As I've stated in a previous thread, I have serious doubts as to whether this plan will be approved by congress. I believe that Bush knows this, and that is why he's using it, something he's never before expressed any concern about, to try to sell himself as a humanitarian. I don't buy it for a second. Any other thoughts on this?

Edited to add: I wanted to start this as its own thread to avoid getting off topic in a couple of others.

Bush has opened himself to criticism for failing to push through his compassionate conservatism.

I wonder which way this will go. On the one hand I knew it was easy for Bush to throw all of those democratic bones out there when a republican dominated congress would have to pass them. Unless he applies his presidential muscles behind many of his state of the union proposed new plans, they are not likely to pass the house.

However I think the aids plan would be great for Bush politically. It is the antidote to many of his policies including pursuing war in several time zones. It provides some high profile proof of his compassionate conservatism without extending preferences to anybody at home. And I belive it would save profits for the drug companies in Africa when there is almost no other way countries with average GDPs under $1000 would be able to cough them up.

Before we condemn out of hand - shall we wait to see what happens?

That seems fair to me.

Basheva, it is important to question the motives behind our politicians' actions. Obviously, as the situation develops, we will need to make new considerations, but debating this issue is healthy, and I don't see any reason for not discussing it.

The motive is to look like a compasinate country instead of a greedy, penny-pinching hate-monger who could care less about the suffering of others

Also, I think Bush is doing this to balance World opinion of the U.S. into positive territory since the conflict with Iraq is causing it to slide

So Bush wants to treat around 30 million with expensive medicine? How will he treat people in those African countries that have "transitional governments"? Try distributing free medicine in Somalia. To even attempt to fight aids we need much more stable cooperative governments in the area. Along with this Bush should invade Sudan and Somlia!

I think it's healthy to debate this issue on several levels. but I don't see those levels presented here for debate.

What I see here is the assumption that:

a. Because the President is a Republican and a Consevative therefore his motives are automatically suspect. (As in the quote "I don't buy it for a second.")

b. Because the Republicans control congress they will automatically not go along with this. (see quote: "serious doubts as to whether this plan will be approved by Congress.")

c. Because this is being considered at all by Republicans/Conservatives it surely has an ulterior motive- i.e political/pandering, etc.

d. Don't we all know that Republicans/Conservatives are ipso facto uncaring and therefore motives can't possibly be truly altruistic or even a desire to be the least bit helpful.

e. Since a Republican/Conservative proposed this it must be because of the drug company lobbyists.

Now, if we really wanted to discuss this as an issue based on its own merits, rather than (surprise, surprise) distrusting that a Republican/Conservative could possibly care, we might ask the following questions:

a. Do you think helping out will benefit the people we are trying to help or do you think that the money will be sidetracked by the governments of the various countries?

b. Do you think that the people we are trying to help will feel that we are trying to impose on them by trying to get them to modify their behaivor - i.e. - use a condom as a preventative measure?

c. Do you think that we can sustain this campaign to help these people in the long term - enough to really afford them some help or will this end up being a short-term item unless they change their behavior?

d. Do you think that !5 billion is enough?

e. Do you think we should closely supervise this help, or should the money would be better spent in training the people who live there and that would be more efficacious.

f. Who so you think should supervise the spending of this money?

Those are issues I think it would be healthy to discuss.

Not automatically assuming that the president's motives are suspect/political/in his own self interest/or those of the drugs companies, et al.

This is another item in which he is automatically damned if he does and damned when he doesn't.

Spending a lot of money on drugs for those suffering from AIDS in Africa looks good, and it will help prolong the lives and ease the suffering of many people. It should be done for that reason.

However, as an action it is a bandaid, nothing more. It does not address AIDS in Africa, it is about medicine to treat AIDS. Two different things. I have seen AIDS-ravaged Africa. I have friends who are doctors there. I have relatives in relief work there. You will not solve the AIDS epidemic in Africa unless you address the problem of poverty. This is the problem. And it won't be solved with SAPs from the IMF, or with Nike factories, with any of these neoliberal policies.

We can throw drugs at the problem, and we should, but it won't solve it, or even start solving it. And lower-price drugs will mean nothing. They will have to be free for anyone to take them in Africa. These aren't people who have less. THese are people who have nothing.

Another interesting angle to the story makes you wonder if our aid is an issue of control that will ultimately do more harm than good.

Focus of anti-Aids education may shift away from encouraging condom use and toward faith based programs. Conservative groups open opposition to promotion of condoms has begun to influence US policy in the developing world.

The Bush team is already withholding funding for the UN Population Fund, which distributes millions of condoms in sub-Saharan Africa and other regions. Some circles want to END our support for international anti-Aids organizations that put greater emphasis on condom use than on urging sexual abstinence until marriage.

Last month, at a UN population conference in Bangkok, the American delegation made an embarrassing, and ultimately unsuccessful, effort to block an endorsement of the use of condoms to prevent AIDS.

A Web page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used to say that studies showed that education about condom use did not lead to earlier or increased sexual activity. That statement, which contradicts the view of "abstinence only" advocates, is omitted from a revised version of the page.

To increase African access to AIDS medication, activists have long advocated the sale of less-expensive generic drugs. The United States has been "an impediment to the fostering and distribution of generic drugs in Africa," says Bettina Schunter, Kenya director of the aid agency Doctors Without Borders. "The U.S. typically wants to protect big businesses and patent rights.... But we believe in the cheapest drugs available." As recently as November, the Bush administration had argued against countries exporting generic drugs.

So far speakers for the whitehouse have said that the funding will 'include condoms' and also that 'generic drugs would be included' in the new plans. Like Basheva I will wait and see but have no reason to hope that anything has changed.

I don't think anyone is proposing that Republican Conservatives can't possibly care, but the timing of this proposal is suspect, IMO. Anti-American sentiment overseas is high, and our own economy is struggling. Providing this aid could very well be a means to appease our critics. I'm not saying that it's definitely the motive, but it only seems logical to me to ask the question. I would feel the same way if it were a Liberal/Democrat that was making the proposal.

I think that Sub-Saharan Africa is in a terrible state, and I think that foreign aid, in its present form, is not necessarily helping the situation, because it does not encourage these countries to develop a sustainable economy. In addition to that, it doesn’t encourage African governments to be accountable to the people, because the major source of their money does not come from the people. Instead, they become accountable to the aid donors, and IMO, this is one of the policies that leads to varying human rights abuses.

Aid for HIV/AIDS is a bit of a catch22, because in order for any real progress to be made in Africa regarding the virus, the infrastructure needs to be built-up and economy needs to be stable. If it isn’t, there will be very few avenues for providing the care and education that is necessary to effect change. In order to build up the economy and build infrastructure, however, the epidemic needs to be dealt with, because it is one of the major problems effecting the economy in Sub-Saharan Africa.

5 billion dollars is not enough money to accomplish even a small portion of these goals, and without tackling all of them, I seriously doubt that we will even make a dent in the situation. I’m not suggesting that we do nothing, but this just doesn’t seem like a viable solution to me.

So, for those reasons, I also have my doubts that this will be passed by congress, and if it is, I think that it is probably not with the well-being of the African people in mind.

Basheva:
Please don't misunderstand the purpose of the post. I did make some assumptions about what I think will happen with the funding for this program... But it was all based on the track-record of this administration. Without getting off-topic here, I will simply say, as is common knowledge, that the Bush administration seems to talk a good game, but when it comes to funding the programs, it always seems, somehow, to fall through. From corporate crime, to education reform, it has all been slashed to the point of being ineffectual. I expressed an opinion in my post to suggest that I expect more of the same with this issue.

Feel free to debate the issue in its entirety, in this thread... That's what I created it for.

I agree that often what a president proposes almost always gets changed or eliminated by Congress - I have said that in many posts on many issues.

That happens with every president and every congress regardless of party and regardless of whether the president and the congress are of the same party or not. In fact, history seems to show that many times when the Congress and the President are of the same party, there is more acrimony between the branches of government. This happened during the first two years of President Clinton's administration, he had a great deal of difficulty getting congress to pass the legislation he wanted. So congress changing or eliminating a presidential programs is nothing new.

But to presuppose that because the president is of one particular party that for that reason any good/kind/necessary program he proposes is suspect in his motives, offends the debate, in my opinion.

....................................

The difficulties in dealing with the problems of Africa are deep and multiple. The first problem they have is chaotic untrustworthy government - leaders who routinely rob the people of every resource. Anyone trying to help in any way comes across this obstacle. And the obstacle is often insoluble and prevents anything good from happening.

It is true that every ediface of infrastructure needs to be aided and built up, but the AIDS epidemic is immediate, people dying as we type.

I thought President Bush's proposal was for $15 billion, not 5 - but I could be wrong. I think it is also a good thing to keep in mind that sometimes a program can be harmed by having too much money thrown at it in too fast a manner. Sometimes it is a good idea to start a bit smaller and then increase it as the means of delivery are built up.

Anyway, I am willing to give both the president and the congress a chance to act on this, a chance to see how the program works (if it works) before condemning it, simply because it comes from the hands of a Republican/Conservative.

Let African's worry about Africa.

Hugo:
Let African's worry about Africa.

I take it then, that you also oppose war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Let the Asians worry about Asia...
Isolationism may have worked 200 years ago, but this is a different world, with different problems. I've always felt that the measure of person is not what he owns, but what he gives away.

Basheva:
The difficulties in dealing with the problems of Africa are deep and multiple. The first problem they have is chaotic untrustworthy government - leaders who routinely rob the people of every resource. Anyone trying to help in any way comes across this obstacle. And the obstacle is often insoluble and prevents anything good from happening.

This is true. After the colonial era ended (in Africa this was only 30-40 years ago, 20 in a couple of cases), people came into power who received loans from the World Bank. They squandered the money, made themselves and their families rich, left nothing for the people or the nation. The IMF started imposing the austerity measures, the SAPs, and now lots of money that could be used for infrastructure etc. is being used to pay the debt interest on money the people never received benefit from. Debt relief is what Africa needs. Why should the people have to pay for the malfeasance of leaders, most of whom are no longer in power? Granted, there are corrupt governments in Africa. But part of it is the neoliberal monetary policies here in the "first" world. The privatization/foreign companies policies are strangling these countries.

It is true that every ediface of infrastructure needs to be aided and built up, but the AIDS epidemic is immediate, people dying as we type.

I agree, that's why I'm saying, go ahead with the drugs. It's not a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's only a stopgap measure, and won't help the problem at its root.

I also think this has nothing to do with partisan politics. Had Clinton ever proposed this (and he didn't), I would have had the same mix of tentative praise and criticism. Not all of us liberals were Clinton lovers, guys. If this forum had existed during Clinton's administration, you would have heard no end to my Clinton bashing! The man was not nearly liberal enough. He was a conservative in liberal clothing. But that's beside the point.

Another solution on the drug front would be to return to a sane patent law. It used to be process that was patented. Today, companies can patent product, not just process. A company can hold a patent on the chemical makeup of a drug, not just on the process of making it. This is also happening with crops, where companies like Monsanto(?) are patenting genes, and selling sterile seeds that have to be repurchased every year. These laws are one of the main causes for contention in the Africa AIDS drug problem.

Right, and we should do what we can to help ease the suffering of these people, but the reality is that this program is not going to make a huge dent in the situation. It just won't, because there are too many other things that need to be rectified.



Yes, it is $15 billion. That was my error. Apologies.



Basheva, questioning motives does not equal condemnation of a program, and how do you know that the people in this thread would not have asked the same questions if the program was proposed by a Democrat/Liberal. It seems to me that you are making assumptions of your own about the people posting. Perhaps, you should wait and see how the thread develops before condemning these peoples' ideas just because they are liberals.

Waiting to see what happens is all very well, but as this is a discussion board rather than a passive observer's waiting room, I think it is reasonable enough to speculate about what might happen based on what has happened.

First, let's not forget that Bush's appointment to the advisory panel on AIDS was Jerry Thacker, whose bitter AIDS campaign described the disease as a "gay plague" brought about by "the sinful homosexual deathstyle". Now that's compassion, eh?

Last June, Bush earmarked $500 million over two years to AIDS research (in his International Mother and Child HIV Prevention Initiative) for mother-to-child transmitted AIDS in twelve countries in Africa and the Caribbean. This sounds relatively okay until one realizes that the Senate had already tried to commit $700 million (in the Durbin-Specter amendment to the emergency spending bill) for last year alone. This money would have gone to the G8-created Global Fund which provides low-cost care largely due to the fact that it uses generic drugs, often produced in the developing countries where they're most needed.

The amendment was very likely to have passed, but President Bush persuaded Senators Bill Frist and Jesse Helms to oppose it. They had co-sponsored another anti-AIDS amendment which would originally have provided $500 million. Bush lobbied them to withdraw their support from Durbin-Specter, push for their amendment, and reduce the amount sought to $200 million. Intervening in the amendment process at all was seen by AIDS activists of every stripe as a purely political move. The White House wanted Bush's "new plan" to dominate the media spotlight in advance of the following week's G8 summit, where AIDS was to have been a prominent feature of the proposed agenda.

Another, perhaps even more pertinent, political motivation: the Bush Initiative will provide aid through bilateral channels, rather than via the Global Fund, where medications used in the program will be purchased from patent-holding pharmaceutical companies rather than from generic producers - companies like GlaxoSmithKline PLC which raised nearly $30 million dollars for Bush and the Republican Party at a corporate fund-raiser two days after the Senate went with the Frist-Helms amendment.

The $500 million in the Bush Initiative, btw, includes the $200 million already allocated by Congress - with the remaining $300 million not due until 2004. Bush's package does not allocate any funds to the Global Fund, which is generally seen as the most innovative and potentially efficient mechanism for fighting AIDS in poor countries - so there'll be no low-cost, non-corporate relief from the US.

Had Bush not intervened, the Global Fund would doubtless have got $700 million last year. At the time, Paul Davis, director of government relations at Health GAP, reported that "Many more people with AIDS worldwide will die because the Global Fund will have to turn away many solid proposals before the end of the year.'' Paul Zeitz of the Global AIDS Alliance has observed that "When the U.S. came in with only $200 million last year, all the other donors came in with lower pledges." The result is that countries applying for grants from the Global Fund "have already been told to scale back their project proposals because of the lack of funding."

And none of the money from the Bush Initiative goes toward the treatment of AIDS in adults - merely Christian-right-friendly programs to prevent the spread of the disease from mothers to children.

AIDS continues to kill some 8,000 people each day - nearly two per minute - almost all of them in poor countries whose health systems are least able to cope. But, hey - at least Bush has another $30 mil to put into his re-election campaign.

I, for one, am not expecting miracles of "compassion" from this administration - or its lackeys in Congress. But - who knows? - maybe he's had some sorta "road to Damascus" type experience in the past five minutes or so and, for once, will convince his handlers to do the right thing.

They questioned the motives - I did not. I said questioning the motives begs the impetus of the debate.

Let's just suppose that President Bush's main concern was political gain....for instance, he wants to garner votes in the Black community. Do you think that makes any difference to the people in Africa? Probably not.

I hesitate when the debate is framed a priori.

So then if the Bush plan to spend $30 million to help AIDS victims in Africa is:

Either:

#1. Doomed because Congress won't pass it anyway.

OR #2. If they do, then it isn't enough.


Let me ask, is there any way, any-way-at-all that President Bush could satisfy liberals?

Or are your just going to carp about anything at all that happens?

I agree that money to Africa would just be a band-aid and would not address the root causes of AIDS. And I'm personally very hesitant on giving any money to Africa since I have little reassurance that the money will end up where it's supposed to go.

Welcome BFFR, as from now on you'll be affectionately known since your handle is entirely too long, to America's Debate.

I want to answer your questions here, because I feel I'm being misrepresented in my views. I'm not always dis-satisfied with the actions of this administration. They've actually done some things that I totally support. I was satisfied with the action taken in Afghanistan, for example, and with the fact that he left in place benefits for domestic partners of state-department employees.

Likewise, there are some things he's done/is doing that I don't support, like in this case. I don't condemn him (yet) for it, but I believe that the funding for this program will be killed, he knows it, and that's why he's "selling it". Selling something is a long way from doing something. I, like everyone else, will have to wait and see what really happens. I've merely made a prediction, and cite the track record of this administration as the reasoning behind it.

If this was brought up by Clinton when his popularity was tumbling, I'd probably question his political motives, too. It wasn't/isn't my intention to make a blanket attack on the GOP, I'm simply stating my opinions on the matter.

The galling thing is that he blocks existing measures and then put's forth a plan that probably won't pass, but if it does it helps channel the funds where he wants them to go...in the Pharmacutical companies pockets...and then acts as if he is a champion for the cause. When, in reality, he is costing more lives instead of saving them.

Yes, he could resign or choke on another pretzel.

Don't let this thread get silly or nasty. Keep on topic.

I'm sorry Jaime, I just get tired of making several points, checking figures, posting links as back up, and then have someone dismiss all of it by saying it's just a reason to complain.

Next time I'll just complain and not bother with any of the sources or figures to back up my claims. It's appreciated just as much.

Why be like that? Then "they" win, don't they? ("They" meaning people who don't respect your research enough to read it before responding)

Most of us DO appreciate the hard work you put into finding sources

Don't give in to poor methods of debate just because a few choose to resort to them

You call twenty-eight paragraphs "hesitating"?

I take your point about Bush's motives being irrelevent assuming that funding gets to where it's needed. One point arising from this, however, is that those same motives could affect whether the funding gets where it is most needed, when it gets there, whether it gets there most effectively, or whether it could've been put to better purpose through other means.

If, for example, Bush's pharmaceutical friends getting their ounce of flesh is prerequisite to relief at all or if his initiative is going to focus on prevention exclusively and preclude any form of treatment, then I would argue that his motives are far from irrelevent. The recipients of the aid will no doubt be dutifully grateful regardless of the efficacy of the relief. But we must live with the fact that our funding could have done so much more for the same amount had it gone through a genuinely compassionate conduit without opportunistic partisan baggage.


All debates, btw, are framed a priori. It's called a premise. The premise here was that Bush's proposal regarding AIDS relief in Africa was cynical: politically motivated or presumed to fail. If you don't wish to debate any given premise, you are not compelled to participate in that thread. But you might find that it is less than productive to simply attack a premise on its merits - not to mention questioning the intentions of the person who framed that premise or others who may, in fact, wish to discuss that premise. Just a suggestion.

Danya: I feel your pain.

Jaime: I take your point.

I think the current administration has earned my cynicism in this matter. I support the AIDS relief program on any level. But keep your eye on the bouncing ball. Bush is the one who mentioned the price of the drugs in his speech and the number of people he wanted to treat. I didn't do the math but it seems as if he is trying to buy these drugs retail when some of these companies are making moves toward reducing the price. Let's get the drug companies to pitch in with some discounts. Then the Republican party and the pharmaceutical industry can get some credit and will deserve a reduction in my cynicism.

I like the suggestion; I think it is very good for the world. But I feel entitled to criticize and examine the matter. If it is disguised pork it is our job as citizens to point it out. A debate before the matter is passed will likely have more to do with the final form than criticism made after it is put in motion.

Conservatives have traditionally avoided spending foreign aid money where a direct connection of national security interest has not existed. Many openly criticize Carter and Clinton policy for being humanitarian based and not based on national security.

So I will remain skeptical and give Congress and Bush credit if it gets passed and there isn't a disguised agenda.

Our military should be reduced greatly. It's function should be to protect our borders. Our current situation in the Middle East is the result of many years of one-sided support of Isreal. Unfortunately, once you have made an enemy, regardless of the reason why, you may have to destroy him.

Back on subject. We have no real interests. There is no benefit to the US from this action. It is another form of legalized theft; the use of force to take one man's property and give it to another. Let private charities take care of charity. Our major relationship with other countries should be primarily limited to free trade.

The last time we sent ANY kind of aid to Somalia, Clinton humilated the U.S. by sending unarmed troops to get a warlord who was stealing the aid