Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Bush, a Friend of Africa

Expand Messages
  • Elizabeth Bell
    Good NYT Op-Ed piece, puts forth (albeit simplistic) pros and cons of various aid approaches. Hope everyone had a great 4th, we swam and grilled and napped,
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Good NYT Op-Ed piece, puts forth (albeit simplistic) pros and cons of various aid approaches.
       
      Hope everyone had a great 4th, we swam and grilled and napped, even the parents : )
       
      Liz et al
       
       
      Op-Ed Columnist

      Bush, a Friend of Africa

      Published: July 5, 2005

      Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt.

      But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).

      So as the G-8 summit meeting convenes this week, focusing on Africa, it's worth acknowledging that Mr. Bush, and conservatives generally, have in many ways been great for the developing world. At their best, they bring a healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts.

      The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N. conference and give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more international assistance.

      In contrast, a standard conservative approach is to sponsor a missionary hospital or school. One magnificent example is the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital, where missionary doctors repair obstetric injuries that have left Ethiopian women incontinent.

      Liberals also often focus on changing laws, but in a poor country, the legal system is often irrelevant outside the capital. Sudan, for example, banned female genital mutilation back in 1957; since then, the practice has expanded steadily. Sure, lobbying for better laws is important, but it's usually much more cost-effective to vaccinate children or educate girls. Nobody gets more bang for the buck than missionary schools and clinics, and Christian aid groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse save lives at bargain-basement prices.

      Liberals may also put too much faith in aid itself. What Africa needs most desperately are things it can itself provide: good governance, a firmer neighborhood response to genocide in Sudan, and a collective nudging of Robert Mugabe into retirement.

      Plenty of studies have shown that aid usually doesn't help people in insecure, corrupt or poorly governed nations. Indeed, aid can even do harm, by bidding up local exchange rates and hurting local manufacturers.

      All that said, in the right circumstances aid can be tremendously effective, especially in well-governed countries - Mozambique is an excellent example. And Mr. Bush's new push to help Africa is smartly designed, targeting problems like malaria and sex trafficking, where extra attention and resources will make a big difference on the ground.

      Mr. Bush's signature foreign aid program, the Millennium Challenge Account, is off to an agonizingly slow start, but is shrewdly focused on encouraging good governance and economic growth. The first grant went to Madagascar, a well-run country, to clarify property rights there. This isn't sexy, but nothing would help the poor in Africa more than giving them clear title to their land so they could secure loans and start businesses.

      The divide I portray between the left and right is, of course, a caricature. Some of the very best work to help the poor is done by liberal-leaning groups, like the Carter Center, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Doctors Without Borders. They all use their resources to make real changes on the ground.

      And while Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than most people realize, there's one huge exception, because anything with a whiff of sex in it makes some conservatives go nuts. Mr. Bush's decision to cut off funds for the U.N. Population Fund means that more African girls will die in childbirth. Even more tragic is the administration's blind hostility to condoms to fight AIDS - resulting in more dead Africans.

      Mr. Bush has another blind spot as well: while he is right that aid is not a cure-all, sometimes he seems to use legitimate concerns about aid as an excuse for stinginess. Aid has shortcomings, but Mr. Bush himself has shown that it can be used effectively to save lives by the millions.

      Yet Mr. Bush is resisting the G-8's calls for further help for Africa; he thinks the sums are better spent on cutting the taxes of the richest people on earth than on saving the lives of the poorest. Come on, Republicans! You need to persuade Mr. Bush to be more generous this week, because his present refusal to help isn't conservative, but just plain selfish.

      E-mail: nicholas@...

    • kristen cheney
      Thanks for forwarding this article, Elizabeth. It discusses different positions pretty succinctly, at the risk of oversimplifying the issues, though. I
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for forwarding this article, Elizabeth. It discusses different
        positions pretty succinctly, at the risk of oversimplifying the
        issues, though.

        I seriously question calling Bush a "friend" of Africa. America,
        particularly under the Bush Administration, does not have friends, it
        has "interests". In the 2000 election campaign, Bush said repeatedly
        that he wasn't concerned with Africa because it had "no strategic
        interest" for the US. Post-911, however, he changed his tune
        dramatically. The Millennium Challenge Account is overseen by a US
        unilateral policy to favored countries who might play a role in the
        "war of terrorism." Even so, it's been 3 years, and not a penny of the
        promised funding has hit the streets in Africa.

        The article mentions, "Mr. Bush's decision to cut off funds for the
        U.N. Population Fund means that more African girls will die in
        childbirth. Even more tragic is the administration's blind hostility
        to condoms to fight AIDS - resulting in more dead Africans." This is
        because he actually rescinded earmarked funding that would have kept
        mostly rural pre- and post-natal clinics open. Bush withdrew the
        funding because the clinics offered family planning and advocated
        condom use to combat AIDS. As a result, the number of women and
        infants who die in childbirth is on the rise across the continent, as
        are deaths of children under 5.

        Worse is PEPFAR, The President's Emergency Plan for HIV/AIDS Relief.
        My friend who does HIV policy research in Nigeria says that people
        there call it "POOPFAR." This "aid" program very much follows the
        conservative model mentioned in the article.

        The first problem with PEPFAR is that it targets only the "high-risk"
        groups of sex workers, intravenous drug users, and youth. It ignores
        'ordinary' Africans and leaves out married people altogether, assuming
        that marriage is a sanctuary from AIDS. This is simply not the case,
        especially in places where male promiscuity is prevalent. Women often
        contract HIV from their husbands, and there is no relief for them in
        this plan.

        For the people targeted by the plan, they are forced to adhere to a
        strict, moralizing code to receive funding. Under PEPFAR, policy
        advisers must use the terms "prostitute" rather than sex worker, and
        "drug addict" rather than drug user (BTW, intravenous drug use is very
        rare in Africa and, with the possible exception of South Africa, lags
        far behind other modes of HIV contraction). To receive any assistance,
        then, PLWAs (people living with AIDS) must submit to being
        pathologized.

        The PEPFAR youth programs preach abstinence and faithfulness,
        prohibiting PEPFAR funding for condom distribution. Most of these
        programs are run by faith-based organizations, and there is some
        question whether those services are made widely available to people
        regardless of faith.

        For AIDS orphans, aid money has often been assigned to creating more
        orphanages where an extensive cultural system of community fostering
        exists to care for orphaned children. No research anywhere shows that
        children do better being raised in an institution than in a family or
        community. The creation of orphanages opens children up to
        exploitation and abuse and actually creates more orphans because poor
        parents think their children will have a better chance to become
        educated and get fed by orphanages. PEPFAR policymakers are coming
        around to this conclusion, mainly based on the fact that institutional
        care is also much more expensive than community-based care for
        orphans, and it would be impossible to build enough institutions to
        meet the needs of orphans and other vulnerable children. Still,
        individual community organizations -- those who actually do effective
        work because they work at the grassroots level where people are
        affected -- cannot apply directly for funding; they must be part of a
        consortium or apply through their governments. As a result, much of
        that funding never reaches the ground level, either.

        PEPFAR and the Millenium Change Account are classic examples of the
        adage that no aid is better than bad aid based on misguided policy and
        the donor country's self-interest. African policymakers and activists
        initially thrilled at the prospect of PEPFAR are now gritting their
        teeth under its impossible, inappropriate, and patronizing provisions.
        Only those governments willing to take on 'terrorists' will reap the
        benefits of US 'friendship'.

        Bush administration policy therefore hardly seems friendly to Africa,
        and is actually hostile to African women and children.

        Kristen



        On 7/5/05, Elizabeth Bell <elizabeth_bell@...> wrote:
        >
        > Good NYT Op-Ed piece, puts forth (albeit simplistic) pros and cons of
        > various aid approaches.
        >
        > Hope everyone had a great 4th, we swam and grilled and napped, even the
        > parents : )
        >
        > Liz et al
        >
        > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/opinion/05kristof.html?th&emc=th
        >
        > Op-Ed Columnist
        > Bush, a Friend of Africa
        > By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
        > Published: July 5, 2005
        >
        >
        > Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude
        > toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt.
        >
        > But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill
        > Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by
        > two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for
        > Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between
        > north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop
        > Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr.
        > Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent
        > apology afterward).
        >
        > So as the G-8 summit meeting convenes this week, focusing on Africa, it's
        > worth acknowledging that Mr. Bush, and conservatives generally, have in many
        > ways been great for the developing world. At their best, they bring a
        > healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts.
        >
        > The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N.
        > conference and give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more
        > international assistance.
        >
        > In contrast, a standard conservative approach is to sponsor a missionary
        > hospital or school. One magnificent example is the Addis Ababa Fistula
        > Hospital, where missionary doctors repair obstetric injuries that have left
        > Ethiopian women incontinent.
        >
        > Liberals also often focus on changing laws, but in a poor country, the legal
        > system is often irrelevant outside the capital. Sudan, for example, banned
        > female genital mutilation back in 1957; since then, the practice has
        > expanded steadily. Sure, lobbying for better laws is important, but it's
        > usually much more cost-effective to vaccinate children or educate girls.
        > Nobody gets more bang for the buck than missionary schools and clinics, and
        > Christian aid groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse save lives at
        > bargain-basement prices.
        >
        > Liberals may also put too much faith in aid itself. What Africa needs most
        > desperately are things it can itself provide: good governance, a firmer
        > neighborhood response to genocide in Sudan, and a collective nudging of
        > Robert Mugabe into retirement.
        >
        > Plenty of studies have shown that aid usually doesn't help people in
        > insecure, corrupt or poorly governed nations. Indeed, aid can even do harm,
        > by bidding up local exchange rates and hurting local manufacturers.
        >
        > All that said, in the right circumstances aid can be tremendously effective,
        > especially in well-governed countries - Mozambique is an excellent example.
        > And Mr. Bush's new push to help Africa is smartly designed, targeting
        > problems like malaria and sex trafficking, where extra attention and
        > resources will make a big difference on the ground.
        >
        > Mr. Bush's signature foreign aid program, the Millennium Challenge Account,
        > is off to an agonizingly slow start, but is shrewdly focused on encouraging
        > good governance and economic growth. The first grant went to Madagascar, a
        > well-run country, to clarify property rights there. This isn't sexy, but
        > nothing would help the poor in Africa more than giving them clear title to
        > their land so they could secure loans and start businesses.
        >
        > The divide I portray between the left and right is, of course, a caricature.
        > Some of the very best work to help the poor is done by liberal-leaning
        > groups, like the Carter Center, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and
        > Doctors Without Borders. They all use their resources to make real changes
        > on the ground.
        >
        > And while Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than most people realize,
        > there's one huge exception, because anything with a whiff of sex in it makes
        > some conservatives go nuts. Mr. Bush's decision to cut off funds for the
        > U.N. Population Fund means that more African girls will die in childbirth.
        > Even more tragic is the administration's blind hostility to condoms to fight
        > AIDS - resulting in more dead Africans.
        >
        > Mr. Bush has another blind spot as well: while he is right that aid is not a
        > cure-all, sometimes he seems to use legitimate concerns about aid as an
        > excuse for stinginess. Aid has shortcomings, but Mr. Bush himself has shown
        > that it can be used effectively to save lives by the millions.
        >
        > Yet Mr. Bush is resisting the G-8's calls for further help for Africa; he
        > thinks the sums are better spent on cutting the taxes of the richest people
        > on earth than on saving the lives of the poorest. Come on, Republicans! You
        > need to persuade Mr. Bush to be more generous this week, because his present
        > refusal to help isn't conservative, but just plain selfish.
        >
        > E-mail: nicholas@...
        > ________________________________
        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        >
        > Visit your group "ujeni" on the web.
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > ujeni-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > ujeni-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        > ________________________________
        >


        --
        "So we starve all the teachers
        and recruit more marines.
        How come we don't even know what that means?
        It's obvious!" --Joe Jackson, The Obvious Song
      • Elizabeth Bell
        I do agree with you on PEPFAR Kristin, at the risk of forwarding one too many lengthy articles ( too late! cry many) salon had a good one recently:
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 6, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I do agree with you on PEPFAR Kristin, at the risk of forwarding one too many lengthy articles ("too late!" cry many) salon had a good one recently:
           
           
          Pepani for those of you not so interested in having your inboxes filled w/articles....
           
          Liz
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 2:09 PM
          Subject: Re: [ujeni] Bush, a Friend of Africa

          Thanks for forwarding this article, Elizabeth. It discusses different
          positions pretty succinctly, at the risk of oversimplifying the
          issues, though.

          I seriously question calling Bush a "friend" of Africa. America,
          particularly under the Bush Administration, does not have friends, it
          has "interests". In the 2000 election campaign, Bush said repeatedly
          that he wasn't concerned with Africa because it had "no strategic
          interest" for the US. Post-911, however, he changed his tune
          dramatically. The Millennium Challenge Account is overseen by a US
          unilateral policy to favored countries who might play a role in the
          "war of terrorism." Even so, it's been 3 years, and not a penny of the
          promised funding has hit the streets in Africa.

          The article mentions, "Mr. Bush's decision to cut off funds for the
          U.N. Population Fund means that more African girls will die in
          childbirth. Even more tragic is the administration's blind hostility
          to condoms to fight AIDS - resulting in more dead Africans." This is
          because he actually rescinded earmarked funding that would have kept
          mostly rural pre- and post-natal clinics open. Bush withdrew the
          funding because the clinics offered family planning and advocated
          condom use to combat AIDS. As a result, the number of women and
          infants who die in childbirth is on the rise across the continent, as
          are deaths of children under 5.

          Worse is PEPFAR, The President's Emergency Plan for HIV/AIDS Relief.
          My friend  who does HIV policy research in Nigeria says that people
          there call it "POOPFAR." This "aid" program very much follows the
          conservative model mentioned in the article.

          The first problem with PEPFAR is that it targets only the "high-risk"
          groups of sex workers, intravenous drug users, and youth.  It ignores
          'ordinary' Africans and leaves out married people altogether, assuming
          that marriage is a sanctuary from AIDS. This is simply not the case,
          especially in places where male promiscuity is prevalent. Women often
          contract HIV from their husbands, and there is no relief for them in
          this plan.

          For the people targeted by the plan, they are forced to adhere to a
          strict, moralizing code to receive funding. Under PEPFAR, policy
          advisers must use the terms "prostitute" rather than sex worker, and
          "drug addict" rather than drug user (BTW, intravenous drug use is very
          rare in Africa and, with the possible exception of South Africa, lags
          far behind other modes of HIV contraction). To receive any assistance,
          then, PLWAs (people living with AIDS) must submit to being
          pathologized.

          The PEPFAR youth programs preach abstinence and faithfulness,
          prohibiting PEPFAR funding for condom distribution. Most of these
          programs are run by faith-based organizations, and there is some
          question whether those services are made widely available to people
          regardless of faith.

          For AIDS orphans, aid money has often been assigned to creating more
          orphanages where an extensive cultural system of community fostering
          exists to care for orphaned children. No research anywhere shows that
          children do better being raised in an institution than in a family or
          community. The creation of orphanages opens children up to
          exploitation and abuse and actually creates more orphans because poor
          parents think their children will have a better chance to become
          educated and get fed by orphanages. PEPFAR policymakers are coming
          around to this conclusion, mainly based on the fact that institutional
          care is also much more expensive than community-based care for
          orphans, and it would be impossible to build enough institutions to
          meet the needs of orphans and other vulnerable children. Still,
          individual community organizations -- those who actually do effective
          work because they work at the grassroots level where people are
          affected -- cannot apply directly for funding; they must be part of a
          consortium or apply through their governments. As a result, much of
          that funding never reaches the ground level, either.

          PEPFAR and the Millenium Change Account are classic examples of the
          adage that no aid is better than bad aid based on misguided policy and
          the donor country's self-interest. African policymakers and activists
          initially thrilled at the prospect of PEPFAR are now gritting their
          teeth under its impossible, inappropriate, and patronizing provisions.
          Only those governments willing to take on 'terrorists' will reap the
          benefits of US 'friendship'.

          Bush administration policy therefore hardly seems friendly to Africa,
          and is actually hostile to African women and children.

          Kristen



          On 7/5/05, Elizabeth Bell <elizabeth_bell@...> wrote:
          >
          > Good NYT Op-Ed piece, puts forth (albeit simplistic) pros and cons of
          > various aid approaches.

          > Hope everyone had a great 4th, we swam and grilled and napped, even the
          > parents : )

          > Liz et al

          > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/opinion/05kristof.html?th&emc=th

          > Op-Ed Columnist
          > Bush, a Friend of Africa
          > By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
          > Published: July 5, 2005
          >
          >
          > Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude
          > toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt.
          >
          > But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill
          > Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by
          > two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for
          > Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between
          > north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop
          > Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr.
          > Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent
          > apology afterward).
          >
          > So as the G-8 summit meeting convenes this week, focusing on Africa, it's
          > worth acknowledging that Mr. Bush, and conservatives generally, have in many
          > ways been great for the developing world. At their best, they bring a
          > healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts.
          >
          > The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N.
          > conference and give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more
          > international assistance.
          >
          > In contrast, a standard conservative approach is to sponsor a missionary
          > hospital or school. One magnificent example is the Addis Ababa Fistula
          > Hospital, where missionary doctors repair obstetric injuries that have left
          > Ethiopian women incontinent.
          >
          > Liberals also often focus on changing laws, but in a poor country, the legal
          > system is often irrelevant outside the capital. Sudan, for example, banned
          > female genital mutilation back in 1957; since then, the practice has
          > expanded steadily. Sure, lobbying for better laws is important, but it's
          > usually much more cost-effective to vaccinate children or educate girls.
          > Nobody gets more bang for the buck than missionary schools and clinics, and
          > Christian aid groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse save lives at
          > bargain-basement prices.
          >
          > Liberals may also put too much faith in aid itself. What Africa needs most
          > desperately are things it can itself provide: good governance, a firmer
          > neighborhood response to genocide in Sudan, and a collective nudging of
          > Robert Mugabe into retirement.
          >
          > Plenty of studies have shown that aid usually doesn't help people in
          > insecure, corrupt or poorly governed nations. Indeed, aid can even do harm,
          > by bidding up local exchange rates and hurting local manufacturers.
          >
          > All that said, in the right circumstances aid can be tremendously effective,
          > especially in well-governed countries - Mozambique is an excellent example.
          > And Mr. Bush's new push to help Africa is smartly designed, targeting
          > problems like malaria and sex trafficking, where extra attention and
          > resources will make a big difference on the ground.
          >
          > Mr. Bush's signature foreign aid program, the Millennium Challenge Account,
          > is off to an agonizingly slow start, but is shrewdly focused on encouraging
          > good governance and economic growth. The first grant went to Madagascar, a
          > well-run country, to clarify property rights there. This isn't sexy, but
          > nothing would help the poor in Africa more than giving them clear title to
          > their land so they could secure loans and start businesses.
          >
          > The divide I portray between the left and right is, of course, a caricature.
          > Some of the very best work to help the poor is done by liberal-leaning
          > groups, like the Carter Center, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and
          > Doctors Without Borders. They all use their resources to make real changes
          > on the ground.
          >
          > And while Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than most people realize,
          > there's one huge exception, because anything with a whiff of sex in it makes
          > some conservatives go nuts. Mr. Bush's decision to cut off funds for the
          > U.N. Population Fund means that more African girls will die in childbirth.
          > Even more tragic is the administration's blind hostility to condoms to fight
          > AIDS - resulting in more dead Africans.
          >
          > Mr. Bush has another blind spot as well: while he is right that aid is not a
          > cure-all, sometimes he seems to use legitimate concerns about aid as an
          > excuse for stinginess. Aid has shortcomings, but Mr. Bush himself has shown
          > that it can be used effectively to save lives by the millions.
          >
          > Yet Mr. Bush is resisting the G-8's calls for further help for Africa; he
          > thinks the sums are better spent on cutting the taxes of the richest people
          > on earth than on saving the lives of the poorest. Come on, Republicans! You
          > need to persuade Mr. Bush to be more generous this week, because his present
          > refusal to help isn't conservative, but just plain selfish.
          >
          > E-mail: nicholas@...
          > ________________________________
          > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          >
          >  Visit your group "ujeni" on the web.
          >  
          >  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >  ujeni-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >  
          >  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >  ujeni-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >  
          >  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          > ________________________________
          >


          --
          "So we starve all the teachers
          and recruit more marines.
          How come we don't even know what that means?
          It's obvious!" --Joe Jackson, The Obvious Song
        • scottgeibel
          Kristin- I m not in complete disagreement with your indictment against PEPFAR. Yes, some unsavory organizations are given a great deal of PEPFAR money, and
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 7, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Kristin- I'm not in complete disagreement with your indictment
            against PEPFAR. Yes, some unsavory organizations are given a great
            deal of PEPFAR money, and some do target these populations in
            unsavory ways. The PEPFAR beauracracy was never really needed in the
            first place, and their procedures certainly have much to be desired.

            However, your statements regarding that PEPFAR *only* gives aid to un-
            "ordinary" Africans, and requires them all to pledge brainwashed
            allegiance to conservative Americanism is in my opinion complete and
            utter nonsense.

            I know of no PEPFAR organizations here, nor have I or others had to
            sign any "conservative code of conduct" to receive funds, nor have I
            been asked to brainwash aid receipients with conservative ideologies.
            Maybe I need to tell some of the "ordinary" married couples I've seen
            whose lives and hopes have been literally saved by PEPFAR-provided
            ART, have been provided PEPFAR funding in error.

            Scott



            "The first problem with PEPFAR is that it targets only the "high-risk"
            groups of sex workers, intravenous drug users, and youth. It ignores
            'ordinary' Africans and leaves out married people altogether,
            assuming that marriage is a sanctuary from AIDS...

            For the people targeted by the plan, they are forced to adhere to a
            strict, moralizing code to receive funding.... To receive any
            assistance, then, PLWAs (people living with AIDS) must submit to being
            pathologized."
          • kristen cheney
            Scott et al, Glad to know that you re not facing the same issues with PEPFAR folks in other parts of Africa are facing. In Uganda, there was a lot of
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 7, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Scott et al,

              Glad to know that you're not facing the same issues with PEPFAR folks
              in other parts of Africa are facing. In Uganda, there was a lot of
              controversy over exactly which part of the ABC approach was most
              effective and should be supported. Right, high-risk groups aren't the
              sole targets of the program, but they are indeed held up to those
              moralizing standards.

              Sorry, I can't think much about this right now. Two of my best friends
              are in London today, about to board public transport when the bombs
              went off. Shaken, but okay.

              KC

              On 7/7/05, scottgeibel <scott@...> wrote:
              > Kristin- I'm not in complete disagreement with your indictment
              > against PEPFAR. Yes, some unsavory organizations are given a great
              > deal of PEPFAR money, and some do target these populations in
              > unsavory ways. The PEPFAR beauracracy was never really needed in the
              > first place, and their procedures certainly have much to be desired.
              >
              > However, your statements regarding that PEPFAR *only* gives aid to un-
              > "ordinary" Africans, and requires them all to pledge brainwashed
              > allegiance to conservative Americanism is in my opinion complete and
              > utter nonsense.
              >
              > I know of no PEPFAR organizations here, nor have I or others had to
              > sign any "conservative code of conduct" to receive funds, nor have I
              > been asked to brainwash aid receipients with conservative ideologies.
              > Maybe I need to tell some of the "ordinary" married couples I've seen
              > whose lives and hopes have been literally saved by PEPFAR-provided
              > ART, have been provided PEPFAR funding in error.
              >
              > Scott
              >
              >
              >
              > "The first problem with PEPFAR is that it targets only the "high-risk"
              > groups of sex workers, intravenous drug users, and youth. It ignores
              > 'ordinary' Africans and leaves out married people altogether,
              > assuming that marriage is a sanctuary from AIDS...
              >
              > For the people targeted by the plan, they are forced to adhere to a
              > strict, moralizing code to receive funding.... To receive any
              > assistance, then, PLWAs (people living with AIDS) must submit to being
              > pathologized."
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >


              --
              "So we starve all the teachers
              and recruit more marines.
              How come we don't even know what that means?
              It's obvious!" --Joe Jackson, The Obvious Song
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.