Bush: Not So Bad As Some Think
Filed under: Africa, George W. Bush, Lead Story, United States — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on January 5, 2008 @ 12:33 pm CET
US President George W. Bush has been criticized by liberals and Europeans for being cold, and egotistical… But he’s done more to fight AIDS than any other President.
American President George W. Bush has been criticized by American liberals and Europeans for being cold and egotistical. According to the story-line, Bush doesn’t care about the world, and especially not about the poor. O, and he really couldn’t care less if those poor people happen to be black.
The reality is, however, quite different. Bush has spent big bucks on fighting AIDS everywhere in the world, albeit especially in Africa. Several years ago, he met with Dr. Jean W. Pape who then worked with AIDS patients in Haiti. He told Pape: “I will hold you accountable, because this is a big move, this is an important thing that I’ve been thinking about for a long time.”
He was willing to spend a lot of taxpayers dollars on fighting AIDS globally, but he wanted to make sure that those who received the money would spent it wisely.
The results? “So far, roughly 1.4 million AIDS patients have received lifesaving medicine paid for with American dollars, up from 50,000 before the initiative. Even Mr. Bush’s most ardent foes, among them Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, his 2004 Democratic challenger, find it difficult to argue with the numbers.”
The New York Times calls it Bush’s only bipartisan accomplishment, but I believe that bipartisanship doesn’t have anything to do with it. Whether the Democrats supported his plans or not, Bush was going to do this. As far as I’m concerned there’s only one person who deserves credit for Pepfar (Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and that’s Bush.
But good is never good enough for critics:
Despite the effort, there are still 33 million people living with H.I.V., and the United Nations estimates that there were 1.7 million new infections in 2007 in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Critics, including Mr. Kerry, are particularly incensed by the requirement that one-third of the prevention funds be spent teaching abstinence, despite a lack of scientific consensus that such programs reduce the spread of H.I.V.
When a Ugandan AIDS activist, Beatrice Were, denounced the abstinence-only approach at an international AIDS conference last year, she received a standing ovation. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, an advocacy group here in Washington, says the Bush program has been hamstrung by “ideologically driven policies.”
That assessment was echoed, in more diplomatic terms, by the independent Institute of Medicine, which evaluated the program in March. It called on Congress to abandon the abstinence requirement and to lift the ban on paying for clean needles for drug addicts, among other changes.
To be perfectly simple about it: if people would not have sex, unless they’re married, the problem would indeed decrease significantly. As such, it’s quite reasonable to spend some money on educating people about this issue. However, the problem is of course that government - and government programs - can’t make people live their lives differently. It’s as simple as that. The Church should try to tell people about this, governments shouldn’t. What should matter to the government are purely pragmatic concerns, or mostly so at least. That 30% is, quite simply, wasted money. It could be spent more wisely.
But, that criticism aside, it’s glaringly obvious that Pepfar is a good and effective program, for which Bush deserves a lot of credit. Dr. Alex Coutinho, a top AIDS expert in Uganda (Africa) even said that Ugandans are “terrified” that when Bush leaves office, “the Bush fund, as they call it,” goes with him. The good doctor went on to say that he’s surprised by how little Americans know about Pepfar. “Just because it has been done under Bush, it is not something the country should not be proud of,” he said.
The reasons, in my opinion at least:
1. the media don’t spend enough attention to Pepfar. And when they do, they focus on the abstinence part
2. Bush himself doesn’t talk about this program nearly enough
Lets hope that the next president carries this program on and that this president will try to get European countries involved more actively as well.
1 C Stanley
January 5, 2008 @ 1:58 pm CETNow that’s just silly. Of course there are different roles for Church and government- with Church teaching about the morality and government educating people about the health risks of having sex with multiple partners- but why shouldn’t the govt do the latter if it is paying for the healthcare?
If you really don’t think govt should do this, then the only way to be consistent would be to say the govt shouldn’t do this funding at all- which is certainly a valid way for a small government conservative to view it. But if one comes to the conclusion that the govt is going to get involved, then it almost HAS to do the part about educating people to try to change their behavior. If we move to a govt healthcare system, then wouldn’t there be a part of the budget to help educate people about nutrition and other lifestyle issues that affect health? With AIDS, the disease is 100% preventable by avoiding casual sex- so why would the govt not spend to help reduce the incidence in that way? I can understand an argument that 30% might be too much- but if I recall I think that was based on a program developed by the Ugandan govt which had dramatically reduced infection rates. And keep in mind, in some of these cultures the education was greatly lacking so it was necessary to do a lot in that regard.
2 Michael van der Galien
January 5, 2008 @ 2:20 pm CETIT doesn’t work Christine. That’s not money donated by civilians to charities, that’s money taken by the government. You’ve got no right whatsoever to waste it. And yes, the money is wasted from a pragmatic point of view because it doesn’t work. The other plans do work, hence the money isn’t wasted.
It’s really very simple. You’re wasting money that doesn’t belong to you. Stop it.
3 C Stanley
January 5, 2008 @ 2:41 pm CETLook at the facts about what works before you say that. As I said, the 30% on education was based on a highly successful program in Uganda. In fact the Ugandan govt advised us on it because they felt it was that important to educate people. In fact nothing else was working as well- prior to the education programs the infection rates kept rising.
4 Michael van der Galien
January 5, 2008 @ 2:46 pm CETIn fact, all the experts say that this part of the program doesn’t work. Indeed, look at the facts. It ain’t working, stop spending other people’s hard earned money on something that’s not working.
5 C Stanley
January 5, 2008 @ 3:02 pm CETWhat facts are you referring to, and which experts? Why are infection rates decreasing (beyond just that from deaths, of course) if the prevention part is failing as badly as you claim?
I honestly don’t think the facts are what you think they are- but you’re not showing me any data so I don’t know if you are referring to something I’m not aware of.
6 Michael van der Galien
January 5, 2008 @ 3:15 pm CETDid you actually read the article or what? If so, your question is answered. If not, go read it.
7 C Stanley
January 5, 2008 @ 3:17 pm CETThere’s no link to the article
But I read your excerpts and I see people making political statements, not scientific ones.
8 Americaneocon
January 5, 2008 @ 3:24 pm CETI’ve pointed out this fact, especially Bush and Africa a couple of times.
Thanks for this!
9 C Stanley
January 5, 2008 @ 3:31 pm CETMichael: I just went to NYT site and found the article, and I still don’t see any references to data to support the arguments that the abstinence part doesn’t work. I see (in the excerpt here) an African AIDS leader getting a standing o for saying that we shouldn’t do abstinence only- well, hello? We aren’t doing abstinence only, and no one is saying we should.
I see the program director, Dybul, saying we’re on target to meet the programs goals for reduction of prevalence. The real measurements apparently won’t come until 2010, so is he lying or spinning? If so, show some evidence of that before you say the program as designed is just wasting money.
Incidentally, I saw Dybul on CSpan a while back, testifying before a Congressional committee. The questioners started off extremely hostile toward him and the program, particularly the abstinence part. After hearing his explanations and seeing the data, one Congresswoman ended up apologizing to him, she said that she had been influenced in a negative way about the ABC program by people who evidently didn’t have the facts straight.
10 Lynx
January 5, 2008 @ 3:36 pm CETI recently read an article that had some doctors halfway complaining about the AIDS program. The upshot was that it was great that so much money was poured into AIDS relief, but that many other, easily preventable and treatable diseases, run rampant without receiving aid, so that many are dying of malaria, cholera, tuberculosis etc. because their clinics have plenty of AIDS drugs but no antibiotics for the other diseases.
However valid this criticism might be, I don’t think it takes credit away from Bush for doing what he has done. I have no problem with giving credit where credit is due. The aid impulsed by Bush is a great thing, and to his complete credit. We can discuss how effective the aid is, and from what I’ve read (and am at present too lazy to find again) abstinence education is not the most effective strategy, but I think his heart is in the right place, and he deserves kudos for that.
Christine, a VERY quick search got me this. I don’t mind abstinence being taught if it WORKS, but being how things work in Africa, the best you can hope for now is trying to get the men to use condoms for their own selfish benefit, because women are worth less than nothing in many of those societies.
11 C Stanley
January 5, 2008 @ 3:58 pm CETLynx,
Yes, what that article is saying is intuitive, makes a lot of sense if you know anything about the cultures there. But still, you rarely see any scientific data one way or the other as to whether the education programs are having a positive effect (and a cost effective one.) It’s a lot like AGW, really, where everyone has a foregone political opinion and the one endorsed by some scientists is touted as the consensus opinion, with little evidence offered that the consensus is as strong or as accurate on the facts as the political players like to claim.
IOW, I’m not discounting at all that education won’t quickly change those attititudes, so that condoms and abstinence don’t help the women if the men don’t care about infecting them. But from what I’ve seen, the programs are pretty impressive about figuring out the particular way to educated and motivate based on the cultural norms; perhaps by impressing on men that babies will be infected, for example, if their culture places emphasis on childbearing. They’re also focusing on young people, and partnering with NGOs and church based groups which in many cases are beginning to try to attack those gender roles which harm women- because obviously the problem gets more complex if you have a culture that doesn’t think that half of it’s population is worthy of being saved from this disease. So it’s then up to the NGOs and churches to try to have an affect on those attitudes, starting with the youth, while the govt sponsored program can mesh with that by educating about the disease prevention itself.