The Politics of AIDS

HIV-AIDS is such a terrible thing that many of us prefer not to think about it, unless it hits us, or our families. Still, to fail to express our thoughts on this subject would be giving carte blanche to those professional "humanitarians" and proponents of world "governance" whose first thought is for themselves and their careers, and not the lot of humanity. The corridors of the U.N., government institutions, and the NGOs are full of such folks, as I well know.

The latest case in point is the scholarly article by Nicholas Eberstadt in Foreign Affairs, referred to by Austin Ruse, and which I mentioned in the last issue. I don't see how anyone could fail to be shocked by its import, and I think a downloading of the whole article in Foreign Affairs would be worthwhile for many readers. Actually, it is a fairly long article, replete with information and projections for the future. As I mentioned, I am retired and, at best, an armchair (or a rocking chair) strategist who is not in a position to do any serious research. Nevertheless, a few reflections I have to make may be of possible interest.

The dimensions of the projected spread of HIV-AIDS in Russia, China and India stagger the imagination. As Mr. Eberstadt points out, the implications are world-shaking, not only in terms of human suffering but also in economic, social and even in strategico-military terms. He quotes not only U.N. and government public sources, but also U.S. intelligence community estimates. Since, as he says, the pandemic will affect seriously the Eurasian balance of military and economic power, it is not surprising that the intelligence community should be interested.

Despite the importance of the strategico-military and economic consequences of the HIV-AIDS spread in Eurasia, my thoughts revolve around some implications as regards the plague in sub-Saharan Africa, where it started in the first place. While the direct economic impact of this primary locus of infection may not have been great for the world-at-large so far, its indirect impact, largely through travel and migration, cannot be denied. The history of what has occurred through such migration and personal contacts (in part through refugee flows) so far, may contain some lessons from which the rest of the world can learn. Migration was mentioned by Eberstadt as an important factor in the spread of HIV-AIDS in Eurasia. It is also an important factor in the propagation of the disease within and beyond sub-Saharan Africa itself. (Of course, it is only one factor among many, often associated ones).

The primary stock word used by the U.N. and AIDS activists to explain the incomparably high HIV-AIDS rate in sub-Saharan Africa is poverty. It cannot be denied that sub-Saharan Africa also leads the world in this respect associated with an array of other infectious diseases. However, a survey of HIV-AIDS infection and death rates in relation to poverty levels in other parts of Africa, and other parts of the world, shows that a more basic and objective approach is necessary, if we are really to understand the phenomenon in its proper perspective. The blanket use of the word "poverty" to explain away the prevalence of HIV-AIDS among some groups, and not in others and in different parts of the world, is misleading and should be examined critically in relation to other factors.

Among these are the breakdown of social structures and norms, and promiscuous sexual behavior. Since "the family," as we know it in the West, does not always have the same form or meaning (if it exists at all) in some other partrs of the world, it is not always possible to talk of the "decline of the family." Still, in parts of the world where firm social and religious structures still exist (such as in the Muslim countries of northern Africa), the HIV-AIDS rate is incomparably lower than that in sub-Sarahan Africa, despite comparable levels of persons "living below the poverty line" (see country figures on HIV-AIDS rates in the CIA World Factbook, in the internet).

The following official statements with regard to the U.N. organization, UNAIDS, give some idea as to its structure and mission:

UNAIDS could be described as a one-eyed Cyclops, since the key elements of migration, emigration and immigration are missing - at least in its formal structure.

In the light of the obvious and well-documented importance of migration in the spread of HIV-AIDS worldwide, it is an astonishing, and indeed, a shocking fact that in the organization chart of UNAIDS, the U.N. organization set up about seven years ago to deal with the worldwide HIV-AIDS pandemic, in the place of WHO, there are no large, universally recognized, worldwide migration or refugee organizations present. Yet at least two important organizations in this field do exist - and in fact, in Geneva, Switzerland, the same city as UNAIDS itself, and only a stone's throw away. One is the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the other the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Although space does not allow a discussion about these two organizations at this time, for those interested, this information can be obtained from the internet, together with much of what has been said here so far.

How can this almost unbelievable, and possibly fatal, failure of UNAIDS to assign to the migration factor its due importance in the spread of HIV-AIDS worldwide be explained?

For this author, the answer lies in the undeniably political nature of the HIV-AIDS activist movement worldwide. Like the environmentalist movement, it is a melting pot for extremists of various stripes, and its stock-in-trade is not logic, but emotion (one could almost say hysteria -- at least in its opinion - forming activities and relations with the public). One might well ask whether the work of the scientists and researchers who do participate is not not hampered by the activists. Much of the political activism is carried out, as in the case of the environmentalist movement, by a vast network of organizations and NGO's worldwide with support from the media, and known collectively as "the World Community", or the "Civil Society." One form of support is the invention of new stock words and phrases ("newspeak").

Coming back to the UNAIDS interpretation of human rights as emphasized in the Barcelona conference last summer, it is noteworthy that the rights of populations (such as the European and USA populations) freshly exposed to contamination as the result of migration and immigration) have not been emphasized. Yet in previous years and centuries, the introduction of a quarantine and other necessary preventive and prophylactic measures were not looked upon as human rights violations. What has happened to change all this? Is it not a "human right" to be protected against invasion, and dangerous promiscuity? The legislation in various countries which requires the testing of certain persons, categories of persons and groups for HIV-AIDS is a hot topic, which is treated almost as if it were taboo. A perusal of the UNAIDS "human rights" literature will show how gingerly it is being handled.

For this author, the answer lies in the undeniably political nature of the HIV-AIDS activist movement worldwide.

How else can you explain that the 11th leading cause of death receives more attention and funding for research than the flu which kills hundreds of thousands more people than GRID does?

From David Virtue's VIRTUOSITY emailzine:

THE GAY DEBATE IS CAUSING GREAT PAIN, says Southern African Archbishop
Njongonkulu Ndungane. He recently put out an extraordinary memorandum
calling on southern Africa's 10 million baptised Anglicans at all
levels to urgently address the issue of homosexuality in a manner that
will generate mutual understanding and bring people out of their
"corners of conviction".

Ndungane's move follows a resolution adopted at their recent Anglican
synod which noted the pastoral needs of homosexuals. The synod gave
thanks for the role played by gay and lesbian members within the church
and urged that they be affirmed and welcomed.

Southern African is the only weak link in the Anglican Communion on the
African continent with regard to homosexuality. Bishop Desmond Tutu
also endorses gay behavior. It should be noted that South Africa is one
of the most Christian nations in Africa but it also has the highest
number of AIDS sufferers. Ndungane makes the fatal error of confusing
meeting the "pastoral needs of homosexuals" with endorsing their
behavior. That was not the intent of the Lambeth Conference resolution
and even an African Archbishop should not be allowed now to spin it.
One only hopes that Ndungane's thinking will not spread across the
continent. The US-based gay Episcopal organization Integrity has a
toehold in Kampala, Uganda, but no one there is buying it and the
bishop who supports it has been severely restricted and his
ecclesiastic activities curtailed.

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.