Melissa,
This week, George W. Bush continues his final major trip to Africa. Unlike the United States, where his status varies from irrelevant to anathema, President Bush is a rock star in many parts of the Motherland. Why? Because he’s donated record amounts of money to AIDS relief. This week, Bush pledged an additional $30 billion in funds. Like all things Bush, however, his philanthropy has come with a huge string attached: one-third of all spending must go to abstinence-until-marriage programs.
This troubles me for a bunch of reasons.
Not only does an abstinence-based program hinge upon unrealistic expectations for human behavior, it also ignores the unique realities that African people face. For example, Bush’s policy mandates that condoms can only be distributed to prostitutes and lorry drivers. Does he not know that many Africans, particularly in Sub-Saharan countries, are infected by their HIV-positive spouses rather than random partners? Contrary, to Bush’s rhetoric, marriage does not shield people from HIV/AIDS. Condoms do.
Even if Bush’s program were effective, I’m troubled by his repeated insistence on imposing his morality on economically desperate countries. For the past seven years, Bush has forced needy countries to reject abortion, embrace abstinence, and accept US-backed puppets as leaders in order to receive economic support. To me, this isn't philanthropy as much as a new form of colonialism.
What’s your take on this? What do you think about abstinence programming, not only for the AIDS prevention but for general sexual education? Also, am I being unreasonable to expect philanthropy to come without a price attached?
Marc
