[ARTICLE] Bush and AIDS

Sand

During his recent State of the Union address, in a typical big business maneuvere Bush has committed to a 15 billion dollar aid package for the next 5 years to combat AIDS spread in the poorest countries of Africa and the Carribean, relying heavily on lower cost generic AIDS drugs - no doubt welcomed by pharmacutical companies.

What do you lot think of this patronising american interference in the sovereignity of other countries? Should he have gone the the UN first to seek permisson before engaging in this dangerously unilateralist approach to AIDS? What gives the US right to act as the worlds doctor/banker? Shouldnt we investigate whether theres any oil in these areas he plans to bribe with his "charity"?

http://www.phrusa.org/campaigns/aids/release012803.html

http://www.phrusa.org/campaigns/aids/release012803_text.html

sceptre

Any and all sincere aid that will benefit sufferers is a good thing.

Leaving that aside, he's pulling a fast accounting trick for a political reason: he takes an extra 10 billion from the aid budget (even if it's a new allocation it's being provided through the expanded aid budget), gives that to the countries who use the money to buy US drugs, giving Bush a more favourable balance of trade. The trade balance is one of the major issues affecting the Bush administration because at the moment it's pretty appalling. Old trick - the British used the same trick in the 70s with mining equipment and oil rigs effectively given to emerging African countries to help their trade balance.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
During his recent State of the Union address, in a typical big business maneuvere Bush has committed ....

It's pretty sad that when the US does something good you feel the need to crow about it so. You almost sound surprised.

I was surprised, pleasantly so. I certainly welcome this, it'll help a lot of people. Thank you very much, Mr Bush.

But. It could be better. First of all, it would in fact have been better to go down the multilateral route you're so keen to disparage. It would have been better to channel the money through the Global Fund, who already have the staff and structure in place to use it immediately and to best effect. It would also give the GF more leverage to ask for matching funds from other countries, too. As it is, the US will have to spend plenty putting the bureacracy in place to distribute this money. And some in the GF are even afraid that this will actually undermine their work.

Secondly, we don't know what the arrangements will be for buying the drugs. Would it be too much to suppose that the US plans to spend the money on generics from US pharmaceuticals only? And would it be wrong to contrast or even connect this announcement with the US's ongoing efforts to block an agreement in the WTO that would allow the poorest countries to buy generics from other developing countries? I sincerely hope the US doesn't hope to use this announcement to persuade African countries to back down in the WTO.

So a guarded welcome is in order. Hopefully the wrinkles will be ironed out of the proposal on its way through Congress.

rien_du_tout

Seems like a nice enough gesture. I mean we can harp on at the Americans all we want but at the end of the day we're not raising our donations (the government arent) to meet EU and UN targets. ok, the money isnt directly linked with AIDS but it targets some of the social problms which quicken the spread of the disease. I think that the generic drugs issue is important for millions of people and would be a shame if greed led a country to lobby for it to be forgotten about. All in all a nice thing to do from a not so nice man generally.........

seán

Sand

It's pretty sad that when the US does something good you feel the need to crow about it so. You almost sound surprised.

Not crowing about it. Im just making a point given the debate on certain terminology thats been used in other threads. I wouldnt use it myself because its pointless but yes it is surprising to see a post of this nature on this board. The reaction to it is similarly predictable to the cynical - disinterested would be an apt description. Why? It involves the boards favoured protagonist doesnt it? And AIDS is a threat which is extremely important. I think Ill leave it you to answer why people havent got a lot to say on it:)

The most amusing is that even when doing what is a basically good act, theyre still wrong and not to be trusted. Round of applause - I pretty much half expected it but I was dammned if I could figure out how it would be done

In short,yes this is a good act and a good thing - the sufferers couldnt care less where they get their drugs from so long as they work so that is in concrete terms a non-issue for me, and for them Id say.

shotamoose

Simple question, then: do you not agree that good as it is, it could quite easily be better, if the Americans had chosen to go through the Global Fund like I described?

Sand

No, I dont really see how it would to be honest - if you look at the article the executive director of physicians of human rights seems to feel this will help the global fund in their work, and that theyll be able to create the leverage anyway. So...not really.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The most amusing is that even when doing what is a basically good act, theyre still wrong and not to be trusted.

I woudlnt say that. What I would say is that this act of goodness was in no way altruistic.

The US is spending money to plug a problem it has with its economy. Yes, it is nice to see that it is doing so in such a way that it is helping other people, but this is different to doing something because those people need help.

This is the only thing that irks me. The nations of the world (cause the US is in no way the only culprit here) all too often turn a blind eye to problems that there is no direct "personal" benefit to solving, However, when a win-win opportunity comes along, they seem to expect applause for helping someone else whilst helping themselves.

Yes - thats how a lot of the world works, but y'know, I dont think its anything to be proud of.

In short,yes this is a good act and a good thing - the sufferers couldnt care less where they get their drugs from so long as they work so that is in concrete terms a non-issue for me, and for them Id say.

I'd agree. People's lives will be made better (hopefully) and its hard to see anyone as a loser in this...so yeah...win win all round. Nothing to complain about there.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
No, I dont really see how it would to be honest - if you look at the article the executive director of physicians of human rights seems to feel this will help the global fund in their work, and that theyll be able to create the leverage anyway. So...not really.

If you look a little harder you'll see that while $1bn of the money will go to the Global Fund and will have the effect you describe, $9bn will not and will not have that effect. Once again, why not simply put the rest through the Global Fund? It would be easy and would be even more beneficial with no extra cost (in fact, less cost) to the US. The only reason why the US would reserve control over the rest of the money would be so that they can impose conditions on the recipients.

Even more strangely, White House officials are now trying to pressure Senators to cut funding to the Global Fund in a forthcoming bill so that it will be 'consistent' with the Bush announcement which, let's remember, is only an announcement so far.

Put simply, if the Bush administration is being honest about its motives (concern for health in AIDS-afflicted nations), there is no reason whatsoever why it should not or cannot put all of its new money into the Global Fund.