Showing posts with label international aid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international aid. Show all posts
Mar 28, 2010
Mar 4, 2010
Niger
I'm on a bit of a news analysis kick lately. I'm not sure why.
There has recently been a coup in Niger. Another coup, that is, as the guy who was deposed in the most recent coup staged a coup of his own to get into power in the first place. coup coup coup coup. But no doves in this coup, it was staged by the military.
The thing is, I think this was a good coup. It was staged because the President (Tandja) refused to give up power, ignored the constitution, and attempted to disband parliament. So the military decided to try to reimpose democracy. They took over, surrounded the house of the general who opposed the coup, and installed one of Tandja's ministers until a new government could be elected. I think the choice of someone who was in the government to run it is pretty important - it wasn't a rebel or an opposition leader, but a politician with experience and who apparently wants democracy.
But the biggest issue is that standing US policy requires us to cut off aid to a government in coup-military-dictatorship form. Not just political or macroeconomic aid, but basic health aid and infrastructure. Like people are no longer being fed. This is a dumb US policy and should be replaced with something else more contingent on situation, and should generally continue to fight infectious diseases (because stopping treatment and prevention of malaria is hardly going to convince the coup-stagers to give up power).
Save lives. Not money.
There has recently been a coup in Niger. Another coup, that is, as the guy who was deposed in the most recent coup staged a coup of his own to get into power in the first place. coup coup coup coup. But no doves in this coup, it was staged by the military.
The thing is, I think this was a good coup. It was staged because the President (Tandja) refused to give up power, ignored the constitution, and attempted to disband parliament. So the military decided to try to reimpose democracy. They took over, surrounded the house of the general who opposed the coup, and installed one of Tandja's ministers until a new government could be elected. I think the choice of someone who was in the government to run it is pretty important - it wasn't a rebel or an opposition leader, but a politician with experience and who apparently wants democracy.
But the biggest issue is that standing US policy requires us to cut off aid to a government in coup-military-dictatorship form. Not just political or macroeconomic aid, but basic health aid and infrastructure. Like people are no longer being fed. This is a dumb US policy and should be replaced with something else more contingent on situation, and should generally continue to fight infectious diseases (because stopping treatment and prevention of malaria is hardly going to convince the coup-stagers to give up power).
Save lives. Not money.
AIDS
Exciting title, huh? I'm going to make an argument that isn't very well formed, so take it as an idea, not an official opinion. This is just something that struck me just now.
Global health policymakers have few or no qualms about attempting to change other culture's social norms to conform with the health standards of a Western liberal democracy. Things like eliminating the stigma of AIDS, increasing gender parity, making condom use a topic of discussion, making medication acceptable (even if the person taking it would rather pray to Allah, for instance, and not take the medication) are all easily justified by their obvious positive health impact. I'm not saying these are bad or good justifications, merely that they exist. They exist to the point that there's not really much of a discussion about whether or not the WHO and American academics should be meddling in other country's social norms, but merely how to do it most effectively. Again, no value judgment, I just noticed that.
I feel like the best place to affect HIV in terms of social norms would be in terms of the number of sex partners. There is all this money and time and brilliant minds focused on finding a vaccine, promoting condom use, teaching people about how HIV is spread, etc. But I have yet to hear anyone promote the idea of fidelity as a solution to the problem. If everyone in a society had only one sex partner, their spouse, in their life, there would be NO problem with AIDS. The current cases would be addressed and HIV would disappear.
Granted, this is an idealized scenario, but it is the only 100% way to guarantee not to get AIDS. Condoms break (and only work 99% of the time - I've come into contact with one of those 1% cases). All the other prevention mechanisms are unsure as well. And it's not as though we couldn't continue doing other work. But why are we so unwilling to impose this cultural value on other countries?
Because we haven't got it. Having only 1 sexual partner is becoming less and less common in Western liberal democracies. And of course it's not us that needs to change, it's other countries that need to change to become more like us. We're not willing to impose cultural changes on ourselves, and we're not willing to impose cultural changes on others if it doesn't directly mimic our own culture (even though it is just as justified by health benefits as are all the other impositions of different cultural norms, like the examples above).
Basically, that's the idea: although the most effective way to combat AIDS would be to encourage fidelity and celibacy until marriage, it is not promoted because America no longer adheres to that value.
Global health policymakers have few or no qualms about attempting to change other culture's social norms to conform with the health standards of a Western liberal democracy. Things like eliminating the stigma of AIDS, increasing gender parity, making condom use a topic of discussion, making medication acceptable (even if the person taking it would rather pray to Allah, for instance, and not take the medication) are all easily justified by their obvious positive health impact. I'm not saying these are bad or good justifications, merely that they exist. They exist to the point that there's not really much of a discussion about whether or not the WHO and American academics should be meddling in other country's social norms, but merely how to do it most effectively. Again, no value judgment, I just noticed that.
I feel like the best place to affect HIV in terms of social norms would be in terms of the number of sex partners. There is all this money and time and brilliant minds focused on finding a vaccine, promoting condom use, teaching people about how HIV is spread, etc. But I have yet to hear anyone promote the idea of fidelity as a solution to the problem. If everyone in a society had only one sex partner, their spouse, in their life, there would be NO problem with AIDS. The current cases would be addressed and HIV would disappear.
Granted, this is an idealized scenario, but it is the only 100% way to guarantee not to get AIDS. Condoms break (and only work 99% of the time - I've come into contact with one of those 1% cases). All the other prevention mechanisms are unsure as well. And it's not as though we couldn't continue doing other work. But why are we so unwilling to impose this cultural value on other countries?
Because we haven't got it. Having only 1 sexual partner is becoming less and less common in Western liberal democracies. And of course it's not us that needs to change, it's other countries that need to change to become more like us. We're not willing to impose cultural changes on ourselves, and we're not willing to impose cultural changes on others if it doesn't directly mimic our own culture (even though it is just as justified by health benefits as are all the other impositions of different cultural norms, like the examples above).
Basically, that's the idea: although the most effective way to combat AIDS would be to encourage fidelity and celibacy until marriage, it is not promoted because America no longer adheres to that value.
