NYU classes began full swing last week. Already immersed in Keep a Child Alive duties and thesis research, the formalization of readings and reports blends smoothly into my normal bustling schedule. My final International Relations elective is a course called "Solving Foreign Crises," taught by a favorite professor in the department, one who I reference often and whose research conclusions have consistently resounded with truth in my experiences working abroad, the man known as "BdM".
After a brief review of the selectorate theory, the cornerstone of his teachings, each student addressed our group of 15 by sharing an international policy crisis in which we are personally interested. Nuclear proliferation! Israel-Palestine! UN peacekeeping of civil wars! As my turn to speak approached, I fumbled around mentally with my topic of HIV/AIDS for a moment, realizing that in the face of the stated immediate violence and security threats, the relative 'aloofness' of AIDS might be a sub-par topic.
But of course I firmly stated, "HIV/AIDS", and of course, BdM stared me down,
"What about it?"
It is not that I did not anticipate that exact follow up phrase, but his tone hit me hard nonetheless. Despite rampant political rhetoric of caring about the world's disenfranchised, when the time comes to allocate budgets and take action, this seems to be an all too common catchphrase of policymakers. Hunger, sanitation, AIDS...what about it? How does it affect me? I won't be bombed if I don't pay attention to this issue, I'm not risking any national security or international stability. If the stakeholders, the people with the power, are not threatened, the issue is of secondary concern.
I know clearly and can defend easily that HIV/AIDS is an enormous policy issue as a public health emergency and threat to economic stability worldwide. But at our mock-Cabinet session, reviewing key policy issues, my topic was clearly out of place among the other high-ranking concerns. Not to say the high-rankers are not important! But policymakers, naturally, take far more seriously the issues that could tangibly effect their security in the short run. HIV has neither effect, as its spread is silent and difficult to track and see, and the problems emerge over the long run.
I have simple data to share with you, data that took far too long for me to gather! I have yet to come upon a website where HIV rates are posted coherently, consistently, and accurately for years before 1999, for every nation in the world. UNAIDS boasts meticulous methodologies and measurement protocol, but the actual consistent numbers are missing, or at least not publicized. It is frustrating to think that a majority of HIV/AIDS relief is all talk, and politicians make promises becaues they know those who most fiercely want to hold them accountable for keeping their promises are powerless or dying.
The countries in which HIV prevalence rates were highest in 2005 may not surprise you, although I hope you will visualize the immense implication of these estimates. These are national averages, and hidden within this number are the fact that some areas within the country suffer rates of 70%+, but are evened out by less infected areas.
2005
Swaziland 33.40
Botswana 24.10
Lesotho 23.20
Zimbabwe 20.10
Namibia 19.60
South Africa 18.80
Zambia 17.00
Mozambique 16.10
Malawi 14.10
Central African Republic 10.70
Nevertheless, imagine if we rephrased this to say 33% of the population is attacked by terrorists every year? Perhaps it is just the term "HIV" that feels harmless, while "terrorist" sounds frightening. We spend billions defining and measuring and controlling "fundamentalist Islam" which, like AIDS, is not tangible, can manifest itself through violence, and spreads silently but quickly and destructively. But AIDS is not given such attention nor considered such a threat. There is a facade of having control over the disease.
Consider now the rates of change -- where are we making progress, and where are there increases in transmission? Although Swaziland suffers the biggest burden, their present rate is 14% less than their 2003 estimate. The largest increases of 2003-2005 may surprise you:
Gambia 100%
Iran 100%
Ireland 100%
Lithuania 100%
Sweden 100%
United Kingdom 100%
Uzbekistan 100%
Papua New Guinea 200%
Moldova 450%
Although these stats reflect smaller prevalence rates doubling, the rapid increase is cause for concern. What is it about HIV/AIDS that makes it a foreign policy issue worthy of the time we also need to spend on national security, intelligence and defense?
HIV/AIDS will never kill the rich and powerful, but nuclear bombs and anthrax and assassinations could. Leaders will always find a way to escape drought, famine, and disease, so they do not need to invest as much time or serious energy in these issues. It is difficult to say what it is about AIDS that makes it an issue, because although it can attack anyone, those with resources can get treatment and care and never acknowledge they are infected, and never discuss the issue.
Ironically, HIV holds potential comparable to nuclear proliferation and transnational terrorism to destroy a population if the issue is left unchecked...but the risk is not immediate with HIV. An estimated 100,000 died at Hiroshima. Every death is a tragedy. Every of the nearly 3,000 American lives on 9/11 is a tragedy.
So why do we not take as seriously or as urgently the 28 million that AIDS has tragically killed?
Because we don't: Our collective response is somewhat laughable when put in such a context ( 'our' being both us as a rich nation and as a member of the G8 and the UN) Although it involves people who are no doubt committed to the cause, our actions seem to suggest otherwise. Instead of facing this issue head-on, we are creating what many of my African friends have called the "Fat AIDS" pandemic. Their logic reveals how much we do not realize the blatant failures of our nation to actually do good and act on promises and intentions. "There is skinny AIDS and there is fat AIDS," I have been told by several doctors and community workers. "We are dying here from skinny AIDS which makes us thin and weak, and the men in suits and ties fly around to meetings and conferences about AIDS saying all sorts of good things, and they get they paid to do this. They get fatter the more AIDS remains an issue."
Phrased well also by an African delegate interviewed by Michael Maren in his expose on foreign aid, "The Road to Hell", we read, "The more desperate our conditions are portrayed in the U.S media, the more money you American organizations seem to raise for your own overhead and projects." The skinny get skinnier, the fat get fatter.
So, AIDS...what about it?
Though it's a tough pill to swallow, we must acknowledge first that AIDS does not pose a significant threat to our world's most powerful.
But the problem is devastating and quite real.
HIV/AIDS is an issue, and we can decide whether to prioritize it or not. This does NOT translate to giving it more money, but rather, more thoughtful and strategic attention. We have the numbers on HIV -- like a fanatic ideologue, it is a loaded weapon. Someone with something invisible in them that they could spread to someone else without even realizing they are spreading it...but if it gets to enough people, we see complete collapse of that community, loss of stability, economic losses and unchecked spread.
Perhaps it is crude to parallel a disease like HIV with the complexities and immensely intricate concerns embedded in fundamentalist Islam...but in that case I demand, why haven't we fixed AIDS yet? If it's so simple, why is it still on the rise in so many places?
Sometimes it seems we spend so much time reactively averting destruction that we have no time to pro-actively prevent it. AIDS is at the root of all our broad, prioritized issues. Paying attention to health-care infrastructure, building roads, hiring doctors,and stabilizing daily life will do far more than the "aid" we give now, too often merely fostering secret deals and relationships with the main people in power who may not be in power the next day. We won't get rid of skinny AIDS until we wipe out fat AIDS, but getting rid of fat AIDS is unfortunately not a priority of the fat cats who allocate the budgets and carry out the plans.
Being a responsible global citizen and caring about each other are not sufficient motivators to stop this cycle. Thanks to BdM I am reminded that if bringing HIV under control is a true priority and worthy goal, it must appeal to the incentives of those in power, or those that elect and ensure the political survival of those in power.
On that conclusive note...Happy Super Tuesday! Get out there and vote and make sure your candidate does support goals that you feel are worthy of our time and funds.
It is ultimately we as the citizens of rich, democratic nations, that will have the opportunity to respond to "what about it?" Speak up!
After a brief review of the selectorate theory, the cornerstone of his teachings, each student addressed our group of 15 by sharing an international policy crisis in which we are personally interested. Nuclear proliferation! Israel-Palestine! UN peacekeeping of civil wars! As my turn to speak approached, I fumbled around mentally with my topic of HIV/AIDS for a moment, realizing that in the face of the stated immediate violence and security threats, the relative 'aloofness' of AIDS might be a sub-par topic.
But of course I firmly stated, "HIV/AIDS", and of course, BdM stared me down,
"What about it?"
It is not that I did not anticipate that exact follow up phrase, but his tone hit me hard nonetheless. Despite rampant political rhetoric of caring about the world's disenfranchised, when the time comes to allocate budgets and take action, this seems to be an all too common catchphrase of policymakers. Hunger, sanitation, AIDS...what about it? How does it affect me? I won't be bombed if I don't pay attention to this issue, I'm not risking any national security or international stability. If the stakeholders, the people with the power, are not threatened, the issue is of secondary concern.
I know clearly and can defend easily that HIV/AIDS is an enormous policy issue as a public health emergency and threat to economic stability worldwide. But at our mock-Cabinet session, reviewing key policy issues, my topic was clearly out of place among the other high-ranking concerns. Not to say the high-rankers are not important! But policymakers, naturally, take far more seriously the issues that could tangibly effect their security in the short run. HIV has neither effect, as its spread is silent and difficult to track and see, and the problems emerge over the long run.
I have simple data to share with you, data that took far too long for me to gather! I have yet to come upon a website where HIV rates are posted coherently, consistently, and accurately for years before 1999, for every nation in the world. UNAIDS boasts meticulous methodologies and measurement protocol, but the actual consistent numbers are missing, or at least not publicized. It is frustrating to think that a majority of HIV/AIDS relief is all talk, and politicians make promises becaues they know those who most fiercely want to hold them accountable for keeping their promises are powerless or dying.
The countries in which HIV prevalence rates were highest in 2005 may not surprise you, although I hope you will visualize the immense implication of these estimates. These are national averages, and hidden within this number are the fact that some areas within the country suffer rates of 70%+, but are evened out by less infected areas.
2005
Swaziland 33.40
Botswana 24.10
Lesotho 23.20
Zimbabwe 20.10
Namibia 19.60
South Africa 18.80
Zambia 17.00
Mozambique 16.10
Malawi 14.10
Central African Republic 10.70
Nevertheless, imagine if we rephrased this to say 33% of the population is attacked by terrorists every year? Perhaps it is just the term "HIV" that feels harmless, while "terrorist" sounds frightening. We spend billions defining and measuring and controlling "fundamentalist Islam" which, like AIDS, is not tangible, can manifest itself through violence, and spreads silently but quickly and destructively. But AIDS is not given such attention nor considered such a threat. There is a facade of having control over the disease.
Consider now the rates of change -- where are we making progress, and where are there increases in transmission? Although Swaziland suffers the biggest burden, their present rate is 14% less than their 2003 estimate. The largest increases of 2003-2005 may surprise you:
Gambia 100%
Iran 100%
Ireland 100%
Lithuania 100%
Sweden 100%
United Kingdom 100%
Uzbekistan 100%
Papua New Guinea 200%
Moldova 450%
Although these stats reflect smaller prevalence rates doubling, the rapid increase is cause for concern. What is it about HIV/AIDS that makes it a foreign policy issue worthy of the time we also need to spend on national security, intelligence and defense?
HIV/AIDS will never kill the rich and powerful, but nuclear bombs and anthrax and assassinations could. Leaders will always find a way to escape drought, famine, and disease, so they do not need to invest as much time or serious energy in these issues. It is difficult to say what it is about AIDS that makes it an issue, because although it can attack anyone, those with resources can get treatment and care and never acknowledge they are infected, and never discuss the issue.
Ironically, HIV holds potential comparable to nuclear proliferation and transnational terrorism to destroy a population if the issue is left unchecked...but the risk is not immediate with HIV. An estimated 100,000 died at Hiroshima. Every death is a tragedy. Every of the nearly 3,000 American lives on 9/11 is a tragedy.
So why do we not take as seriously or as urgently the 28 million that AIDS has tragically killed?
Because we don't: Our collective response is somewhat laughable when put in such a context ( 'our' being both us as a rich nation and as a member of the G8 and the UN) Although it involves people who are no doubt committed to the cause, our actions seem to suggest otherwise. Instead of facing this issue head-on, we are creating what many of my African friends have called the "Fat AIDS" pandemic. Their logic reveals how much we do not realize the blatant failures of our nation to actually do good and act on promises and intentions. "There is skinny AIDS and there is fat AIDS," I have been told by several doctors and community workers. "We are dying here from skinny AIDS which makes us thin and weak, and the men in suits and ties fly around to meetings and conferences about AIDS saying all sorts of good things, and they get they paid to do this. They get fatter the more AIDS remains an issue."
Phrased well also by an African delegate interviewed by Michael Maren in his expose on foreign aid, "The Road to Hell", we read, "The more desperate our conditions are portrayed in the U.S media, the more money you American organizations seem to raise for your own overhead and projects." The skinny get skinnier, the fat get fatter.
So, AIDS...what about it?
Though it's a tough pill to swallow, we must acknowledge first that AIDS does not pose a significant threat to our world's most powerful.
But the problem is devastating and quite real.
HIV/AIDS is an issue, and we can decide whether to prioritize it or not. This does NOT translate to giving it more money, but rather, more thoughtful and strategic attention. We have the numbers on HIV -- like a fanatic ideologue, it is a loaded weapon. Someone with something invisible in them that they could spread to someone else without even realizing they are spreading it...but if it gets to enough people, we see complete collapse of that community, loss of stability, economic losses and unchecked spread.
Perhaps it is crude to parallel a disease like HIV with the complexities and immensely intricate concerns embedded in fundamentalist Islam...but in that case I demand, why haven't we fixed AIDS yet? If it's so simple, why is it still on the rise in so many places?
Sometimes it seems we spend so much time reactively averting destruction that we have no time to pro-actively prevent it. AIDS is at the root of all our broad, prioritized issues. Paying attention to health-care infrastructure, building roads, hiring doctors,and stabilizing daily life will do far more than the "aid" we give now, too often merely fostering secret deals and relationships with the main people in power who may not be in power the next day. We won't get rid of skinny AIDS until we wipe out fat AIDS, but getting rid of fat AIDS is unfortunately not a priority of the fat cats who allocate the budgets and carry out the plans.
Being a responsible global citizen and caring about each other are not sufficient motivators to stop this cycle. Thanks to BdM I am reminded that if bringing HIV under control is a true priority and worthy goal, it must appeal to the incentives of those in power, or those that elect and ensure the political survival of those in power.
On that conclusive note...Happy Super Tuesday! Get out there and vote and make sure your candidate does support goals that you feel are worthy of our time and funds.
It is ultimately we as the citizens of rich, democratic nations, that will have the opportunity to respond to "what about it?" Speak up!
No comments:
Post a Comment