A Flagging Commitment on AIDS

[Guest guest]

A Flagging Commitment on AIDS

The AIDS epidemic turns 25 this week, and while new infections are declining in a few countries, the number of infected is still growing, especially among young women. Globally, the epidemic seems to have more energy than efforts to fight it.

This week, United Nations members are meeting in a follow-up to the successful U.N. special session in 2001, which pushed the world to take AIDS more seriously. At that time, the countries created a detailed plan for attacking the disease, with specific targets. Spending soared, from $1.6 billion in 2001 to $8.3 billion last year.

The nations now are supposed to be reporting on whether their targets are being met, and devising a plan of action for the next few years. Instead, they are watering down the original plan. Ideologues, led by Washington, are taking out commitments to key programs, and wealthy nations worried about cost are replacing concrete goals with vague statements. AIDS groups fear the world is moving backward.

The most recent draft written by the nations does maintain the 2001 target of universal access to treatment, prevention and care, and sets a spending goal of $23 billion per year by 2010. But Europe and the United States have successfully opposed including specific targets that would have provided clear, periodic measurements of whether countries were meeting goals. In terms of money, the world will fall $6 billion short of what is needed this year, and we are falling further behind each year.

The drafts also show that on issues of interest to religious conservatives, the United States and Syria are holding down one side, joined at times by the Vatican and Saudi Arabia. Washington, for example, has removed references that were in the 2001 declaration about providing clean syringes to drug users. These efforts are desperately needed in many countries, like Russia, where the epidemic is largely spread by drug injectors.

The word "condom" has also gone missing. Depressingly, nations have been debating whether they can make any reference at all to "empowering girls" or "vulnerable populations," itself a euphemism for sex workers, drug injectors and gay men.

Tellingly, the United States has insisted on taking out all references to "evidence-based prevention strategies" — strategies scientifically proven to work. Instead, Washington wants to use the phrase "evidence-informed prevention strategies." Apparently the Bush administration feels the need to make room for strategies that are not proven to work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/opinion/01thu4.html?th & emc=th