Posted on 01/29/2003 7:57:13 AM PST by TLBSHOW
Bush Asks for $15 Billion to Fight AIDS in Africa
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush, under fire from AIDS groups for what they call his neglect of the epidemic, asked Congress Tuesday to triple AIDS spending in Africa and Haiti to $15 billion over five years.
The announcement, made in his annual State of the Union Address, took AIDS campaigners by surprise, but they quickly both welcomed the plan and expressed skepticism about it.
"I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean," Bush said.
"This comprehensive plan will prevent 7 million new AIDS infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS and for children orphaned by AIDS," Bush added.
On its Internet web site at http://www.whitehouse.gov, the White House said the plan would target Botswana, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.
It said the plan calls for the United States to work with private groups and governments to "put in place a comprehensive plan for diagnosing, preventing and treating AIDS."
Stephen Lewis, the United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, welcomed what he called "the first dramatic signal from the U.S. administration that it is now ready to confront the pandemic and to save or prolong millions of lives."
"It opens the floodgates of hope. Most importantly, it issues a challenge to every other member of the G7 to follow suit," he said in South Africa after a tour of the region.
The Physicians for Human Rights, which campaigns on a range of issues from land mines to HIV, last week urged Bush to increase global AIDS spending to $3.5 billion a year.
"This is totally unexpected," John Heffernan, a spokesman for the group, said in a telephone interview. "We applaud it. It really is an extraordinary commitment that clearly shows that the United States is serious about combating AIDS."
The Global AIDS Alliance welcomed the news but worried that the Bush administration could be competing with existing AIDS funds, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The United States has been accused of not putting its fair share into the Fund.
"In the (White House) fact sheet it said only $1 billion of the 10 billion in new money will go to the Global Fund," said Dr. Paul Zeitz, Executive Director of the Global AIDS Alliance. "We are very concerned that will leave the fund vastly underfunded and undermine its success."
A SLOW START?
Zeitz also said it looked like the program would start out slowly, with just $2 billion allocated for next year.
The International Association for Physicians in AIDS Care said it would closely watch what would be done with the money, if Congress approved it. "The devil is in the details," said Scott Wolfe, a spokesman for the group. But he also strongly welcomed the move, adding, "We call on other global leaders to step up and demonstrate similar commitments."
More than 36 million people are infected with the virus that causes AIDS -- 25 million in Africa alone. The United Nations predicts AIDS will kill 70 million people in the next 20 years unless rich nations step up efforts.
Bush noted this. "There are whole countries in Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the infection," he said. "More than 4 million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent, only 50,000 AIDS victims -- only 50,000 -- are receiving the medicine they need."
There is no cure for AIDS but a cocktail of expensive drugs known as anti-retrovirals can keep disease at bay. Campaigners have been angered that such drugs are available in rich nations but not to the countries hardest hit by the epidemic.
"AIDS can be prevented," Bush said. "Anti-retroviral drugs can extend life for many years. And the cost of those drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year, which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp."
The new Senate majority leader, Tennessee Republican Bill Frist, nodded and smiled as Bush spoke. Frist, a medical doctor, does frequent volunteer work in Africa.
"It's unprecedented. It is huge. And of everything he said tonight, it has the capacity to save more lives in this country I would say, but also globally, than anything else said," Frist told CNN.
Never give in when you know you are right.
In the U.S., AIDS is confined largely to gays and drug users. In Africa, it is not a gay/junkie disease; it affects men, women and children. Sure, changing people's behavior is the key to preventing the spread of this disease; we all know that. But in Africa, what you and I know to be true they don't know. There's a lot of ignorance and superstition in Africa about AIDS.
Oh, and as for the African and Caribbean AIDS victims, just because they are foreigners who "brought it on themselves" doesn't make them any less human. They are still human beings whose lives are worth just as much as yours. They aren't dirt; even though they may treat themselves like dirt. They don't suffer from the disease any less because of it, either.
And another thing, many of the people here aren't arguing against this initiative because the money might not get to the right people; that's a valid concern, and I hope if Congress does approve this that they plan it in such a way that the money doesn't go straight down the toilet. Many people are against it simply because they are against foreign aid to a passel of sick foreigners, no matter how well distributed the money is. There's something wrong with that way of thinking. Luckily, all most Americans want is to know that the money will be used the way it was intended. I don't mind helping sick people, even if we don't get anything out of it, as long as the money goes actually to help sick people and prevent new cases. Who cares if the rest of the world doesn't appreciate how much we help out other countries? Do we feed the starving, heal the sick and prevent disease in the Third World in order to receive appreciation and recognition, or do we feed the starving, heal the sick and prevent disease in the Third World in order to feed the starving, heal the sick and prevent disease in the Third World?
You can call Chad "self-righteous" and "pious" all you want to, but something tells it's not your approval Chad needs or wants.
That’s what I was hoping to hear last night.
He is more concerned with Africa than our own damn borders and sovereignty.
Insanity rules the day.....
Those who receive vast sums of money from the USA, so very often spew abuse and hatred at their benefactors later.
My own observation of human beings who receive monies- any situation - an indigent relative, a regular borrower (friend), is this: If, and when the monies are cut off, the former recipient is more outraged at the former benefactor, than they are at those who told them to "go fly a kite".
If you are totally impoverished and dying of hunger...just pack up and move? To where? And how? And do you take your dying children? Or just leave them behind?
And second, nuke all countries who hate us? Just kill all the men, women and children?
Are you sure you are an American? Don't mean to offend but this philosophy is sounding VERY much like certain terrorist organizations, isn't it?
Fairly brutal. And you would VOTE for the man who advanced these ideas to be your President? Scary.
Isn't this the same as saying, "This is something that we agree with the liberals on." Or are you saying we are not sincere aboout the Aids epidemic and are just trying to quiet an issue?
(Now, if this is just window-dressing, which won't have any domestic benefit, then it's a mistake...)
Black conservative ping
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
So by compromising the Constitution, it's really a win for Republicans, because we're only halfway gutting it, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.