficiencies of the programme. I think it’s main problem was that it was hideously unrealistic in the first place.

Both the programme and the article, in so typical white western style, rests on the assumption that if the policies outlined were better and they were more successfully implemented, the world would inevitably be a better place. After all, these policies were probably written and agreed upon in a very shiney room by lots of very important people who all know exactly what they are talking about. So when people like this in a situation like that decide they know what’s best for a Continent’s worth of people living thousands of miles away in a manner that bares no relation whatsoever to the lives the boardroom fella’s chose, it’s bound to turn out right.

Except it doesn’t. Ever. Now, I’m not arguing the science – there’s no doubt forms of barrier protection considerably reduce the chances of catching most STD’s – and, moreover, there are ways to sell a product and ways to not, but is that enough? One of the reasons I don’t want to catch AIDS is because, as a lad in my twenties, I think it might be nice to see what the world looks like in 50 years time. If I had nothing and lived in a country where the average life expectancy is the late thirties, early forties, would I be so concerned about my long term prospects? Might these all be outweighed by the prospect of forgetting everything in the arms of a girl I quite fancy? Does the short term release from a good fuck meet out the consequences of potentially catching a disease that doesn’t manifest itself for a good 5-7 years after conception?

Of course, I don’t know the answers to these questions, I only know what I feel. But I suppose that’s the point I’m trying to make. Bush’s mistake, a mistake replicated by the author of this paper, was to assume that they could solve everything – they do have that power. They don’t though, as history proves over and over again.

Nobel intentions they are indeed, but riddled with an arrogance I know from speaking to African mates of mine, that pisses them off nearly as much as the disease itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Re-read paragraph 8. Posted by: MatthewSavage
death is what we get
Posted by: xenacat on Nov 30, 2006 5:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for letting the anti-sexual, misgynist, racist far right religious freaks run the asylum. This has happened with AIDS and Iraq, just to mention a few prominent examples. Abstinence only? That idea has been useless and dangerous since its inception and doesn't take in cultural realities. So why we continue to act as if certian folks with lunatic religious convictions are worthy of respect...that is madness in and of itself. Let them thump thier bibles in private on Sunday Morning but for God's sake, let's throw them completely out of the U.S goverment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: death is what we get Posted by: dikaiosyne
Gay bath house approach the problem
Posted by: Bobsays on Nov 30, 2006 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Time and time again I have seen strategies captured by campagners who then force through approaches suitable for a gay bath house, not highly conservative, family-oriented societies.

Expensive literature is stuffed in cupboards by embarrassed health workers, and the 'gayocracy' who control much of the international campaigning against HIV/AIDS continue to push their narrow view.

That's the reason why much of the fight is failing. We need campaigners who are not beholden to a narrow agenda and who know the problems of family life, not the sexual urges of hedonistic urbanites in Manhattan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pharmaceutical companies and intellectual property rights are the problem here
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 30, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guessing from the heavy donations of Big Pharma to both ends of the political spectrum, as well as Bill Gates et. al's obsession with protecting intellectual property laws , it's likely that this situation will continue.

I'd like to see alternet post a story (just once!) that exposes the pharmaceutical industry for what it is. If they have, someone please post the link.

Do you know what Bush the elder spends his post-presidential time doing (in part)? Going down to Argentina and threatening legal actions against anyone who dares to make cheap drugs available to poor people - this story targets the wrong Bush, though I imagine he supports daddy 100%. They're both tools of the corporatocracy - whether its Big Oil, Big Pharma, Pentagon contractors or Big Agribusiness.

The patent protections are preventing millions of lives from being saved all around the world. The question is this: what matters more? Corporate profits or public health?

See http://www.american.edu/ted/aidstrips.htm for the real details on AIDS in Africa.

Certainly gender issues are important - but this article misses the central dynamic of patent-driven corporate profits in the AIDS crisis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush-The Liar
Posted by: philobat on Nov 30, 2006 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing that creature (Bush) can even sleep at night. H reminds me of my ex, Matthew. Evil people. The good news is they will reap what they sow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush-The Liar Posted by: willymack
Too much money for AIDS, not enough for malaria and family planning
Posted by: janvdb on Nov 30, 2006 8:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Malaria and diarrhea due to the lack of clean water and basic sanitation are killing far more people than AIDS is.

AIDS just fascinates the donor nations because they could die of it. And, even better, it involves SEX.

I just visited an airport in northern Ghana where these incredibly embarrassing USAID-funded comic-strip-like adhesive posters illustrating in graphic detail the complete sex act (in the most religious country in the world) and how and where to unfurl that condom were stuck on everything in sight.

It was soft porn in full public view with USAID's logo all over it and I felt ashamed to be an American.

In a few African countries like Botswana and South Africa, AIDS is public health enemy number one; most African countries have AIDS prevalence rates not that much higher than the American rate and people are dying like flies from diseases caused by the lack of clean water and food.

Clean water and food.

Clean water and food. What these people need is clean water, food, vaccinations and family planning.

Hey, it's not fun. It's not sexy. It doesn't involve prostitutes, man-on-man sex or anything we Americans like. It doesn't require the immediate cessation of all sex over an entire continent. It doesn't imply that entire races are sexually uncontrollable and in need of conversion.

It's just no fun at all.

But that's the way it is.

Get used to it.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blame the Environmentalists
Posted by: gellero on Dec 1, 2006 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever since the environmentalists got DDT banned, malaria has been on the rise. Research it for yourself. And why should we in the USA be forced to pay for AIDS control in the Third World? If they're smart enough to run their own goverments, they can devise their own AIDS control schemes. Unless you believe in Colonialism, of course. And pharmaceutical patents?? Just eliminate them.......that'll show 'em.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the left's lies about US help in the war on AIDS is reprehensible.
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Dec 1, 2006 4:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]