U.N. Chief Says World Is Losing Battle With AIDS

[Dina 0]

This is from the NYTimes website: clicky

I've coloured the parts that shocked/angered/amazed me in red.

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

Published: June 2, 2006

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL International Herald Tribune

UNITED NATIONS, June 2 — On the final day of a special session on the fight against H.I.V. and AIDS, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan delivered a gloomy assessment, saying the world was losing the battle.

"The epidemic continues to outpace us," he told a jam-packed session of the General Assembly today. "There are more new infections than ever before; more deaths than ever before; more women and girls infected than ever before."

Mr. Annan, who is from Ghana and has made fighting H.I.V. a priority of his tenure, acknowledged some areas of progress since the last U.N. special session on AIDS in 2001: seven times as many people around the world now have access to treatment, he said, and in some African nations, the rate of infection is declining.

But he said that if countries "don't step up the fight drastically," the world would not be able to "reverse the tide." He called the spread of the disease "the single greatest reversal in the history of human development."

The United Nations is expected to adopt a new action plan at the close of the conference this afternoon.

The dark tone of Mr. Annan's remarks diverged markedly from the upbeat speeches by world leaders at the start of the 3-day session on Wednesday, and from the positive speech given immediately before his remarks by Laura Bush, the first lady.

"This is a hopeful moment in the fight against AIDS," Mrs. Bush began. She noted that the administration of her husband, President Bush, began a program in 2003 to contribute a total of $15 billion over 5 years to the international fight against AIDS.

"The American people are on track to meet or exceed that commitment," she said.

Not enough, Mr. Annan — the next speaker — seemed to say, as Mrs. Bush listened from the front row. "This fight requires every president, every parliamentarian to say, 'AIDS stops with me,' " he said.

The United States, the host country for the special session, has been roundly criticized by AIDS activists around the world for dispatching Mrs. Bush as its representative at the session, rather than a senior administration official. France and Brazil sent their foreign ministers, for example, and many African presidents are in attendance.

Mrs. Bush's 5-minute speech steered away from many of the criticisms that have been leveled against the United States's international AIDS policy, most notably that it seeks to promote sexual abstinence rather than scientifically proven approaches to stemming the spread of the virus, particularly condom use.

"The U.S. funds abstinence or abstinence-until-marriage programs that are ideologically driven and have nothing to do with reality," said Jodi Jacobson, president of the Center for Health and Gender Equality, an American advocacy group. "In a lot of places, teenagers are sexually active and married women are getting infected from their husbands."

Ms. Jacobson noted that at this week's session, American delegates pushed for the removal of phrases like "sex workers" or "men who have sex with men" from conference documents, preferring to refer to "vulnerable groups" instead. The United States has sided with Syria and Yemen in refusing to talk about "the empowerment of girls," she said.

Ms. Bush did not address such controversies. She made passing reference to the official U.N. program for AIDS prevention — known as ABC, short for Abstinence, Be-Faithful, and Condom use — by noting that "Africa's ABC model has led to dramatic declines in HIV" in some countries.

Mrs. Bush also suggested the creation of an international HIV testing day, and spoke of the way that wider availability of anti-AIDS drugs allowed people with HIV "a second chance at life."

But the three U.N. officials who spoke after Ms, Bush, including Mr. Annan, said that far too few people in Africa had access to such drugs, and that the U.N. was desperately short of the money needed to improve the situation.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria, a war chest of money created after the 2001 conference, has helped more than 500,000 people to receive lifesaving cocktails of antiviral drugs, a number that has grown by 40 percent in the last 6 months.

But the World Health Organization estimates that as few as 1 in 6 people infected with HIV are able to get such drugs, because of the high cost.

The U.N. estimates that it needs $18 billion to combat AIDS in 2007 and $22 billion in 2008. At present, it has commitments for less than half that amount, according to Dr. Richard Feachem, head of the Global Fund.

"Public and private funding needs to be greatly expanded," Dr. Feachem said. "Let all countries contribute fully, according to their means."

First off, it seems to me that we should be emphasizing EDUCATION over morality. And how parochial do we need to be to want to avoid terms like "sex worker" and "man on man sex"? But what I really took issue with was "The United States has sided with Syria and Yemen in refusing to talk about "the empowerment of girls." Excuse me? What fricken century are we in??? Heaven forbid if females were allowed to make their own sexual choices. This goes beyond reproductive rights. "We don't want our women folk frettin' their pretty li'l heads over condoms or birth control, we'll just keep 'em barefoot 'n pregnant in the kitchen." Is it just me, am I reading too much into it?

[Mirorgate 0]

probably reading to much into it.. since the major spreading factor that I have seen lately is needle use, not sexually spread.

again, they are diverting away from real issue and cause.

Does the US have the right idea? Sure.. abstinence would stop the spread of AIDs, as well as monogamy. But that is a dream world that is just not happening... because until everyone believes that 100%... you have the chance to keep spreadin it around.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

probably reading to much into it.. since the major spreading factor that I have seen lately is needle use, not sexually spread.

That probably varies by contry/region. There are still many places all over Africa where men believe that having sex with a virgin will cure them. And surely, that 10 year old has got to be a virgin... It's an awful cycle fueled by ignorance.

Does the US have the right idea? Sure.. abstinence would stop the spread of AIDs, as well as monogamy. But that is a dream world that is just not happening... because until everyone believes that 100%... you have the chance to keep spreadin it around.

The abstinence only approach is almost criminal, imho. Blinded idiots that push that kind of #######. Talk about ignorance...

Edited June 3, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The abstinence only approach is almost criminal, imho. Blinded idiots that push that kind of #######. Talk about ignorance...

It is certainly ignorance to tell poor, uneducated (and fanatically religious) people that using condoms will land them in hell.

Abstinence is fine, so long as someone says "if you are going to do it, do it safely". Removing the choice from people and denying them the information they need to make an informed choice is totally immoral.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Dare I say it again....

Pope.... hell.... one way ticket....

Only joking

[Reba 2]

sure, maybe in the US the major spread of HIV and AIDS is by needle use, however in Africa, the major spread is still from sex. And with the US taking funding away from any charity that "condones" safer sex education, and condom use, they're making it worse.

Even in the US where "abstinance only" is taught, rates in teen pregnancy and STDs have not gone down any. Abstinance is great, IF its taught alongside other safer sex methods. Telling people that condoms can cause sexually transmitted diseases, and send you right to hell is NOT a valid teaching method!

The Anti-Sex brigade needs to pull their heads out of their asses and realise that no matter how much they threaten hell and brimstone, people are still going to have intercourse. Just because they can't see it with their heads up their asses, doesn't mean its not happening

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Anti-Sex brigade needs to pull their heads out of their asses and realise that no matter how much they threaten hell and brimstone, people are still going to have intercourse. Just because they can't see it with their heads up their asses, doesn't mean its not happening

You meant to say that just because they ain't getting any doesn't mean at all that other's don't...

[slim 1,525]

Does the US really care if China, India, Russia, and Africa lose 50% of their populations in the next 25 years?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Does the US really care if China, India, Russia, and Africa lose 50% of their populations in the next 25 years?

No, but they probably should. However, the abstinence approach has two side effects, one being a higher infection rate, the other leading to a huge increase in the world's population. It's sick to think about it since it's supposedly about saving the lives, but neither overpopulation nor AIDS are very humane.

On a side note, you could also think about it from a pharmaceutical (and cynical) standpoint: more infections could lead to higher drug sales and thus benefit the American pharmaceutical industry. Sick, as I said.

Btw, the needle as main cause of infection argument seems to downplay the fact that there are currently two groups in the US with rapidly increasing infection rates: black, heterosexual women and gay men under 25. Neither is thought to get it from needles but rather from lack of protection.

Edited June 5, 2006 by Fischkoepfin