State Department favors a
prevention/eduation program in Africa. That is affordable and
desirable. However, we
see a dilemma. First,
the top --and mid-elites like
teachers and doctors--are needed to run the country.
There is value to stability and governability.
We
need to preserve elites, and that includes treating the military and police;
half of Malawi's army is likely to die from AIDS, for example.
We are
trying to use African military in Africa for peacekeeping, under UN
auspices; otherwise we have a significant security problem there.
If these countries lose their leadership echelons, we fear an explosion
of tribal conflict. The
breakdown of civil order will make prevention and treatment impossible.
Realistically,
any treatment plan established by any group is likely to be diverted to
provide drugs to the elites, no matter what the verbiage.
That is like "true lies"--it is
"good corruption." What
is risky is collapse of governments and regimes.
NGOs
and the activist groups around the world may not understand this need.
They have not thought through the consequences of the breakdown of civil
order. Historically there is ample evidence--in the plague of Athens,
Justinian, etc.
Furthermore,
the African countries have very
large growth rates 
.
Even with AIDS, their populations
are increasing. Providing drugs
to pregnant mothers makes the problem worse.
The Bush administration does not favor abortion, family planning, and
is not keen on condoms. Being
realistic, we have to accept that
AIDS will limit population growth a little. Let it.
Bottom
line:
-
The
prime focus of the US government should be the less-costly
prevention programs, not treatment.
-
The
US should give some to the global fund, and
direct it towards governments. That will ensure a
leaking honeypot to care for
critical political/security elites.
-
Let corporations
protect their workers. That is their
self-interest.
This
three-pronged approach will help protect against political and economic
collapse.
