Bob wasn't wrong about George. But $15bn for Aids is just a start

The Independent (U.K.) ^ | 06/01/03 | Julian Filochowski

[Pokey78]

Bob Geldof proclaimed last week that George W Bush is the best US President for Africa since John F Kennedy. In the run-up to the G8 Summit in the French town of Evian, which starts today, Bush announced a massive $15bn over five years to fight HIV/Aids. The question is, does this constitute a genuine watershed in the way the world's richest country and the rest of the G8 nations approach Africa's problems? Does it really mark a break with the past and a new hope for Africa?

Any overview of the immense challenges facing Africa must put the HIV/Aids pandemic high on the list. Almost 30 million people living with HIV and two and half million dying from Aids each year in Africa make this a defining moment for the continent.

The Aids crisis is leaving hundreds of thousands of households headed by children as young as nine or 10 years old. Whole villages now have only the young and the aged to look out for each other's survival. And this corset-shaped demography is damaging the development prospects of most of the African continent. Deaths in Africa have now become so frequent that businesses have restricted staff to attending only the funerals of their closest family members. Orphaned children drop out of school because they cannot afford to pay the fees, and they are crowding women out of the informal economy.

The United Nations estimates that the pandemic is slowing economic growth rates by between 1 per cent and 3 per cent per year. For economies that are, for the most part, barely outpacing their population growth rates, this is a debilitating setback for their development prospects. The full effects of HIV/Aids are still spreading, and are yet to be quantified by development agencies and African governments trying to reverse the pandemic.

On the face of it, Bush's additional $3bn a year is an impressive sum. While still some billions short of the UN's estimate of $7bn a year needed to tackle the pandemic, the Bush plan will buy life-extending drugs and is intended to provide humane care to 10 million people. This is badly needed and should not be discounted. Indeed, as Bob Geldof has pointed out, it's more money than Bill Clinton's rhetoric on Africa ever managed to produce. But the causes of the spread of the pandemic are, like its consequences, multi-dimensional. Tackling the disease requires an approach that encompasses the full range of development policies.

HIV/Aids and other public health crises, such as malaria and TB, thrive in families and communities marred by poverty, malnutrition, economic migration and ignorance. The accelerators of disease are found in Africa's collapsing health and education infrastructures.

Donors share a responsibility for this. Millions of Africans were denied access to primary healthcare and education when the International Monetary Fund and World Bank forced their governments to charge for these basic services as part of the conditions attached to aid and debt relief.

We are faced with a flawed practice of dictating from the top down how African governments should spend aid money. Bush's plan focuses narrowly on the provision of anti-Aids drugs and health education programmes rather than on a broader approach that would enable more children to attend school and remove some of the obstacles to Africa's development and poverty reduction plans. Longer-term solutions behind Aids and other crises in Africa are only going to be forthcoming when donors respond by supporting the priorities identified by progressive African governments. They must mobilise their resources behind anti-Aids and poverty reduction plans designed by Africans themselves. So far, the G8 has failed to pursue such a collaborative and mature approach.

This weekend Bush will be meeting other G8 leaders and a handful of African governments in Evian. He will clearly be pointing to the large sums of money behind his anti-Aids drive and challenging European Union countries and Japan to match it.

The G8 leaders have collectively failed to understand that it's not just the amount of money that is important but the way it is given. Both aid and debt relief often come with damaging anti-poor conditions attached, such as the IMF's insistence on privatisation. The few African leaders who have been invited to the Evian summit will be calling for a different approach. Their proposal, called a New Partnership for Africa, is based on the recognition that the era of development policies designed in Western capitals and then imposed on supplicant governments has too frequently failed the poor.

One of the African proposals is for a new approach to debt. The African leaders want the amount of debt relief to be determined by the finance necessary to achieve their poverty-reduction plans. Their calls have been echoed by citizens in all the G8 countries. Five years ago, a demonstration by 70,000 activists at the Birmingham G8 meeting put debt and development on the agenda of the summits of the world's most powerful heads of government.

Those of us who gathered for the peaceful protest in Birmingham were moved by what we saw as an issue of social justice. We argued that it is wrong that those with the least should be made to repay their debts to those who already have the most. To us, it seemed absurd that the poorest of the poor should sacrifice their own and their children's life chances in order to maintain a debt repayment regime that none of them had any voice or control in contracting.

The Jubilee 2000 Campaign mobilised millions of people around the world and forced the G8 leaders to make a dramatic response to the debt crisis. Yet for debt campaigners, the G8 promise of an end to the injustice of unpayable Third World debts remains unfulfilled. The G8 meeting in Cologne in 1999 promised $111bn of debt relief spread over 40 years. The member countries are now committing themselves to providing about a third of that amount.

The limited debt relief that has trickled through has led to higher spending in Africa on health, education and investment in agriculture. But African governments are still left short of the finance needed to meet the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goal to halve poverty by 2015.

The scandal is that the money required to write off the debts of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa is, in global terms, barely significant. It has been costed at little over $6.4bn spread over five years. Compare that with the $350bn that rich countries subsidise their farmers with every year.

And the irony is that in the week before Bush's announcement on the Aids bill, the US Senate voted for deeper debt reduction that would go some way to restore the capacity of African governments to finance their own poverty reduction strategies. But the Bush team in the US Treasury effectively vetoed it.

So Bush's announcement on Aids is not a watershed. Like most of the G8's approach to Africa, it is critically flawed by its belief that the donors hold the prerogative on development policy.

A radical and successful approach to Africa needs donors to co-ordinate their resources behind African-owned and agreed poverty reduction plans. The world's richest countries need to break with failed approaches of the past by supporting African strategies designed with the widest possible consensus of the people who will be implementing those plans, strategies that have been influenced by the poor, who are the intended beneficiaries.

This week will be the third time the G8 has invited progressive African governments to meet at the rich man's table. This time they must not only be heard; they must also be heeded.

Julian Filochowski is director of the aid agency Cafod

[willowpar]

Indeed, as Bob Geldof has pointed out, it's more money than Bill Clinton's rhetoric on Africa ever managed to produce.

We have record deficits yet still manage to come up with 15 billion dollars for AIDs in Africa. Somebody want to remind me just how "conservative" Bush is?

[kuma]

He defeats himself within his own article. How can you even begin to deal with illiteracy and unemployment when all of the middle-aged groups are dying off.

I've read several articles that point out that the spread of AIDS is largely in part due to superstitions such as raping a virgin will rid a man of the disease. Reading and Jobs have nothing to do with that.

Already their are complaints from the Multiculturalists about Abstinence Education. Insisting that superstitions are on equal standing with 100% full proof scientific fact (that if your not having sex you absolutely can't spread the disease through sex) will solve nothing.

Anyhoo! That's just one aspect to the problem. If the people within the countries themselves aren't willing to try to let go of rape/promiscuity culture than no amount of money will solve the problems.

[netmilsmom]

This is why Bob Geldof is a knight and the average liberal is a moron. Geldof saw that something is better than nothing. He stated that this IS just a start and now it is time for the rest of the world to come through as well. He also stated that Clinton did all the talking but Bush came through with action (just as he always does).
Hey France, Germany and Canada....Bob Geldof is paging you.

[Jim Noble]

Millions of Africans were denied access to primary healthcare and education when the International Monetary Fund and World Bank forced their governments to charge for these basic services

Well, how else were they gonna pay for 'em?

By selling their inventions and manufactures in international trade?

Rents from their intellectual property?

Providing valuable services not available elsewhere?

Africa is not prepared to live within the international system. We should give as much humanitarian relief as we can (IMO), but we should stop trying to "reform" people who exist in a pre-reform world.

[redbaiter]

Both aid and debt relief often come with damaging anti-poor conditions attached, such as the IMF's insistence on privatisation

Huh? How does privatisation hurt the poor? It is far from clear to me how privatisation is a bad thing anywhere, much less in corrupt and incompetent Africa.

[stylin19a]

If you check out DOD appropriations, AIDS prevention money for African & non-African nations is also buried in there.

[vbmoneyspender]

Bob Geldof proclaimed last week that George W Bush is the best US President for Africa since John F Kennedy.

Can someone explain to me what JFK ever did for Africa? I suspect that JFK is being employed here as a rhetorical device that comes in handy whenever one is trying to extole the virtues of someone to a liberal.

[F16Fighter]

[T]he Bush plan will buy life-extending drugs and is intended to provide humane care to 10 million [non-American] people....

...Yeah, while shamefully many American Vets and U.S. citizens must continue to grovel for and sweat out whatever health "care" they "qualify" for.

Hey, we're all for alms and charity for others, but doesn't charity "begin in the home"??

[MeekMom]

I support passing info to Africans, but passing out condoms that will only be used as animal balloons makes no sense. The HIV virus can easily pass through them just as easily as sperm can.

[MeekMom]

very good post FRiend. I agree 100%

[OREALLY]

I guess some people can put a price on millions of human lives. Your new here..... To me saving one childs life is worth the $3 billion a year.

[expatguy]

...Bob Geldof proclaimed last week that George W Bush is the best US President for Africa since John F Kennedy..."[sic]

President for Africa??!!

[OREALLY]

A large part of the money is going to educate these people.

[Yeti]

Somebody want to remind me just how "conservative" Bush is?

Don't you see?!?! It's brilliant! He's "pulling lefty voters rightward!" It's only 15 billion dollars, and at least a dozen or maybe even two dozen dems mught vote differently.

I'm thinkng I would be better off voting for the Democrats, then let them "pull me leftward" by dismantling the Dept. of Education, abolishing income taxes, enforcing immigration laws, ending the WoD, etc...

[kuma]

I'm aware of that which was also part of the post. Education that abstinence and monogomy are the only full proof sexual behaviors that prevent the spread of AIDS as an STD.

I'm all for saving a life. It is a shame that millions of children are orphans because of this disease but being nice about it and not pointing out the obvious destructive points in a given culture will help nothing.

Educate away but if people themselves aren't willing to change (I'll be nice and say that remains to be seen) it is just words falling on deaf ears.

[Jesse]

Yeah, a large part is going to educate these people like ticks collect blood for hospitals.

Times like these, I almost wish I were a third world dictator in Africa or the Caribbean...the money is just going to start rollin, rollin rollin, keep those dollars flowing, right into their Swiss bank account.

Oh, well, this will be good for Raytheon or Boeing...lots of dictators will be out shopping soon for new private jets...

[section9]

A radical and successful approach to Africa needs donors to co-ordinate their resources behind African-owned and agreed poverty reduction plans. The world's richest countries need to break with failed approaches of the past by supporting African strategies designed with the widest possible consensus of the people who will be implementing those plans, strategies that have been influenced by the poor, who are the intended beneficiaries.

"Yah, right boss! Just drop that 10 billion dollars at the Presidential Palace. We'll take it from there...."

Meanwhile, in Lagos....

"Okay, it's like this,,,,I have five billion dollars from the Americans to fight the scourge of AIDS on our continent. However, Mr. President-for-Life, my political opponents are hunting me down to get their share of the loot. I need to park that five billion dollars in a bank account. If you let me use your personal bank account to park the money I will let you keep fifteen percent of the five billion....

"Uh, isn't that a violation of Section 4.19 of the Nigerian Criminal Code?"

"Mr. President-for-Life! What do you take me for?! A Nigerian 419 Scammer? This is a legitimate offer! All I need is one hundred thousand dollars from your personal account to hold the money......"

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[willowpar]

I guess some people can put a price on millions of human lives. Your new here..... To me saving one childs life is worth the $3 billion a year.

You're right...I am new here... and under the impression that this was supposed to be a conservative forum. I have synpathy for the children, but not for the adults whose irresponsible behavior directly contributes to their AIDs problem over there. If they don't care enough about their own children to alter their behavior, why should my tax dollars go to support their reckless behavior? As far as I'm concerned, the entire continent is a mess, and no amount of foreign aid is ever going to change that. The changes they need to make must come from within.

[Wonder Warthog]

"We are faced with a flawed practice of dictating from the top down how African governments should spend aid money."

"A radical and successful approach to Africa needs donors to co-ordinate their resources behind African-owned and agreed poverty reduction plans."

Yeah, right--we should just turn the money over to the governments of the African nations and let them decide how it should be spent. I mean, after all, they have such a FANTASTIC track record of money management in the past, I'm sure they will do an equally magnificent job in the future (SARCASM OFF).

[Wonder Warthog]

"To me saving one childs life is worth the $3 billion a year."

The problem is that of the $3 billion spend on "aid", $2,999,999,999.02 will go into the head honcho's Swiss bank account, and $1.98 will actually be spent to "save one child's life".

[Dave S]

Can someone explain to me what JFK ever did for Africa? I suspect that JFK is being employed here as a rhetorical device that comes in handy whenever one is trying to extole the virtues of someone to a liberal.

My guess is that he's referring to the foreign aid provided by Kennedy during the early 60's. Back then, the US and USSR were in a bidding war for countries in the third world and both countries were pouring aid into underdeveloped countries. The $15 billion we are spending on AIDS in Africa would have been chicken feed compared to what was given away during the Cold War. Much of it was military aid to prop up friendly governments but there was a lot of infrastructure development as well. The Russians for example built the Aswan dam and hydroelectric development in Egypt.

[OREALLY]

I just realized I did not complete a sentence, sorry.
(You are new here....so am I, welcome.)
I do not know what you mean by you thought this was a conservative forum ? There is all kinds of wierd stuff on this web. Because I care about humanity does that mean I am not a conservative ? What do we do about this aids epidemic, turn our heads and hope it goes away ?
I am not your enemy I am just expressing my opinion.

[Dave S]

Don't you see?!?! It's brilliant! He's "pulling lefty voters rightward!" It's only 15 billion dollars, and at least a dozen or maybe even two dozen dems mught vote differently.

I doubt you understand what W is doing. First of all, if you insist on being cynical, he's not trying to convert Dems to vote for him. At most he is attempting to take the edge off the Republican label (remember "compasionate conservative") and encourge weak Republican and independents, especially soccer mom types, to vote for him. The Republican message is attractive to these voters as long as its not packaged in the "in your face" style of Newt Gingrich who couldnt keep his mouth shut and led with his chin.

Beyond the politics, you seem to assume that Bush is not interested in doing this for more valid reasons, like its the right thing to do. As a christian, I would imagine that its difficult for Bush to stand by and do nothing when a third of the African continent is dying. Again, if you insist on being cynical, a sick and dying Africa is not a good market for American goods. It also means more places like Mogidushu where terrorists and drug dealers can hide. It means more instability in a part of the world that is already unstable.

If these arguments dont do for you, how about this. It allows Bush to embarrass the Euro trash who are big on talk but weak on action. What have you done for the Africans Mr Chirac, other than send your foreign minister down to buy UN votes?

[Dave S]

Do you really think these children chose their parents and therefore deserve what they got?

[kuma]

Buwhahahaha... good point *^_^.

[Fraulein]

Ah, so much liberal rhetoric on this thread: Guilt. Pity. Humanitarian redistribution of wealth. And lest we forget: It's for the children.

[WhiteGuy]

15 Thousand Million........................

Our money..................................

Pathetic

[willowpar]

I do not know what you mean by you thought this was a conservative forum ? There is all kinds of wierd stuff on this web. Because I care about humanity does that mean I am not a conservative ? What do we do about this aids epidemic, turn our heads and hope it goes away ?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to overreact, it's that this is about the sixth time in the few days that I've been here that my newbie status has been thrown in my face, usually in an attempt to question my conservatism or discredit me. My problem is not with just this proposal, but with foreign aid in general, and with Bush's profligate spending habits. My answer for Africa's problem would be supporting education for them instead of just throwing large sums of money at them for political reasons (yes I'm cynical), most of which I doubt will ever really reach the people in need because of corruption.

[WhiteGuy]

Political one-upmanship and excessive generousity..............

It's sure an easy game to play if you're giving away someone elses money.................

Ron Paul 2004

[Sparta]

To me saving one childs life is worth the $3 billion a year.

Will you support banning guns if it saves one child's life a year?

Will you support banning smoking if it saves one child's life a year?

Will be willing to spend $20 billion a year just to save one child?

Will you support Hillarycare just to save one child's life a year?

Will you support banning bathtubs just to save one child's life a year?

See how foolish that arguement is. You have to outweigh the costs vs the benefits. The cost/benefit ratio is just too high in the case (the corruption in Africa, the deficit, the effectiveness, etc.) just like in all the other examples I pointed out.

[willowpar]

Do you really think these children chose their parents and therefore deserve what they got?

Of course these children don't deserve it, it's a very sad situation. Millions of children all over the world die of cancer, starvation, and a host of other evils each year, it's just way things are. What's your point? The billions we send will do nothing more than save perhaps a small percentage of them. Where do we draw the line? $15 billion? $100 billion? $1 trillion?

[Fraulein]

Welcome to FR! :)

The same folk who cry foul when their money gets redistrubuted to poor Americans have no problem whatsoever when their money goes to help poor non-Americans. In fact, they'll support it with all the more gusto if they think that it is part of Bush's so-called 'political strategy.' Don't think, however, that they would ever for a minute let Clinton get away the same thing. Such posters save their liberal arguments and sentiments only for times such as these when they are supporting Bush.

[Fraulein]

Oops! That sentence should read: Don't think, however, that they would ever for a minute let Clinton get away with the same thing.

[OREALLY]

I bet we share a lot in common too....I have been ganged up on a few times. Hey, no pain no gain. (grin ) Glad to know yah !

[billbears]

Because I care about humanity does that mean I am not a conservative ? What do we do about this aids epidemic, turn our heads and hope it goes away ?

By all means do something about it. Contribute to an organization that handles this issue, get in touch with someone at your church to see if something can be done, if not then the national organization that your church belongs to. However it is neither the responsibility nor the right of the national government of these United States to hand our money over to other nations at the rates we're seeing today

[willowpar]

Don't think, however, that they would ever for a minute let Clinton get away the same thing. Such posters save their liberal arguments and sentiments only for times such as these when they are supporting Bush.

Amazing isn't it? Even Clinton himself didn't support similiar proposals sent his way, yet we have Republicans on this thread cheering Bush on so he can be a "compassionate conservative" in the hopes of picking up a couple of votes. The Republican Party has moved so far to the left they might as well merge with the democrats, there's so little difference between them anymore.

[Fraulein]

The Republican Party has moved so far to the left they might as well merge with the democrats, there's so little difference between them anymore.

The more the difference between the two parties is eradicated, the more totalitarianism becomes complete. Our votes will cease to matter since there will be no viable policy alternatives on which to vote. (Sort of like it already is with illegal immigration.). Of course, there will remain just enough of a difference between the parties, albeit petty and small, to keep people cheerleading on each side. Gotta keep the illusion alive, don't ya know?

[Yeti]

I doubt you understand what W is doing. First of all, if you insist on being cynical...

I think I do. And yes I am cynical about politicians. You can call me cynical, but if you're serious I'll call you naive.

At most he is attempting to take the edge off the Republican label (remember "compasionate conservative") and encourge weak Republican and independents, especially soccer mom types, to vote for him.

15 billion of our money to take the edge off a political party's label or woo some soccer moms is deceitful and wasteful.

As a christian, I would imagine that its difficult for Bush to stand by and do nothing when a third of the African continent is dying.

Well, for one thing, everyone I know who has had anything to do with it has said that even deaths from car crashes are called AIDS deaths, in an effort to get more WHO money. Also, Bush is taking money from US citizens, whose interests he is SUPPOSED to be looking out for, and using it to serve the intersts of other coustries. Africa was not a big market for US goods before AIDS, and it won't be any time soon. And, the place is SO corrupt, as W KNOWS. He KNOWS that none of that money is going to do a single damned thing to stop anyone from getting AIDS.

It allows Bush to embarrass the Euro trash who are big on talk but weak on action

15 billion dollars to embarrass someone. If it were out of his pocket, that would be one thing. If he really expected the moral high ground to benefit us tremendously in the upcoming summit, that would be another. But 15 billion dollars is alot of money to spend for a cheap "one-up" on Chirac, et al, especially when it is not directly related to any slated topic of dicussion.

[Yeti]

Gotta keep the illusion alive, don't ya know?

Sad, but true. It is amazing to me the strides "They" have made in the last 20 years. They usurp EVERYTHING.

[OREALLY]

Hi Dave S. I am a Christian too. I guess we are not playing to the same drummer. I am so proud of President Bush for going against so many Christians because of condoms! I mean how can they find Christ if they are dead ?
I am leavng this forum...bye.

[willowpar]

Yep, I agree 100%. I'm hoping that some of the sheep wake up before it's too late, but I'm not optimistic.

[willowpar]

I am leavng this forum...bye.

Why do you want to leave so soon? I hope it wasn't over anything I said.

[OREALLY]

You got me ! (GRIN) I am so addicted. No nothing you said. Where would we be if we could not spout off or disagree? I prefer to pound on Hillary when I feel stressed. Ha Ha
Have you heard that Hillary is too tired to run for President ? Yes, being a witch is such hard work !
I hope we bump into each other soon...really, bye.

[willowpar]

being a witch is such hard work !

Yes , but somehow Hillary makes it appear easy. (I think it comes natural for her) Glad you're staying!

[God is good]

Why cut our taxes if you are just going to continue to waste our money? Cut spending so we don't have to lend you the 0% loan in the first place.

[God is good]

LOL! A step in the "right" direction.

[God is good]

The spread of AIDS is due in largest part to the lack of the fear of God.

[God is good]

I guess some people can put a price on millions of human lives. Your new here..... To me saving one childs life is worth the $3 billion a year.

Yeah, 3 billion of other people's money. I don't see you devoting your life savings to saving the poor poor children around the world.

[God is good]

A large part of the money is going to educate these people.

I'll believe it when I see it. I challenge you to name ONE just ONE program of this type that has ever worked the way it was supposed to.

NOBODY will be educated with this money. This money is going straight to the governments of these poor nations and will stay with the governments. We are supporting socialist governments.

What makes you think that our money is going to change anything?