Bashing Harm Reduction Abroad

A Republican effort to stamp out needle-exchange programs abroad incensed editorial boards at The Washington Post and The New York Times last weekend, and both pages slammed the latest congressionally-mandated gag rule to hit the United Nations.

That conservatives are trying to stamp out harm reduction abroad is no small story, but both pages missed the fact that this is only the latest installment in a long story of strings-attached giving that has been changing U.S. foreign aid policy for years. From AIDS prevention measures stigmatizing sex, to anti-human trafficking targeting prostitution, to drug policies purged of pragmatism, foreign aid has become an American adventure in social engineering.

Global AIDS conferences have become as much a matter of America-bashing as AIDS-fighting. Last July, U.S. AIDS coordinator Randall Tobias was heckled mercilessly at the International AIDS conference in Bangkok. The discord stems from U.S. gestures toward a comprehensive approach on AIDS that never quite panned out. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was founded three years ago as a multilateral effort to help funnel vast sums of money to developing countries in need of public health funding. It took a localized, hands-off approach, scrutinizing applications but generally leaving questions of implementation and disbursement to local agencies and governments. The U.S. offered the first grant of $200 million and was expected to be a major supporter.

But during the president's State of the Union Address in 2003, he busted out with something called the "President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief," or PEPFAR, and a competing bureaucracy was born.

PEPFAR was smaller in its ambitions â?? only 15 countries were targeted â?? but much better funded, with $15 billion promised over five years. The Global Fund's biggest donor had proven itself capable of promising huge sums of money, but they would not be going into the Global Fund. Tobias tried to stem the ensuing wave of criticism by claiming that the organizations could work together. But it soon became clear that they had fundamentally different missions. PEPFAR enthusiastically endorses the so-called "ABC" approach â?? Abstinence, Be Faithful, and Condoms. The program gave President Bush an opportunity to scale up from his $10 million abstinence crusade in Texas (where there is no evidence it worked) to a billion-dollar version in Africa (where there is new evidence it's not helping.)

PEPFAR promises that 33 percent of all funds are spent on abstinence-promotion and that faith-based organizations can receive funding even if they refused to talk about or provide contraception. Condoms, the most statistically proven and economically sound method of prevention, are a last resort to be distributed to "high-risk" groups. The program also forces any organization receiving funds to explicitly oppose the legalization of prostitution.

The anti-prostitution demand is major, and it affects anti-human trafficking funds as well as AIDS funding. NGOs and organizations fighting trafficking are likely to be working against the stigmatized, underground nature of illicit prostitution, but they can't accept U.S. funds unless they condemn the practice. In the U.S., the push for action on human trafficking has come from the Christian right, and the lines between victim and sex worker have all but disappeared. U.S. funds go to outfits like the International Justice Mission, which has been accused of " brothel raids " in which its representatives "rescue" Asian sex workers against their will. Human trafficking is a much bigger issue than sexual slavery, but U.S. efforts thus far have focused almost exclusively on women, children and sex work.

With sexually-active Africans and Southeast Asian prostitutes on the hit list, intravenous drug users couldn't be far behind. Representatives Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Tom Davis (R-Va.) are now trying to keep American aid money out of the hands of any organization that promotes clean needle exchanges. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Charles has already succeeded in scaring the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) out of mentioning harm reduction in its literature, and UNODC projects are being threatened. Their actions have sent a ripple of terror through the network of international organizations.

Martin Jelsma, a program coordinator at the Transnational Institute, has been following the tension between the U.S. and UNODC for years. He worries that the current pressure "threatens the very heart of the few proven methods that are effective to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS."

As with condom distribution programs, there is no real question that needle exchange programs are effective in reducing AIDS transmission. In a hearing he held last month (tellingly titled "Is there such a thing as safe drug abuse?"), Souder didn't take long to reveal the root of his antipathy to harm reduction, and it had nothing to do with his alleged doubts about efficacy.

"These lifestyles," he said, "are the result of addiction, mental illness, or other conditions that should and can be treated rather than accepted as normal, healthy behaviors."

Souder's objections have to do with determining what is "normal" and "healthy" for other people; preventing AIDS transmission isn't on his agenda. As with the rest of U.S. AIDS assistance, his policies are more concerned with shaping a certain kind of global citizenry than stopping a virus. The New York Times editorial calls this a "triumph of ideology over science," but Souder and his coterie simply have different goals in mind. If keeping condoms and clean needles out of foreign hands are worthwhile goals in themselves, the science doesn't matter. Stopping the spread of AIDS would be a bonus, but it's not the priority, and it hasn't been for a long time.

Souder and others will talk of halting funding, but funding will only be redirected elsewhere. The UNODC has already buckled. The U.S. contributes far more than any other government to the fight against AIDS, and NGOs that depend on USAID will change their policies to survive.

"Compassionate conservatism" used to be a punch line, but it's in full swing these days, and it appears to involve throwing huge sums of our money into programs that don't work. If compassionate conservatism turns out to be neither, it will indeed be U.S. policy that finally brings wealthy Americans taxpayers and impoverished AIDS victims together. Both will be paying the price.
-----------------------------------------------------
By Kerry Howley, Reason
Posted on March 4, 2005.
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/21414/

Wow this really opened my eyes to all the wonderful things the Bush administration is doing world wide.
Addicts don't need needles, because shooting up isn't normal or healthy behavior and they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
People don't need condoms, sex is an abnormal, unhealthy behavior and people shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
I wonder if this solution can be applied to all of our problems.
[/sarcasm]

This is the kind of bullshit that comes out the American government, and the prime reason why people around the world hate Americans. This moral-high-ground and holier-than-thou bullshit is getting old, fast, and I'm sick to my stomach that I can't do anything about it...

Good artical, null...

the new york times and washington post???let me tell ya these are both quality papers arent they?new york times is laughed everywhere.and this is for FLESH,i traveled around the world for two years and NEVER had a problem or ran into any anti-americanism.EVER.HAVE YOU??NO

::sigh::
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
Exactly what is it that you consider credible? Did you read the entire article?

Quote:

---

A Republican effort to stamp out needle-exchange programs abroad incensed editorial boards at The Washington Post and The New York Times last weekend, and both pages slammed the latest congressionally-mandated gag rule to hit the United Nations.

---

The article is saying that Bush policies on HIV/AIDS prevention have caused infuriation on editorial boards.
The article itself appearently came from the Independent Media Institute. It is a nonprofit organization of independent journalists. What does a nonprofit organization have to gain from pulling a story out of their asses. If you don't believe the claims why don't you look into them yourself and see exactly what Bush has had to say about the issue himself.

he has no discernment. when someone looks at a source alone and judges something they don't know anything about based on that, and can't differentiate facts from spin in any article...it doesn't say much for their ability to think.

you can find facts in any article, whether it comes from foxnews or cnn. this person said this...or this bill contains this provision...etc...it's not very difficult.

this administration has donated more money to africa for aids than any other country in the world?so much many in our own country are quite angry about it.no matter what aome people will find some fault with bush no matter what.chances are your children are going to go to a school named after him.if calling someone stupid makes "pisshead""the name speaks for itself"than ok.i promise my education and world travels would put you to shame son.

Quote:

---

this administration has donated more money to africa for aids than any other country in the world?

---

For a program that doesn't work.

Quote:

---

PEPFAR was smaller in its ambitions â?? only 15 countries were targeted â?? but much better funded, with $15 billion promised over five years. The Global Fund's biggest donor had proven itself capable of promising huge sums of money, but they would not be going into the Global Fund. Tobias tried to stem the ensuing wave of criticism by claiming that the organizations could work together. But it soon became clear that they had fundamentally different missions. PEPFAR enthusiastically endorses the so-called "ABC" approach â?? Abstinence, Be Faithful, and Condoms. The program gave President Bush an opportunity to scale up from his $10 million abstinence crusade in Texas (where there is no evidence it worked) to a billion-dollar version in Africa (where there is new evidence it's not helping.)
PEPFAR promises that 33 percent of all funds are spent on abstinence-promotion and that faith-based organizations can receive funding even if they refused to talk about or provide contraception. Condoms, the most statistically proven and economically sound method of prevention, are a last resort to be distributed to "high-risk" groups. The program also forces any organization receiving funds to explicitly oppose the legalization of prostitution.

---

shhh...what do you know? you haven't been to as many countries as our well traveled amsterdam.

you can't talk about nazi germany or compare the US empire to the roman empire either, because you weren't there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amsterdam

the new york times and washington post???let me tell ya these are both quality papers arent they?new york times is laughed everywhere.and this is for FLESH,i traveled around the world for two years and NEVER had a problem or ran into any anti-americanism.EVER.HAVE YOU??NO

---

You have a serious reading cmoprehension problem, and you don't make any sense. No anti-americanism? What fucking planet do you live on? My point was that what makes people hate the US most of all is their 'moral superiority', that their way of thinking and reasoning is superior. That's all I said.

no,because its stupid.get real.all im saying is that people are so quick to scream and cry about things from the comfort of their homes.they dont do ANYTHING besides complain.sign up and go to africa and help.im sorry if the money isnt moving as fast as you would like but thats the way the world works.not to mention that the money is promised over 10 years.OH NO,THERES STORM TROOPERS OUTSIDE MY HOUSE WITH THE THOUGHT POLICE!!!LOL!!AND IS THAT A GLADIATOR?AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

It's not about the money at all. Did you even read the whole article? Do you have any idea what we're talking about here?

under the program in algeria aids infection has gone down big time.i like it and think its good.why trust our $$ to foreign companies who throw it around and never do anything with it.

Amsterdam shut up, you are a moron.
Abstinence doesnt work. It not a solution to the AIDS problem, its a pipe dream from the right wing christains. Giving money to abstinence programs is a waste of money, that money should be spent on education and condoms. People have sex, its normal, its healthy. Abstinence program supporters seek to convert people to Bushs stupid stone age religion.
Needle exchange programs reduce transmission of AIDS. Bush and and his evangelical holly rollers declared war of freedom. They dont want you me or anyone to get high on anything. In fact they want IV drug users to die. They are encouraging AIDS, many have said publically that they want jukies to get AIDS. They are evil people, those in the religious right.

"The program also forces any organization receiving funds to explicitly oppose the legalization of prostitution."

Another example of Bush wanting to force his religion on me and you. Legalization of prostitution always, without exception, reduces the rate of AIDS in sex workers. You cant rape a hooker without a condom in any legal brothel in the world. A street worker is in grave danger of this. There is nothing at all wrong with prostitution, except that some people with stupid religious views oppose it. But those same people also use prostitutes. Your dad uses the services of sex worker. Your fire and brimstone preacher does too, ask anyone in the vice squad, ministers are big in john busts. Your boss has sex with hookers, you might not yourself, but chances are good that one day, you will to. I did it in amsterdam, and it was fucking awesome. I refuse to feel ashamed about it based on some silly backwards religious fundies who want to make me feel guilty. I get lap dances, so do hollywood movie stars, it has nothing to do with being desperate or a loser, its just a having a little bit of fun with no strings attached, and no one gets hurt. I see NBA players at the local peeler all the time.
Its popular now to claim all sex workers are slaves, under control of organized crime, this is a lie. Women in the sex trade make 100 000 a year where i live in canada, and not one of them i have ever met is a slave. I see them after they get off work at strip joints at raves, and they are having the time of their lives. "Victims" who drive BMWs and make more money then 5 of us put together. And legalization of it is the only way to keep the pimps and predators out of the sex trade. Anything less is burying your head in the sand. In fact it could be said that sex trade workers are the most liberated of women. They make more than any 21 year old man does, they have power, and thats what Bush wants to take away. Powerful women are dangerous to people who want them to be baby slaves.
Bush and his cronies want to force their religion on the world and on you. They want to tell you who you can fuck, what you can smoke and how to live your life. Fuck them and their stupid backwards and ignorant views, people are dying because of them.

"why trust our $$ to foreign companies who throw it around and never do anything with it." It appears we are no better than them at spending it. What kind of charity lists as a prerequisit, that you have to conform to its values or else no charity for you? In other words being charitable (a good christian value) takes a back seat to imposing ones own personal set of values on others? Yeah, I dont see that as money well spent, and i dont see it as an effective stategy for fighting the spread of AIDS, since abstinence is an unrealistic goal, and one we dont even impose on our own citizens.