AIDS, Africa and Aid

AIDS, Africa and Aid
By Dru Oja Jay

40 million people worldwide live with AIDS, 30 million of whom live in
Africa. Of these, 58% are women and 3 million are children under 15. 3.1
million people died of AIDS in 2001. More than 12 million children have been
orphaned by the virus; that number is expected to climb to a staggering 30
million by 2010. AIDS has been identified as the primary cause of Africa's
chronic food shortage, and a principle source of the continent's economic
woes. If the current trend continues, 100 million people will be infected
with the AIDS virus by 2015, and sub-saharan Africa will face a total
economic and social collapse.

It is far beyond disappointing, then, that rich countries--with very few
exceptions--have consistently failed to contribute significant resources to
prevent new infections or treat those who suffer. In April 2001, the UN and
World Health Organization determined that $10 billion per year was needed to
fight AIDS. At their annual summit in Genoa a few months later, the Group of
Eight (G8: Germany, USA, Italy, France, Canada, Russia, Japan and UK) agreed
to create a fund that would supply the required $10 billion annually. To
date, eight of the richest countries on earth have contributed a total of
$500 million, less than 5% of the annual target; an estimated $300 million
was spent on security preparations for the 2002 G8 meeting in Kananaskis,
Alberta.

In January, George W. Bush announced a US contribution of $15 billion to
help fight AIDS. Even the most pessimistic activists were forced to admit
that the Bush administration was doing some good. Or were they? $15 billion
sounds like a lot, but the closer one looks at the details, the more
problems arise. Of the $15 billion proposed, $10 billion is new, and the
plan is to spread it out over four years. No new money will go to fight AIDS
in 2003, and only $700 million will go out in 2004. Meanwhile, people whose
lives might be saved will die by the hundreds of thousands. Most of the $15
billion, it seems, will go out after Bush's current term ends in 2004. Even
if he is elected for a second term, there is plenty of precedent for rich
countries breaking promises of funding as soon as they make them. For
comparison purposes, the US's share of AIDS funding according to the 2001 G8
plan is $3.5 billion per year, and the US annual expenditure for development
of nuclear weapons is around $15 billion annually.

A closer look at what could be done, unfortunately, vindicates the truly
cynical. African countries spend more than $15 billion per year servicing
[1]illegitimate external debt. This is money that was borrowed and spent by
previous governments or dictators, but which the people are now forced to
pay, with interest. Most scenarios indicate that African nations will never
get out of debt if current conditions continue. And yet, all the rich
countries would need to do to prevent the worst humanitarian disaster of our
time would be to cancel those debts.

Instead, they have done the opposite. Through the IMF and World Bank--in
which the US has an effective veto, and which are dominated by the G8
nations--many African nations have been forced to make drastic [2]spending
cuts to health services, services which might have slowed or stopped the
AIDS crisis over the past decade. "Development" deals like the recent
[3]NEPAD appear to provide funding for economic development, but mostly
serve as subsidies to corporations from rich countries and levers with which
to manipulate policy to the advantage of foreign investors. For example,
what the US calls "food aid" consists in buying unsalable genetically
modified food with taxpayer's money and [4]dumping it into third world
markets. Economic development does occur, but mostly for those who design
the development process; African countries only benefit to the extent that
their well-being coincides with the corporations doing business with
them--which is to say: superficially, but not in any long term sense.

Finally, the timing of this sudden change of heart in the Bush
Administration is worth examining. Less than a month before Bush announced
new AIDS relief funds, the US had finally caved in on WTO deal allowing poor
countries with health crises to bypass international patents laws and
produce generic drugs, rendering medication available those who would not
otherwise afford it. The plan, which was unanimously supported by WTO member
countries (but strongly opposed by the US) was passed after the Americans
caved to international pressure at the last minute and agreed to a severely
limited version of the agreement. On the morning before US negotiators
[5]finally signed on, one frustrated NGO representative [6]joked that the US
"couldn't make a decision because the CEOs of Merck and Pfizer were still in
bed."

Due to its uncanny timing, some critics have said that the new AIDS plan is
simply a subsidization of pharmaceutical companies to compensate for
political battles lost in the WTO. "What looks like a moment of heartfelt
generosity on the part of the Bush regime is, in fact, a hard-nosed
recognition that pharmaceutical companies around the world aren't winning
the PR battle to justify their monopolies," said Raj Patel, a policy analyst
and visiting fellow at UC Berkeley. That Bush's plan has earmarked [7]only
$200 million per year for the [8]Global AIDS Fund, and prefers to use most
of the money on terms set by the White House is consistent with Patel's
claim. For example, no health organizations that advocate or perform
abortions will receive funding. Even more strangely, the Bush administration
appears to be [9]lobbying to deemphasize distribution of condoms, which are
widely considered the most effective method of preventing transmission of
HIV.

But the amount of research involved with verifying what money gets spent on
is one of the root problems with "development" funding. Since the media (and
as a result, it's audience) has such a short attention span, politicians can
gain points by announcing ambitious plans, and remain unscathed when
followthrough is cynically calculated or nonexistent.

Though the US is a prime example of the hypocrisy involved in development,
the pitiful, near-bankrupt state of the Global AIDS Fund indicates that the
problem is much more widespread: rich countries that continue to leverage
their capital into short term profit without regard for the horrific
consequences are complicit in an ethically and morally untenable state of
affairs (this, obviously, includes Canada). Ironically, actions that lead to
the possibility of greater self-sufficiency of the third world would benefit
everyone economically in the long term. Unfortunately, the exigencies of
power and exploitation in the short term tend to overcome those of mutual
aid and greater prosperity in the long term.

That politicians lie and break promises should not come as a surprise to
anyone. However: when the result of this behaviour means life or death for
millions of people and the fate of entire nations are stake, one would
certainly hope to see a proportional increase in calls to account from
socially and morally conscious people.

The solutions to the AIDS crisis are well within the means of the
overdeveloped world, yet rich countries continue to undermine progress in
this area. All that's needed is to stop undermining and put the means to
work.

 References:
   1. http://www.africaaction.org/action/debt.htm
   2. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twe279g.htm
   3. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=13&ItemID=2062
   4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,805826,00.html
   5. http://allafrica.com/stories/200212270341.html
   6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,864071,00.html
   7. http://www.globalfundatm.org/journalists/inthenews/news_030130.html
   8. http://www.globalfundatm.org
   9. http://www.valleyskeptic.com/bush_condoms.html



--
Posted on Monkeyfist at http://monkeyfist.com/articles/838