Edit: Searched only in "Foreign policy" so didn't find the December thread on AIDS in "International". Sorry. But as it took me hours to write this damn post I'll leave it up. If the mods want to close it as a replication of another thread then fine.

In the 45 most affected countries, 68 million people will die prematurely as a result of AIDS in 2000-2020, mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa where 55 million additional deaths can be expected.
Over 2000-10, 25 million children will lose one or more parents to AIDS.
Average life expectancy in Sub-Saharan Africa is currently 47 years. Without AIDS, it would have been 62 years. In Botswana (which, at 38.8%, has the highest adult prevalence rate in the world) life expectancy at birth is lees than 40 years, a return to pre-1950s levels.
In Lesotho, a person who turned 15 in 2000 has a 74% chance of becoming infected with HIV by his or her 50th birthday.
The under-five mortality rates of seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa have increased by 20% to 40%, due to HIV/AIDS.
A study of Burkina Faso, Rwanda and Uganda concludes that AIDS will increase the percentage of people living in extreme poverty from 45% in 2000 to 51% in 2015.
Some 20% of rural families in Burkina Faso have reduced their agricultural work or even abandoned their farms because of AIDS.

And:

By 2005 $9.2 billion will be needed annually to support an expanded response to HIV/AIDS in low- and middle-income countries compared with 1.8 billion in 2001. Of this total, $4.8 billion will be needed for prevention interventions and $4.4 billion for care and support. Half of the total resource needs are required for countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.

(My emphasis) From: http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_...1_1_1_1,00.html

Bush's publicly pledged money is only for 14 countries (only about a quarter of the most affected countries). It "is" only under $10bn (or $2bn per year) of new money, bypasses the UN's Global Fund, and yet the real money actually being cleared in addition to what was already spent and actually going to Africa is looking negligible (hence my earlier use of "is"):

07/07/03 - The Financial Times
In reality, nothing like $15bn will ever be spent. In the Byzantine world of the US budget process, Congressional "authorisation" by itself means little. What really counts is the annual appropriation that approves the federal budget and without which nothing can be spent. Using this yardstick, the programme is already falling woefully short of the $15bn rhetoric.

The culprit for this shortfall is not Congressional budget-cutting but the president's failure even to ask for the amounts needed to fulfil his pledge. His 2003 budget requested only $1.9bn - an increase of just $450m on what was spent in 2002 and a third less than the $3bn a year implied by the State of the Union promise.

And: The only significant item of new spending - at a cost of $450m - is a new programme at the State Department to co-ordinate all US assistance on HIV/Aids. This programme will hire personnel to consolidate initiatives that are currently scattered among government departments, including Health and Human Services, Defence, State and the Agency for International Development. In other words, the only genuinely new money is being spent not on drugs or health clinics but on bureaucratic reshuffling back in Washington.

Here's a more uptodate assessment of progress (none): http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4078402/

That said, Bush is at least doing something even though it's like a bicycle with square wheels - way more than Clinton. Europe's African AIDS response has been no better, if not worse.

The UN is pulling its hair out:

At the opening of another major international Aids conference in Nairobi, UN special envoy on HIV/Aids Stephen Lewis has denounced , as a "grotesque obscenity" the lack of cheap anti-Aids drugs in Africa.

He condemned the behaviour of Western powers, saying "we can find over $200bn to fight a war on terrorism, but we can't find the money... to provide the anti-retroviral treatment for all those who need such treatment in Africa!"

Just $1bn was spent on combating Aids in Africa last year, he said.

If we are prepared to fork out $200bn on wars, which may save an unknown number of lives (any amount would be dwarfed by AIDS) why is the world contributing barely 3 or 4% of this figure on fighting AIDS? On saving 50 million people? The US defense budget, for instance, is $400bn per year. This is more than all the other developed countries in the world are spending on defense combined (source) and is a $48bn increase on the year before.

Africa needs only 1% of that $400bn annually to deal with AIDS in Africa. Could this really not be found?

Given the state of affairs, are we as rich nations contributing enough to AIDS? Why aren't we doing enough? If you think we are, why do you think that?

If you think we aren't, how do you suggest we immediately can give as countries to save lives? 8000 people die every day from AIDS.

Do you think the US specifically is doing enough?

Incidentally, this is only the start of Africa's suffering. The great bulk of the 40 million people who die every year from starvation are African too (in a world where the food industry spends $40bn a year in advertising). And 30,000 children die each day from curable or preventable disease in the world. (source)

HIV/AIDS are spread as a result of intimate personal contact. The vast majority of those who contract the disease do so as a result of consensual sex. Most of the remainder are rape victims. The governments of Africa are, themselves, either complicit in, committing, or indifferent to the rape. The only way to change this is to change the governments.

Here is my prescription for addressing the AIDS epidemic in Africa:

1) Execute rapists, immediately.
2) Execute those who harbor rapists or turn a blind eye to rape.
3) Impose colonial rule upon the continent.

However, since none of these solutions are palatable, I propose that we shouldn't do much, until the Africans start helping themselves.

Let's see people are starving and people are dying of AIDS. Well maybe if we let the people die of AIDS there will be more food for the otherwise healthy.

We haven't done enough because not enough people in America care about Africans. It's that simple.

Bikerdad, how are the females who are raped and infected with HIV supposed to "help themselves" without outside assistance?! There are people dying because they don't have the money for medical treatment! Money is what makes the world go 'round. Money will pay for condoms, money will pay for treatment, money will pay for education. But we should just let them die until they start to "help themselves?" We should let the millions of people die for the irresponsible actions of their government?!

If you were living in one of these countries, how, pray tell, would you begin to "help yourself?" I'm just curious. What steps would you take? Would you write a letter to your local representative pleading for change? Oh wait. No representative, and you can't write. Hmm... I know! Condoms! Wait, no, that won't work. They cost money, and the only places that handed them out free of charge (along with provided other medical assistance) have been forced to shut down because of Bush's ignorant health clinic policies.

America has the resources to do a complete overhaul of AIDs grip on Africa, and it will never do so because the majority of Americans hold attitudes like BD and Hugo.

Edited: Century Mark!

On the other hand, maybe Africa will lose the ability to feed itself entirely as the adult population is devasted and the continents number of AIDs orphans rises above the present level of 12 million. Maybe when one in three Africans born today die of AIDs and the average life expectancy drops from near sixty before AIDs to 45 in 2010 then people on the continent won't get desparate.

This problem is probably one that only affects Africa and in no way will ever promote international instability. AIDs is simply a Malthusian check on the population and it would be inhumane to step in and offer assistance.

Nice constructive post Hugo.

I don't think we can possibly contribute enough. AIDS is out of control in Africa and I believe the only hope for that to be changed is for a cure. I also believe that no matter how much money is givin to African nations the complaint that we're not doing enough will continue unless a cure is found. Thats how bad it is there.



This may sound harsh but I think that money would be better spent on educating the African people on safe sex, abstinence, and being faithful to one partner rather than so much being spent on prolonging the inevitable. If all this money was spent on education and an international effort to find a cure fast it would in my mind save more lives.



Its amazing how the world doesn't want the US to lead when it comes to Terrorism and getting rid of tyrants, but when it comes to shelling out billions for AIDS relief we are the first nation that gets blamed for not doing enough, when if fact we are doing far more than the EU, Japan, etc.

Its also funny how the world gets upset when we want to "unilaterally" donate money, because that makes them look bad. They aren't backing up thier words with generous donations of their own.

Thanks Eeyore. I am quite brilliant at times. The orphans can go to work and feed themselves. Fortunately no child labor laws in most of Africa to interfere.

1) What is this "we" we're discussing? Is it the government, or individuals? If it is the government, then, frankly, the US government has already done too much and is on a course of wretched excess in combatting AIDS in Africa. Why? Because it is the duty and obligation of the US government to protect Americans, not Africans. A rational and objective analysis reveals that the African AIDS situation presents a far lower risk to America than terrorism.

2) Money will pay for condoms, only rapists rarely use condoms, so how does that help arrest the spread of AIDS? This is, of course, assuming a ideal fantasy world where the money actually gets spent efficiently on the objects of benevolence, a world far from the reality of corruption rampant in Africa. As long as the environment of corruption remains, we can make little difference.

3) America does have the resources to completely transform the AIDS landscape in Africa. We do not, however, currently have the will to do so.

4) Contrary to what you may think, such a transformation will not be accomplished through safe sex education and free condoms, not even if we have C5 Galaxies flying pallets of condoms in round the clock. The American public is fully informed and has, for all practical purposes, unlimited access to condoms. Yet the HIV infection count in this country continues to rise as well. In short, your prescription for combatting the spread of AIDS is a failure.

Transforming the AIDS landscape in Africa can only be accomplished by starting with the 3 items in my first post. As I've noted, America is unwilling to embark on an adventure of that nature, and I'm sure you'd be one of the first in line to squawk if we did. Any taxpayer money that is spent on half-measures that won't even begin to make a dent in the problem is wasted, and hence such expenditures are immoral. I, frankly, consider it reprehensible that you advocate immoral behavior.

I'm all for addressing the AIDS calamity in Africa, but only if doing so entails real solutions, not more of the same, ineffective pablum that has allowed a easily contained disease to claim millions.

The AIDS epidemic in Africa does present a lower short-term risk, but it is my opinion that Americans are safer within a world in which every effort is made to affect positively the safety and rights of people everywhere. If a government (which in the United States is, at least supposedly, the people) strives to be moral, than it cannot be selectively moral. If we truly believe that it is our moral, ethical, and collective duty to value above all else the rights inalienable in every person, such ideals and sentiments become fundamentally bereft if we can only see or care that they be applied within our defined group.



Yet you said yourself that rape was merely the remainder in this equation. Presumably, the spread of AIDS could be slowed tremendously by addressing those whom you yourself said comprise " The vast majority of those who contract the disease."



Agreed.



I agree, but not for the same reasons. Having the honour of aquaintance with more than a few doctors and nurses who have or are working in Africa, I have been told virtually the same thing by all of them - that fighting AIDS with safe-sex education will never work in Africa, because the cultures simply will not accept condoms. Now, perhaps this could be changed over the course of several generations, but for some African nations, time is short.



I am horrified by the idea that you would consider wasting taxpayer monies as immoral, yet not subjecting Africa to colonial rule! I mean, that kind of blasts your moral high ground on this issue. Yeah, the blacks here were better off as slaves, too, right? To think that you would actually advocate for colonial rule! We fought a war about this, didn't we? Oh yeah, that's how we got this country! I'll bet that 20 years after the Revolution, observers could have looked at the fledgling United States of America, and concluded that we were better off under colonial rule. Would you, sir, have agreed?

What hasn't really been addressed is poverty, and it is therein I believe the solution lies. We need to really tackle the poverty issue in Africa. That doesn't mean throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at the problem; it is something which the world community can address, through a combination of direct aid, particularly in the infrastructure, and responsible IMF/World Bank policies. Neoliberal austerity programs have for the last several decades been a boon to very small power-holding minorities in Africa, and a curse to everyone else. I recommend anyone interested in this issue to read the (Nobel laureate) economist Joseph Stiglitz's excellent book Globalisation and its discontents.

Here is an interesting article about why AIDS is so much more prevalent in Africa than in other parts of the world. It reports that studies show a cultural acceptance of numerous long term concurrent sexual partners for most Africans leads to widespread infection in the entire population. A cure seems to be the only way to stem the virus spread since cultural changes are difficult to implement.

http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-04/feat...orse-in-africa/

It's not harsh at all, Venom. It's on target, although I'd also add to it "free condoms for everyone".

The biggest problem is cultural, which involves higher-risk sex. Address that and the rest of the numbers will start to come down. You can't do much for those who already have it, except provide faster testing and education for how to have sex.

Well, that and...they have extremely ignorant misconceptions like raping babies will cure aids. I don't believe that they will simply accept and wear the condoms we throw at them. This is definitely a problem that money at won't solve.

I think we are watching in Africa, killing themselves off due to ignorance and not being able to change the way they live. You are seeing here, sadly, an epsisode of Darwinism where they either will not or cannot change the way they live of believe. AIDS is a disease, unfortunately in it's early stages hijacked by the gay activists and treated as a "lifestyle issue" rather than a disease. Lifestyle has almost everything to do with the transmission of this disease, with of course the rare instance of blood transferring somehow via a cut or accident. Condoms will NOT stop the AIDS virus if the condom fails or is improperly used. The amount of money put into AIDS by the US is staggering. We are fighting something that mabe we should let go and take care of the people willing to change and survive.

cusbilla

Why is it up to us to solve all the world's problems?

I don't have any problem helping countries that have suffered some disaster outside of their control, but the AIDs situation in Africa is squarely in it's own people's control.

What is their own government doing to stop this madness? What steps have they made and how come THEY are not getting the job done? Maybe the problem is not in not enough condoms and HIV cocktails, but the lack of responsible leadership.

I don't think it's "up to us," but I do think that in this age of trans-global culture and within the context of the world's increasing recognition of the importance of human rights, that the world can and should try to solve the world's problems, and furthermore that the US, as the richest and most powerful nation in the world should be taking the lead and setting the bar, not regressing to some barbaric idea that the only human rights that really matter are American rights.



1. Many African nations are practically bankrupt.

2. SAPs (Structural Adjustment Programs) imposed by the IMF as conditions for loans from the World Bank limit social spending and stipulate privatization - which in itself might not be so bad if the result did not tend to be massive capital flight and foreign ownership.

3. Since in effect the SAPs and other requirements still treat African nations as little more than colonials, these governments do not have the luxury that Bush has to run up record deficits.

4. The US is leading the charge in some areas, however - like trying to enforce strict patent laws prohibiting generic AIDS drugs to be produced... even in South Africa, Africa's richest nation, the vast majority of people cannot afford the cost of AIDS drugs. Gee, I guess the "market" solution is, let millions die. How sweet.

And from reading through this thread, lest anyone be getting the impression that Africans are either idiots in need of the white man's burden, or a continent of rapists, I want to say this: I have known people from all over the world, and I have traveled over quite a bit of it; almost without exception the nicest, most generous, most culturally interesting people have been Africans. I'm not excusing the horrific things that are happening in parts of Africa - but I wanted to give a bit of a personal touch to this. I have never met people who could find so much daily joy in the midst of suffering and mind-numbing poverty; who could live in unimaginable conditions and yet produce arguably the happiest sounding music on the planet. Viva Africa!

You having said that I revert back to what I said in this very thread.



The world either views us as the leader in trying to resolve the worlds problems or it doesn't. You can not use that excuse when it comes to shelling out billions of dollars to medicate millions of dying people who are no Americans, and not use it when it comes to combating terrorism, tyrants, WMD's, etc. If we are indeed the leader then why are we criticized when we go after threats that require military intervention?? Are we only the leader when it benefits the rest of the world and not our own country? Are we only the leader when it comes to non-military needs? The proliferation of WMD's and the problem of terrorism is to me a MUCH greater danger to the world than the African AIDS problem. I do not mean to downplay the serious situation in sub saharan Africa, it is indeed a big problem, but at the same time so is terrorism, despotism, and the proliferation of WMD's! I see it to be a contradicting position to say that we are the leader when it comes to one of these issues but not the other.

My position, at least, is not contradictory, and that is because I do not support or advocate violence as a means to any good end, in the long run. I don't think violence will solve the terrorism problem; I believe it will exacerbate it. While my views may be mocked in today's America, where some seem to have developed a myopic us v. them paradigm, I am proud to share my views with many people whom history holds in high regard - Gandhi, MLK, Einstein, and hordes of Christian philosophers.

Of course many argue that it was John Brown who set the course for the end of slavery at the cost of much bloodshed. Africa is not our problem. We were not even the colonists there. Maybe the Dutch, the French and the British have a moral obligation. The most we can be blamed for is reducing the number of current people living in misery in Africa by forcing their ancestors to live in misery in the US. We have the resources to solve this problem? Please, we have a better chance of wiping out Islamic fundamentalism. Last I saw we had a budget deficit.

The AIDs problem is beyond such simplistic measures such as distributing free condoms.

The sexual side of the problem is cultural. Africans are a bit backwards and tribalistic, and do not take well to modern protections such as condoms.

Beyond the consensual spread of AIDs, there is the institutional spreading of the disease through unsafe medical facilities and practices. This is not a cultural problem, it is one of infrastructure.

This problem is so widespread and pervasive that an entire revamp of the African political clime would be needed. That is something that some few billions of US dollars will never achieve.

Like it or not, this is an African problem, and one that needs to be solved by Africans. The US could help with the infrastructure improvements, but not without the removal of many of the thugs who would plunder such improvements for their own use.

The cultural shift is also up to Africans, since no external force is likely to shift their attitudes towards sex. Heck, if the fear of AIDs won't persuade them to use a condom, I doubt anything the US government says will do the trick.

The US certainly cannot be blamed for this problem. AND it is hypocritical of such worthies as the UN and the EU saying that the US isn't doing enough when the US is doing much more than any other country.

We can help, but this problem needs to be faced by Africans. The problem runs much deeper than some deadly virus, unfortunately.

In an ideal world of unlimited resources, you MAY be right. In the real world, a hierarchy of requirements must be recognized, and protecting American citizens is the highest moral requirement of the American government, just as protecting Canadian citizens is the highest requirement of the Dominion, etc. Our limited resources must first be directed to that requirement.

So you support the Iraq War? After all, you did say every effort, and Saddam was not going anywhere without violence.

My apologies for being unclear. Education efforts will be difficult because the resources will be diverted by the corruption endemic to Africa.

What, wasting taxpayer money is MORAL?

Colonial rule is a more moral option, simply because it has one advantage. It MAY work, whereas none of the options attempted thus far have, and trying the same old thing, only with more money, will get the same old results, only at higher cost. I don't advocate colonial rule, I'm simply saying that its the only viable option OUTSIDERS have of addressing the problems. Incidentally, contrary to what leftist indoctrination has taught you, colonial rule has also brought benefits to billions around the world. It is not an unmitigated evil.

Yup, and if you read the Declaration of Independence, you'll see that a large part of the justification was mismanagement.

You'll be hard pressed to find those who would have made such a conclusion. And you'll be even harder pressed to find anybody who would support the notion that Jeffersonian America had regressed to the extent that post-colonial Africa has. Zimbabwe used to be the "Breadbasket of Africa", and now, with neither drought, pestilence or other natural disaster, it is on the brink of famine, unable to feed even itself. The situation is similar in almost all sub-Saharan African countries, few of which have escaped the wrack of war, rebellions, and corruption. There are more UN peacekeeping operations underway in Africa than any other region, peacekeeping operations in place because of civil wars.

Culture is the problem. Poverty is primarily the result of the culture. Others have noted the same thing, and say that the only solution lies in either changing the culture, or a cure. Unable to bring themselves to admit that, while possessing some fine points, African culture on the whole sucks, they are ready to toss billions of taxpayer dollars into chasing the silver bullet.

Let's start with Zimbabwe. How will your prescription
improve things as long as Mugabe and his thugs are in charge? You either deal with Mugabe, or act like a colonial power and replace him... where then is your morality?

Ok I am confused....why is this only be asked of America? Why is the focus specifically on the US?
Bush has granted more money to Africa than any other nation. Europe should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
Europe has strong historical ties to Africa...Europe has strong economic trade with Africa. Europe relishes and holds dear all things African EXCEPT the African people and their welfare. Where is the diamond capital of the world..in Europe. Who is known for their chocolate (cacao is from Africa) Europeans. How much in tariffs do you think Europe collects from Africa each year?

I understand the richest nation in the world should give a lot more than it does...but if you have not noticed we have been a little busy spending all our money on defending the world..so while the rest of you don't have to worry about armies and generals and things..you could focus on the AIDS and starvations in Africa.
Not to mention the big pharm corps that appear to want to be the greediest in profiteering from death are European too.

I know people from Africa btw...Africa is not full of a bunch of wild crazy baby raping monsters. You can not have a debate about this subject without someone throwing that article up. I feel this is an attempt to demonize the African people so our ignoring of their plight is that much easier.


The focus is all wrong..we need to be fair with Africa when it comes to trade..which we are not. Patents and their enforcement should not matter in the face of a health crisis such as this.
AIDS and food aid should be tied to government changes because the governments in Africa are a big part of the problem. National infrastructure needs to be generated..I was shocked to read last year when many were dying of thirst they did not even have simple rain collectors in their countries..and why can't Africa make her own AIDS drugs...India does.

Yes, indeed, how could I bring up such a subject when we're discussing the aids epidemic in Africa? Or the fact that Zambian girls are five times more likely to be infected with aids due to sexual abuse, often from their guardians. Interestingly, I too know people from Africa. Does that mean I should ignore the obvious? One in five Zambians are infected with HIV.

It sounds to me like the only solution for this problem is a vaccine. The money would be better spent on research toward that goal than trying to change a society of baby-rapers.

"Africans are a bit backwards."
"African culture on the whole sucks."
"3) Impose colonial rule upon the continent."
"Contrary to what leftist indoctrination has taught you, colonial rule has also brought benefits to billions around the world."
"Well maybe if we let the people die of AIDS there will be more food for the otherwise healthy."
"The orphans can go to work and feed themselves. Fortunately no child labor laws in most of Africa to interfere."
"Poverty is primarily the result of the culture."

Looks like a collection of quotes from the Stormfront forum. I am saddened reading these; I am sure that these good, intelligent posters at AD have been misled or miseducated about Africa. I will think that because the alternative is unattractive. I have a hard time respecting people when they persist in racist beliefs.
.............

I do not want to give the impression that solving the AIDS problem is America's duty alone. Indeed, France, England, Spain, and Belgium are the most culpable.

Colonial rule was immoral, period. An immoral institution, while it may produce incidental benefits, is still immoral. I truly do not think that Africa would be in the straits it is today if they had not been deliberately held down for those disgusting centuries of colonial rule. And to say that my opinions are arrived at through something as dismissable as "left-wing indoctrination" is untrue and simply rude and belittling. I happened to come to my opinions through study and the application of logic.

Poverty in Africa is NOT the result of culture. It is the result of many factors - most of them having to do with colonial rule.

We have a moral obligation to give what help we can to alleviate suffering in this world. Whether the UN and/or the EU help us or not. At the current time, our help could best be given in several ways: infrastructure, particularly hospitals and medical equipment. Africa is in desperate need of more sterilized medical gear. Cheap drugs. Free drugs. Most Africans infected with AIDS cannot afford even one dollar per day for AIDS drugs.

I would like to point the way to some informative articles concerning AIDS, Africa, and to respond to Bikerdad's latest request, Zimbabwe in particular.

Zimbabwe: Confronting neoliberalism: From July last year, but it provides some interesting background on the Zimbabwe situation.

The Use Of Anti-trust Litigation For Public Health Advocacy: Lessons From The south African Competition Commission Case : article about retroviral drugs - a victory in SA, from December '03

Misunderstanding Mbeki : This is a good op/ed piece about the links between AIDS and poverty.

Low Perception of Risk Aids HIV Spread - Survey: Education obviously needs to be a bigger priority.

If you feel you have a moral obligation find a private charity. If all the do-gooders of the world would throw in a $100 at least it would only be their money going down the drain. This makes our war on drugs look sensible by comparison. A difference between being a realist and a racist. Certainly most of Africa was better off under European rule.

Already been doing that. The Mennonite Central Committee is very involved in Africa; my uncle and aunt have been working there for many years, in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and Madagascar. Giving foodstuffs and blankets to refugees, and buying much needed vaccinations and medical equipment. I don't feel that is throwing my money down the drain. Furthermore, thankfully we live in a country where the government is us, and is the expression of our will - or supposedly so. I think that by addressing poverty and infrastructure we will all benefit morally and economically in the long term. Does your cynicism have no bounds? I am a realist, hugo. Poverty will never be addressed in a useful or intelligent way worshipping at the altar of Friedman and Hayak - that is a fantasy.

If they run out of bread, why don't they just eat cake instead?



Another one for my list! Thanks! Perhaps you could ask this of Africans, hugo, instead of just telling yourself that. I have not yet encountered an African who longed for the days of colonialism.

You are welcome!

I have met Africans, in fact a couple of clients of mine, from Zimbabwe, who lost everything they had. They would certainly prefer colonialism. Their grandfather was originally from India so I guess they don't count, do they?

I have another client from Africa, this one is black so he should count. I think I will ask him why he emigrated.

I never said that Hayek has the solution to this problem. The fact is no one does. At least under the Hayek/Friedman philosophy we would not be spending more money that we do not have on a lost cause.

I think we could end the war on terror by passing out the King James to Islamic fundamentalists. Teaching them Christ's message of love should do the trick.

The Western World and Europe should see the saving of 55 million lives in the poorest part of the world as an investment. These are people who could be buying cigarettes, coke, sneakers, and beer. They could be saving corporations a fortune in lower wages. They could be increasing production of all those lovely things we love like Coffee, tea, chocolate, oil and gas. But production will fall if they lose their lives.

Human life has a value and that value to the West is cold, hard greenbacks. If drugs companies either gave away or sold at a loss their drugs to Africa then they would be investing in people who, given the chance, will jump at buying their headache tablets, antiseptic cream, vaseline or toothpaste in the longer term. In the even longer term they'll be consuming (if the West let them) anti-cancer drugs and Viagra - the real blockbusters.

If the West bothered to save the 40 million who die each year from hunger (the world produces 365 pounds per person), the millions who die from curable disease as well, they'd get back so much more than they invested. These people are strong and valuable (could you walk half a day in 120 degree heat in your bare feet carrying a wheat sack having not eaten a square meal in six months?) and could be the best workers. If the African countries don't deserve repayment and investment from the West for the centuries of leaching off them for slave labour (what America was built on and which greased the wheels of many European empires) then I don't know who does.

Could you give me the expected ROI (return on investment)? Does not seem like it is likely to be a good return on investment to me. We still have plenty of chinese, southeast asians, South and Central Americans to exploit for cheap labor. Also it seems like you have to wait a long time to get "these people" (another one for Quark) to get up to an economic level where they purchase a significant level of goods. The problem is you cannot totally exploit labor and also have that labor be a significant consumer of goods. Meanwhile the CO2 "these people" are exhaling is contributing to global warming.

Young gilrs suffer sexual abuse here in America too...often from their guardians.
Thankfully in this country AIDS is not an epidemic and a child will not suffer the consequences of this disease from a brutal or abusive childhood.
Zambia is said to be the poorest country in the world the Zambian government can not even feed it's people let alone protect them from crimes such as these..and yes it is a horrible thing.

Zambia is but one country on a continent of many...how would you like to have Mexican sexual abuse rates being used to demonstrate the mentality of Americans?

I think you mean Cuban, in my case, Bucket.

We're speaking specifically of a deadly disease which has no cure, and is spread through sexual contact. How did this country come to an infection rate of over 21 percent? Unless they are sharing a whole lot of needles without disinfecting them, it is through sex. I cannot ignore the large, pink elephant staring at me in the middle of the room.

Edited to add: Here are the per capita HIV statistics for different countries in Africa. There are 6 with even higher rates than Zambia.

Technologically, are the cultures of Africa as advanced as Western cultures? No. Are they as advanced economically? No. Are they as advanced politically? No. So, in what way can you say that African culture is on par with, or superior to Western culture, especially when it comes to addressing the issue at hand, AIDs?

Centuries? Most European colonies in sub-Saharan Africa (hereafter referred to as "Africa") weren't established until the late 19th century, during the great Imperial rush. Some scattered coastal colonies existed, off and on, before that, but the interior remained "uncolonized" until the Age of Railways and quinine. The European colonial "rule" of Africa did not last for centuries.

If you want to blame somebody, blame God, because He is the one who crafted a continent that has less coastline than any other continent. He is the one who crafted a continent without a single major mountain range to store snowfall, thereby "rationing" precipitation. He is the one who laid out very few navigable rivers. And He is the one who created the tse tse fly, which renders draft animals fundamentally unviable. Some of the results of these natural challenges? Africa, with less than 10% of the worlds population, has over 1/3 of its languages. Land transportation was extremely expensive compared to other continents, and water transport was far more restricted, meaning commerce, communication and cultural exchange is severely restricted. The establishment of large indigenous empires is impossible, etc. In short, provincialism is the cultural order of the day.

Have you ever wondered why Europeans colonized the Western Hemisphere BEFORE they colonized Africa? After all, Africa was a lot closer....

Oh, I do have to modify my statement about the poverty. It is also impacted by the geographical challenges noted above. But the "challenges" noted above don't explain why, from 1965 to 1980, the economies of post colonial Uganda, Tanzania, Chad, Zambia, Ghana, Senegal, Madagascar, Zaire, Niger, Benin, and the
Central African Republic averaged negative growth.

I may either credit it to left wing indoctrination, or to some deficit within you. In the face of persistent evidence to the contrary, I will nonetheless continue to lay it at the feet of indoctrination.

Stormfront? I don't know who that is, but I'll assume that its some white supremacist site. Do you frequent it?

Actually, you've been misled, and undoubtedly you find the implications of that concept unattractive. As they adopt proven ideas from Western culture, things improve.

Okay, this makes no sense. Why Spain? And you really, really should throw Russia in there as well, because the Marxist tripe that spewed from the Soviet Union was a BIG factor in running many African countries into the ground. But still, I can't help but wonder, why Spain?

What factors are a result of colonial rule? Please, be specific.

A post-colonial African saying:

One man, one vote ......... one time.



Schoolboy, how do you propose the "Western world" do that? Mind you, I don't object to the goal. Heck, I wouldn't object even if there was little to no prospect of turning them into consumers. I just question how its to be done when we refuse to address the corruption? When we blithely allow idiots like Mugabe to run his country into the toilet in the "interest of self determination."

When pragmatism is coupled with idealism, y'all can actually accomplish something. But until then, you'll only be wasting money and enabling the corruption.

BTW, Quarkhead's direct activities offer the best solution for AMELIORATING the calamaties in Africa, as long as direct external "corrective action" is off the table.

Addressing AIDS, fine. But no one said that. Do you not find it offensive to hear someone say "African culture on the whole sucks?" I do. I find it offensive and racist.



I was referring more loosely to the slave trade in the 14th century on, to the more informal economic control prior to the late 1800s land grabbing. Either way, Africa was on the receiving end of the boot for more than a century.



Look, I'd like to make some sort of peace with you. I don't consider you to be stupid. And what may appear sometimes as evidence to the contrary of that, I have to remind myself, is really evidence that two smart people with a good grasp of logic and the world can come to completely opposite conclusions. I think your conclusions are wrong - and no doubt you think the same of me. I do not think you arrived where you are by any indoctrination or deficit however, and I only ask you to return the sentiment. Although even that is not necessary. I have found your posting style to be belittling and dismissive, and to my chagrin, I have responded in kind. For that I apologize.



Spanish West Africa was a Spanish colony, but I was actually thinking of Portugal in the original post.



Please believe I am not being elusive here; this is a complex question, and to answer it here would sidetrack this debate farther than it has already. Suffice it to say that I believe that really seriously addressing the poverty issue is incredibly important in the battle against AIDS.

I don't find it offensive, given that I said it. I could have been more specific and said that "relative to Western culture, African culture sucks." My bad. If we look at the RESULTS, then saying AC Sucks is no more racist than saying "Kenyans are good long distance runners." As generalizations, both are true. Kenyans have dominated the world's marathons for decades now. Does it make me a racist to recognize that?

Well, that's not what you said, and I don't plan on reading your mind. There is a specific meaning to "colonial rule." Furthermore, the slave trade existed long before the 14th century when Europeans became involved, was primarily controlled by Arabs, and the majority of slaves went east to the Islamic countries, not to the Western hemisphere.

No, but you do consider me to be racist, along with anybody else who takes a less than romantic view of the situation in Africa and the culpability of Africans, both for the mess they're in, and for addressing it. As long as you continue to characterize me, directly or indirectly, as "racist", then my doubts about indoctrination will remain.

(Incidentally, I'm not sure about Hugo. I think he may be in the midst of a Swiftian progression, so methinks we can consider his tone to be somewhat tongue in cheek.)

That's kinda what I thought. Spanish West Africa is not, however, sub-Saharan Africa, so aside from the slavery connection, Spain has little connection with the distress afflicting sub-Saharan Africa.


I agree. I simply don't think that we can seriously address African poverty without addressing African culture. No amount of money, especially money without strings attached, will help, and if past experience is much of an indicator, it only makes things worse. Either the Africans can change their culture, or we can change if for them. I, personally, would much rather see THEM change it, but before that can happen, romantics in the West have to stop reassuring them that "theres nothing wrong with your culture, all your woes are because of the West and colonialism and eeeevil corporations and ..." Every country and culture that has eschewed the victim mentality has transformed itself. Africa can do it as well, and we can help, but not until we stop giving Africa a pass for its self-inflicted sins. The fastest, most effective way of addressing poverty and AIDS in Africa in the short term is for the West to step back in, going all colonial. Long term, that only works if we stay for GENERATIONS. The most effective way in the long term though is for Africans to change their own culture. That route will have fewer results in the short term than colonialism, but bear more fruit down the road. The worst thing we can do, long or short term, is simply more of the same. And that, on the large scale, appears to be what you are advocating.

On the small scale, you're on track.

I do want to try and keep this focused on the topic of AIDS. Discussions of African culture are germain in that almost everyone participating in this debate has included cultural barriers to solving this problem - including me. I have stated, when I first joined this thread, that according to the doctors I knew working in Africa, free condoms and education about birth control are ineffective due to culture.

Where I took issue with your statement, and how I do see it as racist (I am perfectly willing to give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume that you are not a racist, and that you did not intentionally mean this in a racist way), is that you made an extremely broad judgement which has no support. Remember that culture includes music, art, thought - it includes a whole lot more than a refusal to recognise the utility of condoms. In one fell swoop, you derided a culture which advocates close extended family loyalties, which produces, in my opinion, the best music in the world, a culture in which, as I have experienced, villagers living in mud huts will welcome you into their homes unfailingly, and share what meager foodstuffs they have, asking nothing in return.



As I said, I am willing to give you the benefit of a doubt. I do not have a romantic view of the situation in Africa. I recognize the areas in which African nations are culpable. I have been in Africa. I guarantee you that one will not come away from there with 'romantic' notions of the place. However, going there, meeting people, playing music with people - I can honestly say I saw nothing in the people that was not worth preserving and honoring. The culpability of African nations lies in the incredibly corrupt governments which have plagued so many of them. Why then, you may wonder, do I bring colonialism into this at all? I do think, from studying Africa, and history, that without the colonial resource-raping and capital extraction, coupled with treating the native-born people as second-class citizens, that most African nations would have been far more prosperous and would not have reached a point where dictators could so easily step in and replace the colonial fist with an African fist.



I can agree with this. Hypothetically, you are correct. In the short-term, we could affect the greatest change by recolonizing Africa. I definitely agree the long term changes will be best affected by Africans, working on their own development. I certainly do not advocate more of the same. Look at the history of, say, IMF and World Bank policies. In the sixties and seventies, despots were taking loans and buying houses on the Riviera. The neoliberal policies put into place in reaction to this malfeasance probably made sense at the time; but the result was merely punishing the people for the crimes of unelected leaders. So the people were hurt for the third time: first, the yoke of colonialism, second, being ignored by petty dictators, and third, by international monetary policy, the austerity programs. So what would 'more of the same' be? While you are correct to indicate that long term solutions do require sweeping internal policy changes, I also believe that we can help that change in positive ways: aid which emphasizes infrastructure (but not necessarily huge engineering projects whose sole purpose is to enrich foreign investors), supporting community banking ideas like Bangladesh is doing - in other words, not just throwing money at the problem, but recognizing that we can help affect the needed internal changes, through intelligent and compassionate policies. The main bulk of the African people do not need to be punished yet again for something they are not responsible for.

When we solve the problem of Healthcare for 50 million Americans who are without it, and solve the problem Prescription drugs beyond the reach of our elder people, and when we solve the problem of a national Deficit running towards 1.4 trillion, then we can think about helping out AIDS in Africa, the only thing we should do for now is hand out ConDoms. Half the money we donate is stolen, and it does not save anyone who has AIDS, it only prolongs life so they can continue to spread the disease.

Starvation in Africa has always been a problem, and the more we help, the more they breed and the more starvation and famine.

It sounds cruel but it is not our problem, and we are facing our own crises right here in America. Crime, drugs, ghetto,s hungrey kids, poor schools, overcrowed prisons, America First.

"The Moon" and "Space" is "not your problem" but you as a nation seem perfectly happy to spend billions going there. Israel is "not your problem" but the US has supplied an average of $3bn per year in aid since the 1960s. And so on...

A measly $4.5bn per year is needed to seriously tackle AIDS in Africa. As I said before, that's just 1% of the US military budget. That's just $16 for every man woman and child in America. Or just $5.62 for every man woman and child in the developed world.

Can we really not live without that? To save millions upon millions of lives each as unique, sentient and with as much inbuilt potential as you or I? With families, a sense of humour, a religion, friends and desire not to die?

I have never said it is the US's sole responsibility but - as you pro-"do nothing"ers - neglected to respond to, the US and the rest of the Western world (Europe in particular) should support Africa because Africa's poverty was caused by us. The billions in protectionist subsidies to US and European farmers prevented any hope of Africa making real money. Then wars, like Congo, that were allowed to rage for years without international intervention have taken their toll. Then disease has gone ignored, as well as hunger. The crime of slavery, the fact that the US and European industrial economies were built on slaves both in Africa and exported to the New World has never been fully addressed.

Saving those dying is the least we can do. We sponsor education programs, provide free condoms and free drugs. We invest in programs aimed at combating prostitution and invest in hospital infrastructure. All this can be done, so the experts say, for just $4.5bn per year in Africa.

http://www.unaids.org/en/default.asp

He was, he was pointing out that the US need to give more money to Africa, and that the money could come from the AID they give to Israel and in Space Exploration.

I agree Schoolboy, the west need to re-arrange its priorities and start a comprhensive program to tackle this problem.

Sure it cant be solved by Money alone, but Money can create schools, and educate people;money can help agrigculture, and so the country can develop a better economy. And so on...

As the powerful we have a duty, and cannot turn our backs on the people of the world in need.

Average national IQ's from the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"



Educating a bunch of borderline retards is not cheap. Particularly when they are already ingrained to behave in a certain way.

So what are you advocating Hugo? Let the process of natural selection take over and thin the herd of the stupid people of the world? If that were the case I daresay we'd lose more than a few posters on America's Debate.

"Borderline retards" sounds like a harsh label to brand entire groups of people you don't know and obviously care nothing about. While it's nice that you've broaded your readings of eugenics theories beyond The Bell Curve it really isn't germane to this debate, now is it? Start another thread if you want to assert only the smart Asians and Caucasians deserve any help.

If I were to accept your "logic" that people are ingrained to behave in certain way, I would have to forever doubt that white people are capable of acts of goodness, mercy and charity based on their long history of barbarism, racism and cruelty to non-white people. Fortunately, I reject that sweeping generalization because I believe most people--including white people---are good, kind and compassion and act accordingly.

Africa is suffering from the ravages of AIDS and you want to flog your odious comparisons of intelligence as if it can be quantified and applied in a universal standard. What nonsense!

Actually I don't believe it is our responsibility, or legal under our constitution. to aid anyone regardless of how intelligent, or stupid, they are. My point is it takes a lot more time and dollars to educate the stupid, particularly when you are going against cultural beliefs or standards. These aren't western teenagers that we are going to try to teach the magic of condoms to.

I don't think white people own the patent on barbarism and cruelty. I don't think Madison was a cruel man just because he found government aid for acts of benevolence unconstitutional.

I've already responded. 90% of African poverty is the result of environment, culture, and corruption. "Rest of the Western World"? Like who? Argentina, Chile, maybe Haiti? Undoubtedly, the wicked Swedes and Finns should kick in, due to the millions of Africans they enslaved in their huge African colonies. (BTW, the Swedes are "kicking in" splendidly, although I don't know about the Finns)



American subsidies, have far less impact on African agricultural trade than European subsidies, for the simple reason that US and Africa engage in far less agricultural trade and the dynamics of the marketplace result in much less competition between the US and Africa at the "farmer's market" compared to the Europe and Africa. Further impacting the African's ability to compete in the international agricultural market is the simple fact that corruption and mismanagement frequenlty leave no surplus for export.

Intervention, particularly in civil wars, is the opposite of self-determination and has been seen by many as the camel's nose of imperialism.

It has not been ignored. Environmentalists have, in their jihads against chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and other technological aids that comprise the tech foundation of the Green Revolution, have seriously hampered the Africa's abiltiy to duplicate productivity improvements enjoyed by other regions. Ditto disease, where environmental pressure to ban DDT has resulted in MILLIONS of deaths from malaria and other vector borne diseases that are greatly mitigated with the use of DDT. Now, those selfsame arrogant sons-of-b**** are waging war against genetically modified foods that can help Africa feed itself, driven by nothing more than luddite ignorance. The anti-GM forces are most active in Europe, so until you have the nards to deal with the murderous ignoramuses in your midst, I suggest that you stop trying to take the moral high ground.

As a general rule, addressing fantasies is reserved for the Casual Conversation threads.

The United States owes nothing to Africa as a result of slavery, unless you believe that England owes the all the Irish-Americans for the crap you inflicted on Ireland. England and the US were almost solely responsible for eliminating the slave trade, spending blood and treasure to stamp it out. The US stopped its own involvement in the African slave trade almost 200 years ago. Nor does America owe anything to Africa because of the atrocities committed in our African colonies. We didn't have any. None. Those were all European, all on YOU.

So, if you want to make the case that simple human decency calls us to action, feel free. Millions of Americans are already answering that call through dozens, if not hundreds of private charities that work in Africa. Billions of American tax dollars have already been spent in humanitarian aid to Africa. Likewise, millions of Europeans and buckets of Euros/pounds/francs/marks/etc have been spent. But if you want to motivate with shame, motivate your fellow former colonialists in Belgium (you did specifically mention the Congo, right?), France, Germany, Portugal, Italy and England. Don't dare to lecture us on how its our responsibilty to clean up the mess that, by an assessment of the factors you blame, lays almost exclusively at your feet.

Better yet, follow Quarkhead's lead. Don't wait on us, get involved yourself.

(ps - if anybody has good figures for public and private humanitarian aid spending, a link would be appreciated.)

That is a appalling comment, and really offensive.

Why are these people the way they are, you are suggesting they are naturally retarded?

That is racist.

Their IQ's will be lower because they havent has access to education. They are not therefore - by definition - mentally retarded, since their Brains are not inherently flawed medically. They just havent been devloped through education.

Moreover, if the task is difficult and expensive, is no less the reason to embark on it. I am sure if you were an African you would want some help of some kind.

There is only one race I care about in the world - The Human Race.

I like this post very much. Personal responsibility and common sense are always set aside in these matters. throwing billions of dollars into corrupt African countries will definitely not help things. Frankly the populations of these countries are too high, and that means alot of mouths fighting for living space, food, etc. Birth control would better a better target for money in Africa in my opinion. Education, so on, some moral values training as well, so people would not be so promiscuous and exacerbate the spread of AIDS/HIV.

How is that people assume that since SOME of the money isn't getting where it should go, and efforts to curb AIDS is not completely successful; it is a complete failure? This discussion has been carrying on for a while without anyone demonstrating that aid to Africa has failed or succeeded; instead we have become concerned with questions of Africa's cultural identity and issues of corruption. These are pressing issues of course, but just because they exist it does not mean that aid is impossible or ineffective.

HeatherRob,

Africa does not have too many people. People are Africa's greatest resource, just as they are Europe's, Asia's, or the Americas'. I'm not too sure about Australia, methinks the koalas may be their greatest resource.

Birth control is a wonderful idea to help stop the spread of AIDS/HIV. Pity that because of our darling president's abortion phobia, many clinics in Africa no longer have the funding to educate people and provide birth control.

http://64.224.182.238/globalgagrule/impacts.htm

Let's see if I can follow his line of reasoning. Clinics are being aided by U.S. money to provide a wide range of reproductive counseling and services, but if they also treat abortion as a legit alternative to having an AIDs ridden baby, no funding for them. Forget what other things they may be doing to help the Africans, no decent god-fearing american like bush assumes we all are would want their money going to pay for someone else's abortion - and based on the possibility of providing abortions, their funding is cut off and they have to shut down.

This helps the Africans how...?

The first thing we could do that we would see immediate results from in terms of the AIDs crisis in Africa is repeal the global gag rule, but bush is too stupid to realize that because all he cares about is whether they provide abortions or not. And they'll keep on suffering as a consequence of his religious convictions.

Suzy,

Could you explain a little further how abortion and AIDS are related? A baby born with AIDS is likely to die an early death, I know, but how does the "gag rule" kill adult Africans?

Abortion or AIDS, the babies will die all the same, I guess.


Corruption is a huge problem. Would you give money to a charity whose management pocketed 80% of your donation, but did use 20% to help people? Sure, the 20% does something, but wouldn't you want to find a little better alternative?

I don't want to speak for Suzy, but it seemed to me she was not making a connection between abortion and AIDS - just that the gag rule would cease any funding for these clinics - who are likely to be sources of AIDS and contraception education.