|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
Africa: War and AIDS
AFRICA ACTION
Africa Policy E-Journal
April 3, 2003 (030403)
Africa: War and AIDS
(Reposted from sources cited below)
This posting contains (1) a reminder for organizations
to sign the "Money for AIDS, Not for War" statement,
(2) an update from HEALTH GAP noting that the International
Relations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives is
proposing $3 billion a year in authorization for AIDS funding, and
$1 billion a year for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, despite White
House pressure to reduce the amount, and (3) an interview by
Afriscope Radio with Africa Action executive director Salih Booker,
on Africa and the war in Iraq.
The 37 to 8 vote shows significant continued bipartisan
Congressional support for increased funding for AIDS. But the
measure must also be approved by the full Houuse as well as the
Senate, and that "authorization" is only the first step in the
congressional budget process - "appropriation" is also required
before funds are actually made available.
A webcast of the markup hearing is available at:
http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/fullhear.htm
Additional details are available in the Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS
Report at:
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=16969
and in a report by allafrica.com at
http://allafrica.com/stories/200304030001.html
+++++++++++++++++end summary/introduction+++++++++++++++++++++++
MONEY FOR AIDS NOT FOR WAR
Africa Action Note:
If your organization has not already signed the
"Money for AIDS, Not for War" statement distributed
earlier this week in the E-Journal, please go
to
http://php.africaaction.org/action/moneyaids.php
to read the statement, get it approved by your
organization, and send in your organization's
name. We plan to release the statement, with the list of
organizational signatures, on or around April 15.
If your organization has already signed, or you do
not represent an organization, please download the
statement and forward it to groups you know that you
think would be willing to sign. And please use the slogan
or statement at meetings and demonstrations you
participate in.
HEALTH GAP (Global Access Project) PRESS RELEASE
5 PM Wednesday April 2, 2003
contact: Paul Davis, +1 215 833 4102
House Republicans defy Bush Pressure to Shrink Global AIDS bill
Today the House International Relations Committee, chaired by
Representative Henry Hyde, voted on a bill that authorizes $3
billion dollars a year for each of the next five years to fight
Global AIDS. The bill earmarks at least $1 billion for the Global
Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. The Global Fund is facing
bankruptcy in spite of the fanfare accompanying its launch two
years ago by world leaders at the G8 summit in Genoa.
Activists from Health GAP applaud Chairman Hyde and his Democratic
counterpart Tom Lantos for resisting the extensive attempts from
the White House to shrink the size of the bill and to eliminate or
reduce the earmarks for the Global Fund. Hyde also resisted
maneuvers by extreme conservatives in the Administration to insert
anti-family planning and anti-condom language in the bill.
"Representatives Hyde and Lantos deserve a lot of credit for
putting the lives of millions of people with AIDS before the
foolish unilateralism and right wing extremism of the Bush
Administration." stated Health GAP's Paul Davis. "The Republicans
who have reversed their own positions on global AIDS and squashed
this bill in the Senate to please President Bush should instead
follow the example of Representative Hyde."
Health GAP also approved of the bill's inclusion of a "challenge
grant" for the Global Fund, where the United States will leverage
other nation's future contributions to the Global Fund by matching
donations at 33 cents for every dollar contributed. "The innovation
of a challenge grant is exactly what is needed to leverage
resources from other wealthy nations in time for the G8 summit this
June when donors will make new commitments to the Global Fund,"
reports Davis. "The House members working on this bill have crafted
a creative and urgently needed response to a global health disaster
that supports the good parts of the White House global AIDS plan,
and corrects the damaging mistakes."
Unlike Representative Hyde, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has
retreated under White House pressure from his past positions
supporting billions for the Global Fund, while Senate Foreign
Relations Chair Richard Lugar has twice withdrawn the bill from the
calendar this session. Davis noted "Representative Hyde today stuck
to his convictions in spite of the thumbscrews applied by White
House. Will Senator Frist publicly make a stand in support of the
positions he has held in the past?"
Advocates fear a House Floor ambush from extremist Members of
Congress seeking to insert dangerous and irrelevant amendments
about family planning and the use of condoms. "House leadership
must bring this bipartisan bill to a vote as quickly as possible
without damaging amendments," said Davis.
Paul Davis
Health GAP (Global Access Project)
e: pdavis@healthgap.org
t: +1 215.833.4102 (mobile)
f: +1 215.474.4793
w: http://www.healthgap.org
Afriscope Radio
Lead Story for March 28, 2003
http://afriscoperadio.com/afriscopeweekly/leadstory32803.htm
"The war in Iraq is sure to have an overwhelmingly negative impact
on Africa": Africa Action's Executive Director fears
Africa's Concerns Over War With Iraq:
Health: Bush's promised $15 billion HIV/AIDS relief fund for Africa
and the Caribbean is now in jeopardy.
Economy: As during the 1991 Gulf War, the current conflict in Iraq
could "spike" oil prices for a number of African countries and lead
to a loss in their GDP. Africa is "extremely vulnerable to external
shocks."
Geopolitics: "U.S. policy toward Africa will be driven increasingly
by geopolitical considerations related to the war in the Persian
Gulf, and by geo-strategic interests in African oil."
As a national organization with a mission to work "for political,
economic and social justice in Africa," Washington, D.C.-based
Africa Action is alarmed that the U.S.-led war with Iraq could
destabilize the continent politically while distracting world
attention from the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa.
In an exclusive Q&A with Afriscope Weekly, Salih Booker, Africa
Action's executive director, says the Bush Administration is more
focused on victory in Iraq than on "Africa's urgent priorities,"
such as President Bush's much-praised promise of $15 billion as
emergency AIDS relief for Africa and the Caribbean.
Afriscope Weekly (AW): Three African nations, Angola, Cameroon and
Guinea, found themselves on center stage at the United Nations
Security Council before international diplomacy failed and the U.S.
led a "coalition of the willing" to war with Iraq last week. These
three countries withstood intense pressure from the Bush
Administration to support its impending military action against
Iraq, preferring a U.N.- led initiative. How were these African
countries able to withstand unprecedented superpower pressure?
Salih Booker (SB): The three African countries maintained a neutral
stance, along with Mexico, Chile, and Pakistan, because of the
overwhelming public sentiment in their countries against the war,
but also because they maintain close relations with Europe as well
as the U.S. Given that European countries, particularly France,
were also strongly against the U.S. pressure, it made perfect
sense for the three to avoid "taking sides." In fact, the
"undecideds" made extraordinary efforts to come up with
constructive compromises. The fact was, however, that the U.S.
wanted no compromise.
That Angola, Cameroon and Guinea were able to withstand U.S.
pressure is indicative of the level of opposition to this war felt
by their own citizens and felt across the African continent more
broadly. At the first summit meeting of the African Union, held
in Addis Ababa last month, African leaders made a clear statement
of opposition to a U.S.-led war against Iraq, insisting that any
decision on this crisis must be made through the UN Security
Council. The ability of Angola, Cameroon and Guinea to withstand
U.S. pressure in March must be seen in the context of this broad
African opposition to the war.
AW: Days into the U.S.-led war with Iraq, we hear or see very
little, at least from this side of the Atlantic, of any reactions
out of Africa. What is your own informed sense of reactions on the
continent right now, both from citizens and governments?
SB: There was broad opposition to this war throughout the African
continent before it began, and this opposition remains strong now
that the war is underway. The Secretary General of the African
Union, Amara Essay, said last week that the start of the war caused
deep regret and grief among African Union members. Archbishop
Desmond Tutu has termed the war "immoral". Across the continent,
particularly in countries with predominantly Muslim populations,
there have been civil society protests against the war since it
began last week.
The fact that we do not hear stems not from any African support for
the war, but both from the fact that African countries have many
pressing issues of their own they must deal with and from the lack
of media coverage of the reaction that is taking place.
AW: Does the war in Iraq impact Africa, negatively or positively,
both in the short-term and long term?
SB: The war in Iraq is sure to have an overwhelmingly negative
impact on Africa. Not only does it have the potential to
destabilize African countries politically, it will have a negative
impact on African economies also. Africa is the poorest region in
the world, and it is extremely vulnerable to external shocks.
During the last Gulf War in 1991, at least 13 African countries
lost 1% of their GDP as a result of spikes in oil prices, and
there is no reason not to expect similar difficulties now.
As the war continues, U.S. policy toward Africa will be driven
increasingly by geopolitical considerations related to the war in
the Persian Gulf, and by geo- strategic interests in African oil.
The U.S. is likely to ignore Africa’s priorities, placing military
base rights above human rights. And the war against AIDS, which
is the truly greatest threat to human security of our time and
which is obviously an urgent priority for Africa, will continue to
suffer from a lack of resources.
AW: Some people have said that this war will make the Bush
Administration turn its back from its promise of $15 billion to
fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa? Do you entertain the same fears?
SB: The Bush Administration has already begun backtracking from
the proposal announced in the "State of the Union" address on
January 28. The President's proposed "Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief" came in response to rising pressure form Africa advocacy
groups, AIDS activists and faith community workers who have fought
for a greater U.S. response to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. This
pressure was the catalyst for forcing senior administration
officials to craft the new plan that was featured prominently in
the State of the Union address. The initiative announced by
President Bush promised $15 billion over 5 years, “including
nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in
the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.”
However, it has subsequently become apparent that the $15 billion
price tag is not for Africa and the Caribbean but includes all U.S.
funding for AIDS worldwide. What is worse, the Bush
Administration has acknowledged that most of this money will not
even be requested until 2006 and beyond. Meanwhile, 3 million
Africans are dying of AIDS-related illnesses every year, without
access to essential treatment and care. Despite the fact that he
has called this an "emergency" initiative, the President requested
no new money to fight AIDS in the 2003 Omnibus Funding Bill that
was being voted upon within weeks of his speech, and the request
for next year, FY2004, will be less than $1 billion. It is
therefore clear that the Bush Administration has already reneged
on its recent commitment to fighting AIDS in Africa, and that this
was really all an outrageous manipulation.
AW: Eventually, Iraq's oil will be controlled at least indirectly
by U.S. and British interests after the war. How might this affect
oil-driven economies in African countries like Nigeria, the
world's sixth largest supplier of oil?
SB: There is no necessary direct connection. Imported oil, both
from the Middle East and Africa, will continue to be significant
for the U.S. under any political scenario. In the short run, the
importance of African oil is enhanced. Thus it is strange that the
news media seem to be totally ignoring the escalating conflict in
the Niger Delta, which has interrupted oil supplies and led major
companies such as Shell and Chevron to stop much of their
production. This is another example of how simplistic focus on one
country means the neglect of other vital interests.
The U.S. National Intelligence Council projects that U.S. oil
supplies from West Africa will increase to 25% by 2015. This
would surpass U.S. oil imports from the entire Persian Gulf. The
U.S. remains interested in diversifying its oil supply and
ensuring access to secure sources of oil from regions outside the
Middle East. African countries will remain very important oil
suppliers to the U.S., even after the war in Iraq.
AW: Some people said Nelson Mandela was playing the race card when
he accused the U.S. and British governments of undermining the
U.N. because its Secretary General, Kofi Annan, is a fellow
African. Was Mandela right in that charge?
SB: It is unfair to accuse Nelson Mandela of playing the race
card. He was simply calling attention to the fact that U.S.
leaders disregard the UN, even more so when its leader is African.
Nelson Mandela perhaps exaggerated the extent to which the U.S.
respected the UN under earlier Secretary-Generals. But there is no
doubt that U.S. government attitudes are driven by a disregard for
peoples who are not part of the rich white minority in the world.
AW: Do you see Kofi Annan and the United Nations bouncing back
from the seeming irrelevance brought about by this U.S. and
British-led invasion of Iraq against the will of the U.N. Security
Council?
SB: The United Nations remains an essential international body.
While the policy of pre-emptive war and the rejection of U.N.
authority in this crisis appear to violate the very principles upon
which the U.N. was founded, this does not render the U.N.
irrelevant by any means. It is the voice of the international
community; it remains the appropriate forum for international
decision-making and diplomacy, and while it has been undermined by
the actions of the U.S. and its allies in launching a war against
Iraq, the U.N. must continue to assert itself as the key
international body, central to global efforts to solve problems
that challenge humanity.
AW: One of the Bush Administration's secondary goals of going to
war in Iraq is to continue the worldwide campaign against
terrorists. Since several African countries have been either
victims of terrorism or safe havens for terrorists, will this war
make matters better or worse?
SB: It is a mistake to take the Bush administration at its word.
We must oppose terrorism against civilians, whether it comes from
extremist groups or from governments. But we should not accept a
unilateral definition of terrorism. We should not forget that it
was the U.S. that first sponsored extremist Islamic terrorism, when
it thought this could be used against the Soviet Union. And we
should not allow a government to decide who is a "terrorist" on the
basis of its own scare tactics and ideological extremism. We
should remember that Vice President Cheney voted to keep Nelson
Mandela in jail on the grounds that his movement to free South
Africa was "terrorist."
AW: Has there been a united voice coming from African governments
so far about their concerns on the impact of this war on the
continent?
SB: There is widespread concern among African governments about
the impact the war will have on the continent and about its
implications for international relations more broadly. The
unilateralism driving this war undermines the power and voice of
bodies such as the African Union, and has raised concerns in many
quarters that this will leave Africa more marginalized and
isolated as it seeks to address the most urgent global priorities,
from poverty to HIV/AIDS to environmental degradation, which are
most serious in Africa. Desmond Orjiako, spokesperson for the
African Union, said this week that the position of the African
Union's members has not changed since its initial declaration of
opposition to the war in February. He said that the biggest
concern of African leaders was that the war would beget greater
poverty for the poor, and especially for the people of Africa.
A few African governments, for their own reasons, have endorsed
Washington's policies, and allowed their names to be used. These
include Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Rwanda. But the vast majority has
spoken out for peace.
AW: In an ironic way, wars sometimes have a way of showing a
silver lining in the sky. Do you see any hopeful signs for Africa,
given the continent's proximity to the Middle East?
SB: As stated above, this war is likely to have an overwhelmingly
negative impact on Africa, in economic and political terms, and in
terms of further marginalization of the continent and its own
urgent priorities. Foremost among these priorities is the
HIV/AIDS crisis, which has already claimed close to 20 million
African lives. But the international response to the AIDS pandemic
remains far less than adequate, and the war in Iraq is likely to
distract attention even more from this critical threat and from the
necessity for a concerted global effort to win a war on AIDS.
The only hopeful sign is that this may be the beginning of the end
for the system of world minority rule. The mobilization of world
opinion against the war in Iraq is part of a broader global
consciousness, reaching even into a large part of the American
public, which realizes that the days of decision-making by a small
wealthy group, however powerful, is incompatible with a future for
the human race. As this global change emerges, however long it
takes, Africa's problems - which are really humanity's problems -
will rise to the fore.
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Date distributed (ymd): 030403
Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +political/rights+ +security/peace+
+US policy focus+
The Africa Action E-Journal is a free information service
provided by Africa Action, including both original
commentary and reposted documents. Africa Action provides this
information and analysis in order to promote U.S. and
international policies toward Africa that advance economic,
political and social justice and the full spectrum of
human rights.
|
