| USAID and HIV/AIDS
diplomacy
By Leo. Nwokoji
Wednesday,
August 30, 2006
I am commencing this piece on a premise that a global, synergistic
loop is set in motion among nations, whenever a developed
country like the United States of America decides to play
the big brother to the less developed countries of the world.
United States is not a Santa claus, therefore whenever she
plays the big brother, she endeavours to confine it to the
limits of her strategic economic and security interest, and
rightly so.
At the same time, you and I know too well that America is
not merely arrogating to herself, a clout they do not possess.
She is the contemporary world leader, and as such, is expected
to exact that office maximally. It is unfortunate that certain
nations refuse to accept this as such. Rather than kick against
the pricks by misinterpreting and opposing every move made
by USA, nations should rise in support of America’s
global leadership. Somebody must police the work, and the
Almighty God has endowed USA with all it takes to do this.
Somebody must set a model, a pattern of doing certain things
better than others and America has been richly endowed with
lots of factors that confer a multidimensional comparative
advantage on them. Change however, is a constant factor in
international politics and it occasions some challenges.
Whenever America takes on a global challenge and initiate
on any particular issue, the country is misrepresented. Whenever
she fails to lead, she is devided and vilified for being caught
napping inspite of their much celebrated progress. Such is
the burden of a big brother. Between 2003 and 2005 fiscal
years, the Bush administration decided to play a leading role
in the line of curbing the invasive incursion into human race
by the scourge of HIV/AIDS.
Through the support of his cabinet, he floated a whopping
fund base $15 billion, to be applied over five years for this
purpose.
For proper implementation of this programme, USAID was made
the key partner in the presidents emergency plan for AIDS
relief (PEPFAR) USAID had the operating budget of $2.8 bill,
for 2005 fiscal year alone.
The law establishing the fund stated the criteria for would-be
benefactors of the fund Among the criteria outlined are: that
none of the funds made available under the agreement may be
used to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of
prostitution or sex trafficking; that the above rule should
not be understood to preclude the provision to individuals
of palliatives, care, treatment, or post-exposure pharmaceutical
prophylaxis, and necessary pharmaceuticals and commodities,
including test kits, condoms and, when proven effective, microbicides.
A requirement that a foreign recipient of the fund must have
a policy explicitly opposing, in its activities outside USA,
prostitution and sex trafficking (except some global organizations)
Recipient outside America are required to work with a certified
American body, whose goals and objectives does not in any
aspect contradict the criteria for benefiting from the fund.
There are similar rules checking contracting organization
under this PEPFFAR/USAID management.
As at August 2005, USAID is reported to be supporting HIV/AIDS
activities in more 50 countries through bilateral programme
and an additional 48 countries through seven regional programme.
To my mind, this is laudable programme. Bush administration
should be applauded for this noble activities that has touched
so many lives. Since it is a programme emanating from America,
according to critics, it is shrouded with political undertones
a view to which this writer is opposed. Critics have attacked
it on the ground that USA chose a unilateral action rather
than collaborate with other developed countries to fight the
scourge. This is a hollow premise. The same world that have
refused to support American world leadership role in other
spheres, are now urging USA to lead in bringing them together
to fight AIDS. One begins to wonder if this will lessen the
suspicision that have trailed similar American initiatives.
I do not think that the requirement that the fund be disbursed
through American bodies is enough reason to classify the programme
as a political one; it is rather aimed at ensuring the prudent
management and application of the fund to achieve the desired
objectives within the limit of American vital strategic interests
andsecurity. Any other developed country could do the same.
The programme has been equally criticized for restricting
the channeling of larger chunk of the fund to sexual abstinence
programme. It is criticized that it fails to recognize the
prevailing social condition in the developing world. Its refusal
to pay for generic HIV/ADIS mediums that the World Health
Organization has endorsed and which many countries are already
using.
Again, the view of this writer is that reading between the
lines, the rules for benefiting from the fund and from the
laws establishing the fund, the programm is aimed at preserving
posterity for entire mankind not a programme for those who
want to continue in sin so that grace will be abound, Romans
6:1.
With average American stretching human right to a fault even
to the point of reckless sexy lifestyle, the only sane thing
to do is to explore ways of restoring the real noble values
of life (that was the core values in the era of Americas founding
fathers) rather than promoting the downward drift into moral
cesspit. The programme is out to achieve this. America is
the leader, a pace setter and go getting nation in the contemporary
world. Whatever they leave undone remains undone. Whatever
they start revolves around the world. Some may not like their
foreign polices.
But in a contemporary world of insecurity at home and abroad,
who ever deliberately exposes himself to foreseeable danger?
Let him/her stand up for distinction. If no body is standing
up, then PEPFAR rules are in order.
The wisdom that developed the rules deserves a salutory attention.
It is aimed at nipping the scourge from the bud.
There is however a need, to retouch certain aspects of the
rules that indeed failed to recognize the intervening variables
in certain developing countries.
For instance, the rule discouraging prostitution refused to
recognize polygamous families in certain parts of the world.
This is prostitution in Biblical context but not in the Moslem
world or amongst African traditionalists. This is not a political
affair. It is altogether a moral question. If this is not
retouched it then implies that all African and Islamic bodies
advocating for rediscovery of cultural roots do not qualify
for the fund and yet Africa stands out as the most affected.
Conclusively therefore, the views of this contributor are
that this is a carefully thought out programme, which if critiqued
with a pure mind, devoid of some bias, will be found worthy
of wearing the garb of purely non political programme, though
sure to set in motion, a multiple diplomatic reactions, not
because it was intended to be so, but only as a logical consequence.
Nwokoji Is on the staff of The Sun.
|
