February 4, 2003
MORE BUSH UNILATERALISM:
America should not fight Aids alone (Jeffrey Sachs, 2/03/03, Financial Times)Over 20 years, the global pandemic of Aids has ravaged Africa and spread to all corners of the world. The US commitment to increase its spending by $10bn is the first time that an appropriate level of financial resources has been put into the battle by either the US or Europe. Disappointment, however, comes in the fine print.The US, as is its wont these days, has decided to go it alone. The new programme is designed to be run by US agencies rather than going through the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, the international initiative that is best placed by far to achieve the global goals of curbing the three pandemic diseases. Of the new US funding, only $1bn over five years is to go through the Global Fund. It is now up to European nations to
ensure success in the scaled-up campaign against the killer diseases. They could do so by matching the US financial commitment, and pulling the US back into the fold within the Global Fund. [...]Europe should match the US initiative with its own $3bn a year, while Japan and other donors should contribute at least $1bn a year in addition. That would make a total of t least $7bn a year during 2003 and 2004. Half of that should be devoted to the Global Fund, and the other half should be spent on programmes (such as manpower training and expanded information technology) that would indirectly bolster, rather than undermine, the Global Fund.
Silence from Europe at this moment would be deadly for the Global Fund. If the US is the only country to put up large new sums for the war against Aids, then it will be a US programme. On the other hand, with a bold European response to Mr Bush's daring initiative, the transatlantic alliance--under great strain over Iraq - would prove to the world that the alliance continues its historic commitments to freedom and human betterment. Impoverished and dying people around the world await a clarion call from the US and Europe together.
This is an appropriate test for the French, Germans, and anti-war Left, an opportunity to show that they are serious about saving lives, not just unwilling to make sacrifices for others. The Iraq war is a done deal, but those gvernments could save many more lives in Africa than will be lost in Iraq by just ponying up some money. Those protestors and Hollywood stars could bring pressure to bear on folks who are more pliant if they started marching in Paris and Munich, demanding that Europe fully fund its AIDs obligations. Don't hold your breath... Posted by Orrin Judd at February 4, 2003 10:00 AM
So, what gives this joker the authority to tell other people how to spend their money?
Bush did not make it clear to me why I am supposed to pay for Aids treatment in other countries, but if we can afford to do it, then universal health care at home ought to be easily affordable. I'm sure all of us agree that is the case, right?
Well, this all occurred to me at the very moment Bush spoke the words. God bless the Prez for fighting AIDS, but I thought I caught just a brief whiff of cynicism (well-deserved), in Bush essentially saying to Europe, “Hey guys, how ‘bout it? Here’s what The Cowboy is doing, you know, the Toxic Texan, The Executioner, all that? I’ve been saying you’re all talk and no action when it comes to war…. Fine. This ain’t the war. Saving lives? Helping people? Fighting disease? NO violence involved? Hey, all you have to do is QUIT WHINING AND ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING!! Are you up to the challenge? Care to fling your superior humanitarianism back in my arrogant face? Are you? Will you? No bombs, no bullets, just your superior morality? Whatcha got to say about it boys, ARE you all talk, or do you care to do some heavy lifting and actually make a difference?”
Ah…….. Didn’t think so. Thanks for clarifying.
Is this yet one more instance of the idiot Cowboy doing and end-run around his betters, and laughing into his rear-view mirror at them as he roars away? (“What, are they gonna CRITICIZE me for fighting AIDS? That’ll be rich.”)
Sure looks that way.
Harry:
Yes, there should be universal Medical Savings Accounts.
Andrew:
That's just a side benefit. He did it because his best friends, Commerce Secretary Don Evans and Condi Rice, told him he had to.
Still.....side dishes can be quite tasty!
Posted by: Andrew X at February 4, 2003 3:12 PMMr. Judd;
I'm waiting to see any evidence that this spending will actually save lives. As you've pointed out, the Ugandan approach both costs little money and has been far more effective.
Actually, Andrew, if you'd followed this on NPR, you would indeed have heard the left attacking him. The congressional delegate from Virgin Islands, for example.
Well, I'm agin it, but if we're going ahead anyhow, I hope the victims ... er, beneficiaries are more grateful than the Moslems were for being saved from guinea worm. That was a bad bargain all around.
AOG:
That's why we're maintaining control of the money is so it can be used for abstinence programs and the like.