AIDS: Another World War by Salih Booker

[Guest guest]

THE NATION

COMMENT | January 7, 2002

AIDS: Another World War

by Salih Booker

Whether measured by numbers killed or nations wounded, by economies upended

or families crushed, the AIDS pandemic is a deadlier global threat than that

posed by terrorist groups. But almost no one draws the logical conclusion:

The war on AIDS is more important than the war on terrorism. Those on the

frontlines of this war--people living with AIDS, medical professionals and

community activists, family and friends--are fighting back with the meager

resources they have. Report after report documents what needs to be done.

The price tag is modest compared with the sums quickly appropriated in

response to September 11. Yet only a trickle of resources is reaching the

AIDS battle fronts.

Six months ago the world gathered in New York in a special session of the

United Nations to adopt a global strategy to defeat AIDS, now acknowledged

as the worst plague humankind has ever faced. The level of consensus offered

hope that leaders might soon translate words into action. Kofi n won

approval for a global fund with a target of $10 billion a year in additional

resources. Yet on December 1, World Aids Day, the international community

and the media gave only perfunctory notice to new UN estimates for 2001: 3

million more dead, 5 million more HIV infections, 40 million people now

living with HIV/AIDS--28 million of them in Africa. The Global Fund has

garnered only $1.6 billion in pledges, including multiyear commitments.

W. Bush set the bar low with a US pledge of only $200 million, and

other countries followed his example.

Years from now people will ask about AIDS, as with the Holocaust or the

Rwandan genocide, " How could they have known--and failed to act? " The reason

isn't not knowing what to do. The main elements were clearly agreed on in

New York: Prevention measures, like condoms and safe-sex education, are

essential. Women, more vulnerable to infection, must have the right and

power to control their sexual choices. Treatment, including access to

antiretrovirals, must be available to provide hope for survival and an

incentive to be tested. Health systems must be given the capacity to fight

back by treating opportunistic and other diseases and by blocking HIV

transmission from mothers to newborns.

What is lacking is the money to carry out these efforts, notes UN special

envoy : " We have all over the [African] continent individual

projects and programs that are successful, and the frustration lies in our

inability to take them to scale. " Lack of dollars is " the single most

inhibiting factor. "

Though AIDS activists have pointed out the connections between AIDS,

poverty, African debt and the policies of international financial

institutions, these realities have not penetrated US public discourse. Nor

has the concept that paying for global public health is an obligation for

those who have the means to pay. Most of the dying are in Africa and

therefore invisible outside that continent. Even if moved by Africa's

tragedy, the average American is programmed to assume it is someone else's

responsibility.

Few slogans have been so often repeated as the need for " leadership " against

AIDS. Notably, two leaders who could have taken decisive roles chose not

even to attend the June UN session, Bush and South African President Thabo

Mbeki. Together, they epitomize the two greatest impediments to the fight

against AIDS: denial and disregard.

Mbeki represents deadly denial. South African activists have played leading

roles in the struggle against AIDS. The South African government joined the

struggle to force drug companies to back down on their court case putting

patents before health. But Mbeki has balked at treatment for South Africans

with HIV/AIDS. Instead of taking the clear connection between AIDS and

poverty as a starting point for galvanizing the global campaign against

both, he has veered into battle against his own medical community.

Tragically, he has turned his eyes away from those dying for fear the sight

might mar his vision of an African renaissance.

Bush, on the other hand, symbolizes outright disregard. Strong US leadership

in funding the global war against AIDS would turn the tide, but Washington

fails to appreciate the link between the spread of poverty, desperation and

insecurity and the increase in such global threats as AIDS and terrorism.

Bush refuses to give priority to the war on AIDS because the victims are

mostly black, poor and female.

September 11, by bringing home the common vulnerability that Americans share

with others on this planet, should serve as an impetus to a greater sense of

solidarity. Instead, the reverse has happened: The world war against AIDS,

less visible but more urgent than the war against terrorism, has not even

been joined.