COMMENTS: 18
Bush’s Failed Global AIDS Plan
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
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."
Sex-for-survival can also occur in the home, especially when women are poor, as they are in great swatches of the PEPFAR countries. As for using condoms, studies in Haiti, another PEPFAR focus country, show that more than 60 percent of Haitian women feel that the decision about whether to use condoms is exclusively the man's right. Discussion of safe sex, as suggested by the ABC plan, requires a discussion of sex itself. Yet the PEPFAR policy is to restrict comprehensive sexual-education programs to only certain sectors of the population. Children up to age 14, for example, are not to be introduced to condoms in any PEPFAR- funded school programs. Unmarried youth are often taught only about abstinence and being faithful. This policy does not reflect the reality of Haitians' sex lives, of course: Recent surveys show that 60 percent of young males and 36 percent of young females reported having their first sexual contact before 15 years of age.
Even when condoms are offered by health providers, U.S. requirements stipulate that they must always be accompanied by a notice of their failure rates. Says HIV/AIDS consultant David Veazey, "This is not something you would put in a campaign slogan to promote condoms. It would be the same as a seat-belt commercial saying, 'Buckle Up! But there is a 10 percent chance that the seat belt won't save you in an accident.' Not only would people continue to drive -- because they have to -- but they probably wouldn't see the point in wearing a seat belt either."
The U.S. has recognized that the ABC policy isn't always appropriate, so it has allowed some of the PEPFAR "teams" within the focus countries to direct less of their programs to abstinence and fidelity. But then the rest of the countries' provider teams have to spend more on A and B, which means cutting back on other programs.
"We continue to act as if poor people are stupid people," says Rev. Tutu. "They aren't stupid, they're just poor. They are entitled to make full decisions. [If you provide ABC] and [say] that's all that's available, it's dishonest and it infantilizes those to whom we provide the message."
PEPFAR isn't the only source of significant global funding on AIDS, just the biggest. But its prevention guidelines are quite different from those of another significant player, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The internationally supported Fund, started in 2002, is not required to follow the ABC policy, although its resources are fewer than those of PEPFAR.
"I think the position of PEPFAR is guided by some religious aspect," says Dr. Émile Charles, head of a Global fund-sponsored health program in Haiti. "But it's important ... for a country like Haiti ... to continue to focus on condoms. I think that promoting abstinence is an error, a scientific error."
Restrictive U.S. guidelines have caused some countries and providers to refuse its funding. Brazil turned down $40 million in U.S. AIDS funding in 2005 because it refuses to take a required pledge against "the legalization or the practice of prostitution" (which is already decriminalized in Brazil). The country's AIDS program, considered among the world's most progressive, counts its commercial sex workers among its most determined AIDS activists. Other AIDS providers are reluctant to sign the pledge because they don't want to increase the stigma and isolation of sex workers, which would thus raise further barriers to getting them needed HIV services.
Congress has recently begun to weigh in on PEPFAR: The bipartisan Protection Against Transmission of HIV for Women and Youth Act of 2006 (PATHWAY), announced in June, would require the program's administrators to establish a prevention strategy that addresses the vulnerabilities of women and girls to HIV, eliminates the funding earmark for abstinence, increases access to male and female condoms and addresses gender violence as a cause of HIV/AIDS.
"A growing number of Congress members agree that this bill is important, as it continues to attract new cosponsors from both parties every month," says Jodi Jacobson, director of the Center for Health and Gender Equity, a nonprofit that advocates accountability for U.S. health policies abroad. "PATHWAY...forces the hand of the administration ... to do the right thing when constructing a truly comprehensive approach to prevention.
"We should pass it tomorrow."
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 30, 2006 1:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Colin on Nov 30, 2006 2:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» So you also think laws make no difference?
Posted by: Sojourner
» Re-read paragraph 8.
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» Not different - the same; admit you agree with the article
Posted by: janvdb
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xenacat on Nov 30, 2006 5:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Nov 30, 2006 5:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 30, 2006 6:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: philobat on Nov 30, 2006 7:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bush-The Liar
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janvdb on Nov 30, 2006 8:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Too much money for AIDS, not enough for malaria and family planning
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Dec 1, 2006 3:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Dec 1, 2006 4:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 30, 2006 1:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Colin on Nov 30, 2006 2:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» So you also think laws make no difference?
Posted by: Sojourner
» Re-read paragraph 8.
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» Not different - the same; admit you agree with the article
Posted by: janvdb
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xenacat on Nov 30, 2006 5:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Nov 30, 2006 5:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 30, 2006 6:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: philobat on Nov 30, 2006 7:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bush-The Liar
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janvdb on Nov 30, 2006 8:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Too much money for AIDS, not enough for malaria and family planning
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Dec 1, 2006 3:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Dec 1, 2006 4:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




