http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/b ... 290840.asp

Biting the Hand That Feeds You
The U.S. is berated — for generously fighting malaria and AIDS.

By Roger Bate

Arusha, Tanzania: To confirm the massive international bias (especially within the media) against the United States, one has only to examine the headlines about the recent major AIDS meeting in Tanzania. Most nations have failed to live up to their international obligations, whereas the U.S. has delivered on them. Yet, by some odd twist, the U.S. is criticized and the rest are not. It's time for Americans to consider ignoring international forums (such as the Global Fund), partner with those who want to work with the U.S. (as they did in Iraq), and just save lives.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was established by the U.N. in 2001 to provide drugs, insecticides, and other interventions to the poor countries of the world. Most of the money has been spent on HIV/AIDS, although increasingly a greater percentage is going to malaria control. Malaria has a high death rate — especially among children in Africa — but is curable, so the returns in terms of lives saved are much higher than for AIDS. Even so, there is controversy about prevention and treatment. Debates over whether bed nets or DDT are better for stopping mosquitoes from biting kids are as divisive for malaria control as the debates pitting abstinence against condoms, and brand-name drugs against generics, are for AIDS prevention.

The fund finished its board meeting in Tanzania just before Thanksgiving. Attended by four African presidents, with abundant smiles and large begging bowls, the meeting was supposed to announce a $3 billion anti-AIDS program for 2005. Instead, it has received pledges of only $900 million, and the fifth round of funding may be delayed by several months until the rest of the money is procured. Additionally, under congressionally imposed rules, the U.S. cannot commit more funds until the other parties also pledge more.

The current chairman of the Global Fund board is the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson. When he announced that the fifth round of funding might be delayed by “five months,” the U.S. was immediately attacked by pressure groups for not doing enough. The Global AIDS Alliance accused President George W. Bush of crippling the fund by harboring “an irrational hatred toward all things U.N.-related.” European newspapers reported these attacks gleefully.

The U.S. has been the harshest critic of the fund’s failings. First, it has criticized other donors for not doing their part; more important, it has complained that the fund was failing to manage projects efficiently. But apparently good-faith, accurate criticism is not allowed in the world of do-goodery.

Add to this the fact that others’ criticism of the United States is certainly not in good faith. It is disingenuous of the media and activists to berate the one party that does not renege on an international agreement (i.e., the United States). The G-8 group of nations declared last year that the fund should get $3 billion a year, with French President Jacques Chirac proposing $1 billion from Europe, $1 billion from the United States, and $1 billion from other countries.

But since European nations have not donated their share, the U.S. has so far paid more than its share — its support has been as high as 37 percent and is currently at 35 percent, exceeding the originally proposed 33 percent. When Congress agreed to the funding, it capped U.S. support at a third of the total level, not wanting to end up funding the vast majority of a supposedly global effort. As Thompson says: “If other countries were as generous as [the U.S.], we would not be in the situation we are in right now.”

Europeans have defended their stinginess mainly by complaining about America’s faith-based approach. U.S. policymakers insist that abstinence and education are as important a part of disease control as condom delivery, and the evidence shows this to be true. But the truth has not stopped European activists from excusing their governments’ refusals to grant funding on the grounds that they object to American policies.

Such carping at American largesse and annoyance at U.S. demands for accountability demonstrate that the rest of the world is happy to pay lip service to AIDS relief, but is neither serious about funding it nor about making sure that the funded interventions work. If the U.S. pulled out of these joint ventures, U.S. policy administrators could get on with saving AIDS patients pursuant to their own standards of accountability — and saving themselves the hassle of answering to the hostile European media. U.S. non-participation would also show up the rest of the world for doing so little.

----

Curious as to what everyone's take is on this.

Not sure what to make out of this. But, if this segment is true:



then that's a pretty silly reason to cut off funds. Both techniques should go hand in hand.

It seems to be a pissing contest between the US and Europe and the piss is landing on Africa. Europe is holding back in protest of the faith-based and abstinence centered approach of the US (which I think are short-sighted approaches as well, but I haven't pledged $1 Billion in aid), and the US is holding back the rest of their share until Europe kicks in theirs. Meanwhile people are dying everyday over the waiting.

I have never doubted that the US and Europe are more interested in how their hair looks than they are about African lives.

--PunkDavid

I'd like to take this a bit more macro, if you don't mind. What does anyone think it will take to allow sub-Sarahan Africa to develop? We can throw plenty of foreign aid to assist in curing/suppressing diseases and such, but what would it take for a society there to be able to develop to the point where they could work towards solving the problems on their own? Lack of stability? Lack of education? Something else?

you ask the best damn questions.

it seems to me that ideally, under this system, we will throw money at them until disease is under control. then throw more money at them to develop stable governments and the infrastructures needed to become economic peers to us (the u.s. and europe). sounds like a money pit. this is all totally uneducated conjecture on my part.

as for the pissing contest between the u.s. and europe, it seems we have each drawn our lines in the sand, but these lines aren't on the same beach. they think our administration is evil and we(the administration) thinks they are a bunch of liberal pussies. none of this gets anyone anywhere and the people of africa suffer.

I think the problem is that with abstinence comes the faith based teachings and that is what the European countries are objecting to. It's especially difficult given that we are talking about a region where conversion to Christianity has been a goal of Western countries for the better part of 2 centuries. A very touchy issue.

The real problem seems to be that we have presidents of African countries ( I believe it was recently South Africa's president) that said HIV does not cause AIDS. So you have a situation where the governments of Africa are unwilling to even come to grips with how the disease is spread.

First and foremost we need to deal with the sick and dying. The biggest problem seems to be that even those who know they are infected continue to force their wives and mistresses to have sex with them. This doesn't even deal with the massive problem of those who don't know they are infected at all.

screw the faith based crap. Our first concern should be education on how the disease is contracted and spread as well as treat the infected and dying. Then we can begin to tackle the problem of their culture.

Doesn't surprise me at all; if it is not in the U.S. Federal Government's economic interest to contribute money (if they don't believe they will see a return on their investment), they don't. They would rather spend money on "securing" the regions of the world from which they gain resources and/or consumers, than curing regions of the world which hold economic uncertainty and hold no oil nor labor nor consumers. The economies of these region have never been strong enough for the U.S. to show an interest in, so they aren't going to suddenly start now. Sickening, but that seems to be our longstanding foreign policy.

Why not just have each nation donate what they want on their own, and teach in a manner they feel is appropriate.

Nations working together isn't always the best route to go. It may be alot of times, but not 100% of the time. If the USA donates $1B, it should have a say as to how it's spent. Same for Europe.




I should be used to posts like this, considering I've been reading this board for 2 years, but I still don't get it.

The European Union, as a whole, is capable of doing anything the USA can. If Europe wants to save the world, then the Europeans should make it their priority, and do what they feel they must. I believe America will do what it feels it should.

If nothing gets done, it's everyone's fault, not just America's.