George W. Bush and the fight against AIDS

The US administration gets a lot of criticism for its conservative policy on sex-related issues. One of the points we often hear is that the promotion towards young people of abstention from sex, is not helping the struggle against AIDS.

But today, Peter Piot, the director of UNAids (the agency of the UN that coordinates the battle against AIDS) paints a very positive picture of the role of the US in this field. In a two-page interview with Koen Vidal in Belgian newspaper De Morgen, he praises president Bush and the financial boost he gave to the worldwide fight against AIDS.


 
Dr Peter Piot in De Morgen: "you won't like to hear it, but Bush gave an enormous push to the fight against AIDS".

Here are some translated quotes:

You know, in Europe they don't like to hear it, but in fact we owe a lot to US president George W Bush. In his State of the Union of 2003, he promised 15 billion dollars to the fight against AIDS in developing countries. And what's at least as important: he kept his promise and we received the money. The volume of the amount has completely changed our financial position. Before, at best we received a hundred million here and some millions there. When UNAids was established in 1994 we had an annual budget of 200 million dollar. Peanuts. Now we have 6.1 billion dollar each year.

Bush imposes three conditions. First, the money must go to fifteen concentration countries: Botswana, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Vietnam etc. All countries that are heavily affected by AIDS. Secondly, the largest part of the budget should go to treatment of already infected persons. For that, we have to use brand drugs, not the cheaper 'generic' drugs, as they are called. As far as prevention is concerend, one third should go to programs that are promoting abstention from sex.

Did you know that, for example, the US is the largest funder of condoms in developing countries? And don't forget that there often is a difference between American rhetorics on sex-related issues like AIDS, and what really happens on the ground. The neocon ideas that go around the world, are in fact intended for domestic use in the US. For Bush, it is a way to connect with the fundamentalists of the christian right. But in practice and on the ground, the impact of these views is relatively small. Moreover, it is not only the US that imposes conditions on USAids. The Scandinavian countries are imposing conditions too. Sweden, Norway and Finland are heavily against the distribution of clean needles to drug addicts.


Reacties

#5730

ivan

 

Thank you, Joseph, it's nice to know i'm right once in a while. :) Now i also think that on moral issues Bush is more of a moderate than a radical. For domestic use however he posits himself as a principled righ-wing Christian. This is because Karl Rove saw that in 2000 millions of those Christian fundamentalists stayed home in the elections which is why Gore won the popular vote. Rove vowed that he would get those votes of the fundamentalist right, and he got them. How? By portraying Bush (on gay marriage for instance) as one of them. Neoconservatives idea's however, which as you say is about democracy and foreign policy, has nothing to do with it. If anything neoconservatives (which i think is a misnomer, they are radicals really) would support giving more money for battling aids.

#5696

Joseph Cutler

 

First, the neocons are not necessarily Christian fundamentalists. These are two different groups with different idea's (Wolfowitz for instance is a secular jew).

Second, isn't Bush a christian fundamentalist himself? And a very right-wing one at that? But this doesn't rhyme with his attitude on AIDS. Maybe he's not that right-wing after all?

-

The former observation is right on, neocons in the true sense of the word (not the puffed up definition used nowadays to lump supporters of the Iraq war together) are the opposite of Christian fundamentalists.

They are for supporting democracy and an aggressive foreign policy, but liberal on social issues...because many are former Democrats who were pushed away by soft treatment given to the Soviet Union. Many are also Jewish, as you noted with Wolfowitz.

You're also on the way with Bush...He to the right of the political spectrum, especially when compared to the European political sphere, but he isn't a right wing fundamentalist. Gay civil unions), limited stem cells, continued affirmative action, continued high government spending, 15 billion to Africa for AIDs, ect, in most respects he's a moderate. Europeans just know him for his hard line foreign policy, and see broad characterizations of his domestic policy through their media about him being 'right wing'.

#5478

ivan

 

Piot says: "The neocon ideas that go around the world, are in fact intended for domestic use in the US. For Bush, it is a way to connect with the fundamentalists of the christian right."

First, the neocons are not necessarily Christian fundamentalists. These are two different groups with different idea's (Wolfowitz for instance is a secular jew).

Second, isn't Bush a christian fundamentalist himself? And a very right-wing one at that? But this doesn't rhyme with his attitude on AIDS. Maybe he's not that right-wing after all?

#5476

ivan

 

Let's all look for more positive Bush articles!!

Here is one:

http://adamsmithe...

#5460

Joe

 

Give that man a cigar. Let's all look for more positive Bush articles!! I'm sure more exist. Go search!