Yesterday a fairly remarkable thing happened in the world regarding HIV prevention.
A country actually refused HIV related aid from the US.
This might sound like a terrible thing at first, so let me tell you (on the flip) why this is actually a wonderful thing.
(And excuse the long diary. I promise if you read to the end you won't be disappointed.)
As many of you are aware, the Bush administration has imposed many restrictions upon the use of US foreign aid money being used to combat the spread of HIV. (I won't go into all of the things here that the administration tries to get recieving countries and organizations abide by in order to revieve funds, however keep in mind that it is happening and it is hurting the global fight against HIV/AIDS)
For the most part, foreign countries have been willing to abide by these stipulations because they desperately need the funding. But yesterday Brazil was the first country to tell the Bush administration to keep their fucking money, they could do things better without it.
As a bit of background, Brazil has for years been the global model for the prevention of HIV spread. Here is what they are doing right (and what the Bush administration dislikes):
- The provide free condoms to the population
- They skirt patent laws and produce generic anti-retroviral drugs instead of buying them from (US) companies
- The distribute these drugs free of charge to anyone diagnosed with HIV
- They maintain an open relationship with prostitutes, homosexual men, intravenous-drug users and other high-risk groups and work with them in order to reduce the spread of HIV
- Prostitution is legal there and is regulated by the government
All of these things have led to only 700,000 becoming infected in the country (representing .6% of the population). This is roughly 1/2 of the projected HIV infection rate previously calculated for the year 2005. Obvously they're doing something right.
So why did Brazil refuse the aid? Before I read the story I just assumed it was going to be because of condom distribution, or possibly the patent law violations. But no it wasn't because of either of these. Let me cut to a press release I got from the CFAR (Center For AIDS Research) mailing list.
The Bush Administration's grant would have imposed scientifically unverifiable, ideological clauses, such as one that asks the country to officially condemn
prostitution. Signing such a clause would have impeded AIDS interventions within Brazil, which orchestrates open relationships with prostitutes, homosexual men, intravenous-drug users and other
high-risk groups in order to fight the pandemic.
"It is a simple fact that in order fight AIDS, it's crucial to work with the populations that face the greatest risk. It would be a gross human rights violation to deny them life-saving assistance based on moral grounds." said Atila Roque, Executive Director of ActionAid USA, and himself a Brazilian.
So the Bush administration wanted Brazil to declare prostitution illegal in order to get the AIDS funding? OH REALLY?!
This from an administration that had a gay prostitute in the White House (and who still hasn't been investigated for the prostitution allegations)?
This from a country which has no federal law outlawing prostitution?
The hell you say?
Back to the press release I recieved (and which I'll post as the first comment):
[P]rostitution is legally condoned within some Nevada counties. According to a 10-year UCLA study, the occurrence of AIDS within condoned rather than condemned brothels is significantly lower than that of the general population.
So again why is REJECTING money for the fight against HIV important?
There are two reasons:
Most importantly it allows Brazil to continue their science-based prevention program rather than implementing the ideological-based, Bush administration sponsored, program.
Secondly, it puts more pressure on the Bush administration in terms continuing their "faith-based" HIV prevention funding.
Oh, and don't worry, the Brazilian people will be cared for without the US funds (from Yahoo News this time):
Brazil can afford to turn down the Bush dollars. Unlike some poorer countries, it has an anti-AIDS program that is largely self-financed, and less than 2 percent of its money comes directly from the U.S. government.
So what do the two sides of the political spectrum think about the Bush administration's HIV funding policies? (again from Yahoo)
In the United States, Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., has condemned the Bush government requirement that any AIDS organization receiving U.S. federal funds sign up to a written pledge opposing commercial sex work, even if the work it does in developing countries has nothing to do with prostitution.
Waxman said such a declaration was against the constitutional right to free speech. But Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., urged a tightening of U.S. policy. He said that one-third of the U.S. Presidential Executive Provision for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was supposed to go to abstinence programs, yet the money mainly went not to faith-based groups but to "organizations long-associated with the social marketing of condoms. This must not continue."
First of all, it's not a fucking free speech issue, it's a matter of life and fucking death for the people infected as a direct result of these restrictions. Second of all, Henry Hyde can go fuck himself. I'll let his ignorance stand for itself.
Again, sorry for the long diary. I'll leave you with the money quote (from Yahoo):
"We can't control HIV with principles that are ... theological, fundamentalist and Shiite," said Pedro Chequer, director of Brazil's AIDS program.
A-fucking-men!
Links:
Yahoo Article
Reuters Article
Christian Science Monitor on Brazillian drug manufacturing